Selective Service?

[THXZPI636]

<p>People aren’t complaining that it’s unfair to men. </p>

<p>They’re complaining because it’s unfair to women. That, in essence, they are not being treated equally because they are not being included in the registration laws.</p>

<p>636</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>

if we ever get to the point where the country needs me enough to draft me then I’ll be happy to return the favor…

</p>

<p>Yes, and if and when a draft occurs because your country needs you, it would also need women. Why not? There are hundreds of women in the military now doing important work. In a place like Iraq now, the combat zone is not that easily defined. </p>

<p>“For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact
Many Duties in Iraq Put Women at Risk Despite Restrictive Policy”
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Cuse0507]

<p>

People aren’t complaining that it’s unfair to men.</p>

<p>They’re complaining because it’s unfair to women. That, in essence, they are not being treated equally because they are not being included in the registration laws.

</p>

<p>Well, as cliche as it may sound, life isn’t fair, nor should it be. If our country was really interested in ‘fairness’ we would have no minimum voting, drinking, or driving ages and people wouldn’t get different sentences after being convicted of the same crime.</p>

<p>

Yes, and if and when a draft occurs because your country needs you, it would also need women. Why not? There are hundreds of women in the military now doing important work. In a place like Iraq now, the combat zone is not that easily defined.

</p>

<p>Why not? Simply put, women don’t make the greatest combat soldiers. They aren’t as strong, get hurt easier, and can’t perform many of the tasks that are required in combat. Now, this is a generalization, and granted there are some women who could arm wrestle most men to shame, but women like these are rare.</p>

<p>This link explains it better than I can-</p>

<p><a href=“The Heretical 404 Error Handler: Press Escape to Stop the Bad Trip”>The Heretical 404 Error Handler: Press Escape to Stop the Bad Trip;

<p>A few excerpts-</p>

<p>

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.</p>

<p>The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:</p>

<p>Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.</p>

<p>In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man. </p>

<p>Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men… Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:</p>

<pre><code>* (a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

• (c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

• (d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

• (e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

</code></pre>

<p>I’m not trying to say that women don’t play an important part in our military-they do. They make up roughly 15% of our military, and it has been speculated that without them we would not be able to maintain our presence overseas. I’m just saying that they don’t belong in most combat positions (as is the current policy) for the well-being of everyone. It may not be fair, but like I said earlier, fairness shouldn’t triumph over reason. It may not be fair not to let 8-year old Jimmy drive the family car down the interstate, but in such a case being fair would be reckless. I believe that the same logic may be applied to this issue.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>I don’t think they need to be in official combat capacity, as such, either. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be part of the combat missions, as many of them are now.<br>
I don’t believe men and women are the same. There are some roles where strength is paramount, but there are also many military functions that women could do just as easily as men.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>

“This war has proven that we need to revisit the policy, because they are out there doing it,” Provancha, a 21-year Army veteran from San Diego, said from her base in what soldiers call Mosul’s “mortar alley.” “We are embedded with the enemy.”</p>

<p>Dozens of soldiers interviewed across Iraq – male and female, from lower enlisted ranks to senior officers – voiced frustration over restrictions on women mandated in Washington that they say make no sense in the war they are fighting. All said the policy should be changed to allow, at a minimum, mixed-sex support units to be assigned to combat battalions. Many favored a far more radical step: letting qualified women join the infantry.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002_4.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002_4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think the key word here is “qualified” when you’re talking about any job in the military. There are many, many jobs that women are as qualified to do as men - but not all. That shouldn’t preclude women from being required to serve in some capacity, if men are.</p>

[doubleplay]

<p>Working in the combat zone doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in combat. There are plenty of jobs to do right now in Iraq that don’t require carrying a huge backpack. Fact is, people don’t want to go over there because even if they’re working out of an office, it’s dangerous- the whole country is a war zone. But there are plenty of jobs to do that women could do anyway, which would leave more guys to do the heavy lifting.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>I think it is ludicrous that in this day of feminism and equality, women are exempt from Selective Service. There are plenty of places for women in the military, if it came down to conscripted service, and I sure would not want to see all our young men be forced off into service, while the women stayed home, safe and sound. </p>

<p>If that happened, I don’t want to hear a single peep from young women about unfair wages, or anything else. If we have a draft, which doesn’t include women, I will consider feminism officially dead.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>Is the draft solely aimed at conscripting combat troops (IE infantry) or are troops drafted for support roles (ie transportation/medical/logistics etc) as well? If soldiers are drafted for support roles as well as combat roles, then I don’t have a problem with women being conscripted. They could fill the supporting roles (which they do a good job of now) if they happened to be drafted. But if the draft is only used to accumulate more combat troops, then I don’t see why women would be drafted. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what types of troop roles a draft would be intended to fill…?</p>

[doubleplay]

<p>That’s a good question, but since we haven’t had a draft for 30 years or so, it’s hard to answer. The next draft we have will be under totally different circumstances. If Iraq is any example, we need people to do all kinds of jobs, not necessarily running around with a gun shooting people, that because of the location, are still quite dangerous. Heck, just driving a car to work in Iraq is dangerous.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>…most, if not all, of the men who serve in the military will do some really stupid stuff in order to keep women safe from physical harm. This reduces the potency of combat units.<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>People who do “really stupid stuff” in combat are by definition very lousy soldiers. And having lousy soldiers will indeed reduce the potency of combat units. We need soldiers who will do really smart stuff in combat. Maybe we should have a military consisting primarily of women and get those men who do stupid stuff out of there.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>I think a wartime draft is a matter of logistics that’s best left up to the military (with oversight) to decide as to whether females should be drafted or not. The people being drafted aren’t necessarily destined for all of the roles in the military. For example, there are many skilled positions in the military now (technicians, pilots/copilots/navigators/etc., engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, and many others) that a 19 y/o draftee couldn’t fill without lengthy and costly training. This could mean that the greatest need in the time of a wartime draft would be mostly combat troops and it could be that those roles are best filled by men.</p>

<p>This doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t be in the military it just means that one needs to consider the questions of training and need together with timeliness in a time of war to determine if drafting women makes any sense. I don’t think women should be drafted ‘just cuz’ or for some kind of ‘equality’ when the needs may in fact be unequal.</p>

<p>There’s nothing preventing women or men from voluntarily joining the military though so if women aren’t included in the draft and they feel left out, they should just join.</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>We need a Draft real soon. The rotation and enlistment rates is not sustainable from the news reports that I hear. We will be in big trouble for new trained soldiers in 2008 -2009. If Cheney’s War is worthwhile it is better to err on preparedness than being wrong. And if we lose the conflict in Iraq, we will be loosing a lot of personnel and equipment in the withdrawal phase, besides having to fight them on US and European Soil.</p>

[drb]

<p>

And if we lose the conflict in Iraq, we will be loosing a lot of personnel and equipment in the withdrawal phase, besides having to fight them on US and European Soil.

Someone has been playing too much “Medal of Honor”.</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>Medal of Honor is a game that you can do over.</p>

<p>Cheney’s War is not something you can call a time out for a pee break.</p>