thedrifter
05-05-04, 11:46 AM
Drafting women
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
I told you it would come to this.
When the social crusaders determined to put women in combat or as near to combat as they could, I warned it would eventually lead to the drafting of women.
Some scoffed.
But a report by the U.S. Selective Service System to the Pentagon shows the plans have been under way for more than a year.
According to a memo obtained by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer through the Freedom of Information Act, the Selective Service System has proposed revamping the draft to include the registration of women, expanding the age limits and requiring young Americans to keep the government informed about those critical skills most valuable to the military.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials, according to the Sunday editions of the paper.
The agency officials added they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress before it could be instituted. In other words, it's a good idea, but we'll have to sell this to the people.
The news that Jessica Lynch was raped and sodomized by her Iraqi captors underscores just one of the many reasons women don't belong in combat or anywhere near combat.
There's only one way to prevent this tragedy from occurring in the future – and that is to stop the ridiculous, politically correct social engineering that places young women in harm's way in America's military conflicts.
It's time to stop the madness.
It's simply inconceivable that our nation would deliberately subject women to such horrors – and risk the very military objectives for which the women are assigned. In a time of war like this, we should be able to see more clearly than usual that the No. 1 priority for the U.S. military is to defend the country by winning victories on the battlefield, not serving as an equal-opportunity employer.
It's considered unfashionable to make such statements anymore, so I guess I'll have to be the one to say it: Women don't belong on warships, let alone in command of them. Women don't belong in the cockpits of fighter planes and bombers that can be shot down over enemy territory. Women don't belong on the front lines in any military capacity. There, I said it.
I don't say this because I am a male chauvinist. I say it because I treasure and honor women. I have the utmost respect for women – just ask my wife and my five daughters. In fact, it is partially because of that respect that I think it is nothing short of insane to put women at risk on the front lines of war.
But the most important reason to shut down this idea once and for all is because it is counterproductive. If your goal is to win military conflicts, you want to keep women as far from combat as possible.
The Israeli military discovered that men behave differently in firefights when women combatants are at risk. Understandably, men lose perspective on their overall mission when the lives and welfare of women are threatened. Their first priority becomes rescuing the women, rather than winning the battle.
Women are simply not as strong as men. We've seen the standards lowered time and time again when they are introduced into the ranks of the military, police forces and fire departments. We must decide as a nation whether we want fighting forces that are the best and most effective, or whether we prefer they are co-ed. There is no middle ground.
Doesn't that make sense? But common sense has little to do with the social-engineering campaign to put women on the front lines.
There's another powerful reason women's roles in the military should be limited. There is an incredibly high rate of pregnancy among young women who serve in close ranks with young men. This is not a service to them, the men with whom they associate, nor the wives back home.
It's time to bring back the proud tradition of women in the service as America knew it in World War II with the Women's Army Corps. More than 150,000 women served with distinction in that war in realistic roles that didn't intentionally place them in high-risk areas or situations.
Women aren't missing out on an opportunity by being prevented from entering combat. They need to understand the truth – they are being valued higher than the young men whose blood we spill on the battlefield. They need to understand the obvious – there are real differences between men and women. They need to understand the reality that wars are about one thing – achieving victory over our enemies.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38323
Ellie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
I told you it would come to this.
When the social crusaders determined to put women in combat or as near to combat as they could, I warned it would eventually lead to the drafting of women.
Some scoffed.
But a report by the U.S. Selective Service System to the Pentagon shows the plans have been under way for more than a year.
According to a memo obtained by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer through the Freedom of Information Act, the Selective Service System has proposed revamping the draft to include the registration of women, expanding the age limits and requiring young Americans to keep the government informed about those critical skills most valuable to the military.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials, according to the Sunday editions of the paper.
The agency officials added they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress before it could be instituted. In other words, it's a good idea, but we'll have to sell this to the people.
The news that Jessica Lynch was raped and sodomized by her Iraqi captors underscores just one of the many reasons women don't belong in combat or anywhere near combat.
There's only one way to prevent this tragedy from occurring in the future – and that is to stop the ridiculous, politically correct social engineering that places young women in harm's way in America's military conflicts.
It's time to stop the madness.
It's simply inconceivable that our nation would deliberately subject women to such horrors – and risk the very military objectives for which the women are assigned. In a time of war like this, we should be able to see more clearly than usual that the No. 1 priority for the U.S. military is to defend the country by winning victories on the battlefield, not serving as an equal-opportunity employer.
It's considered unfashionable to make such statements anymore, so I guess I'll have to be the one to say it: Women don't belong on warships, let alone in command of them. Women don't belong in the cockpits of fighter planes and bombers that can be shot down over enemy territory. Women don't belong on the front lines in any military capacity. There, I said it.
I don't say this because I am a male chauvinist. I say it because I treasure and honor women. I have the utmost respect for women – just ask my wife and my five daughters. In fact, it is partially because of that respect that I think it is nothing short of insane to put women at risk on the front lines of war.
But the most important reason to shut down this idea once and for all is because it is counterproductive. If your goal is to win military conflicts, you want to keep women as far from combat as possible.
The Israeli military discovered that men behave differently in firefights when women combatants are at risk. Understandably, men lose perspective on their overall mission when the lives and welfare of women are threatened. Their first priority becomes rescuing the women, rather than winning the battle.
Women are simply not as strong as men. We've seen the standards lowered time and time again when they are introduced into the ranks of the military, police forces and fire departments. We must decide as a nation whether we want fighting forces that are the best and most effective, or whether we prefer they are co-ed. There is no middle ground.
Doesn't that make sense? But common sense has little to do with the social-engineering campaign to put women on the front lines.
There's another powerful reason women's roles in the military should be limited. There is an incredibly high rate of pregnancy among young women who serve in close ranks with young men. This is not a service to them, the men with whom they associate, nor the wives back home.
It's time to bring back the proud tradition of women in the service as America knew it in World War II with the Women's Army Corps. More than 150,000 women served with distinction in that war in realistic roles that didn't intentionally place them in high-risk areas or situations.
Women aren't missing out on an opportunity by being prevented from entering combat. They need to understand the truth – they are being valued higher than the young men whose blood we spill on the battlefield. They need to understand the obvious – there are real differences between men and women. They need to understand the reality that wars are about one thing – achieving victory over our enemies.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38323
Ellie