I read an article that women may actually made to serve - ie. drafted in the same way as men!!! Is this the latest trick up their sleeve?

Perhaps! Or maybe they'll follow Germany's lead and make them all prostitutes!

Der.... I don't want anybody drafted!

There has been talks of this since Rangel's first bill (from the last congress) concerning the draft. Of course if they ever do implement another draft, it would probably be very hard to get women involved. One because of political implications, it would already piss a lot of voters off if they do resort to a draft, but many people may view drafting women as an outrage. And second, drafting women would be difficult simply because they are currently not registered under Selective Service. Making the decision to draft women prior to requiring them to register would be a mess.

Don't get me wrong though, there is always a possibilty that some would strongly support this idea.

I guess this is a good rejoinder to the Democrat's policy of "no discrimination". Ha ha! Sometimes you get what you ask for.

This may be an unpopular viewpoint, but I see no reason to not include women in the draft. Why are our men the only ones forced into compulsary military service? I'm one of those women who believes that equal rights are equal rights - not only when it is convienent or beneficial to a woman. Good with the bad - I want to be treated equally? I better be willing to be treated equally in all ways. And that includes being drafted. Maybe I have this attitude because I've already done my tour with the Navy when I was 18 - but even back then, it made no sense to me that I couldn't be drafted or couldn't take on a combat MOS. It still doesn't make sense to me.

It is very true and they plan to increase the draft age to 35. The story last year.

Agency initiates steps for selective draft
Congress shows little support for effort to draw skilled Americans
Saturday, May 1, 2004
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html

Selective Service eyes women's draft
The proposal would also require registration of critical skills

By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.

The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.

"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

http://www.google.com/search?q=military+dr...en&lr=&c2coff=1

Another good site:
http://www.enjoythedraft.com/
http://www.iraqdraft.com/
http://www.blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

http://www.blatanttruth.org/draft.php
On October 4, Republican Rep. Tom Delay attempted to defuse fears about a Bush Draft by calling for a vote on Democrat Charlie Rangel’s protest legislation HR163, which would have (1) expanded the draft from only men 18–25, to women and men aged 18–34, and (2) reinstated the compulsory draft immediately. Not only was the legislation defeated by a vote of 402–2, Rangel voted against his own bill—a House first. The Republicans are saying that since the Rangel legislation has been defeated, no one need worry about a re-instatement of the draft if President Bush is re-elected.

We now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service, Flavahan, and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the draft, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. The proposed changes discussed in this meeting include:

Allow a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft. This non-combat Skills Draft would induct men and women ages 18 to 34.

Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the Dept. of Homeland Security and other agencies as well, especially high-paying professional positions like computer networking specialist or linguist. However, truck drivers, cooks, and several hundred other skills are also considered “critical.”

Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a “self-declaration”—like an IRS form—of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list of several hundred occupations, similar to the Air Force Specialty Code with Skills Identifier. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.

Upgrade the Medical Draft so that it collects data on skill sets and other information in the same way the Skills Draft would.

Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills and medical inductees.

The Agenda document begins by declaring:

With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as part of Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System’s registration program and primary mission.

And goes on:

Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and retaining such personnel for military-service could be prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis, if too few volunteer.

So the Agenda document proposes:

In line with today’s needs, the SSS structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered towards 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.

To those who still do not believe women will not be drafted, step away from the kool-aid.

If you are worried about the draft here are steps you can do to avoid from being drafted by being a conscientious objectors.
Go to this site from the The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors
http://www.objector.org/ccco/whoweare.html

i think it has a lot to do with history and biology: the duration of a long gestation period that will incapacitate a woman a lot, and that a woman can have, well, at max, hundreds of times less offspring than a man during lifetime, and because mother's role is more important during infancy, and because men can't really serve as a substitute for time being.
until science enables fathers to sub mothers 100%, i guess it's an instinct saying: don't send mommies to war, you'll put your species at risk. from that underlying instinct, a verbalized tradition: "save women &children!". a group with 4 women and 1 man has better chances than a group of 4 men and one woman.

while i see no harm in making all f go through the training, i don't like the idea of them having no say in being sent to war.
the latter should be a choice, not an obligation.

Well, more than half of America voted for Bush. They trusted him, didn't they? I'm sure there are a lot of young damsels out in the Red States eager to be drafted. They believe in his Armageddon, so they don't need to start complaining. And the troops serving in Iraq have claimed that they are happy doing what they are doing in Iraq. I guess, they can start giving their relatives, friends, and lovers the moral support of happiness with the drafts.

And for those who make fun of the anti-war protestors, I just hope they don't complain when they or their family members are on the draft list.

interesting - thanks

now there's a talking point for some letters to the editors of newspapers in the red states. Just imagine the headlines 'Female draft" October 2005.

Would love to see the Bush twins and Michelle Malkin drafted.

Headlines you will never see: Red state christians volunteer for combat or Red state christians demand to pay more taxes for war. Just like their leader Bush, their effort is mainly "Support the Troops" stickers on their pickup trucks. They voted for Bush. Now let them eat bullets for Bush. Leave me and my family out of it.

Like this:

If I got drafted, I would get pregnant so fast they wouldn't know what hit them

I wish I had that option? So starrygalore, sweetie, what is your sign, hang out here often?

I'm a Gemini baby

They should start with all those who voted for Bush that are of draftable age....but they'll probably go after the poor Kerry voters "fix their arses"
Women do enlist and fight..so they may try to draft...but women may have a case against being drafted. Damn..too bad they didn't pass that ERA amemdment!

LOL!

Ohhh my, if these traits hold true for a Gemini (adaptable, communicative, witty,
intellectual, and lively) your just my type, baby, I'm a Virgo.

Sign the Freedom from the Draft & Illegal War Petition:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/fftdaiwp/petition.html

Move this message - Please forward this email wide and far

"No American - not enlisted, not drafted - should be required to fight for an illegal war.

I am concerned that George Bush will keep expanding his wars. I join with other Americans who are concerned that this will lead to the expansion of the poverty draft and the creation of a new youth draft.

I support freedom from illegal war. I support freedom from the draft.

I call on all Americans of conscience to take a stand against the draft. It’s time to stop the draft before it starts."

Move this message - Please forward this email wide and far

Tom Kertes
Project Lead

http://draftfreedom.org
http://DailyDraftDispatch.org

Were you reading my bio again?

Thanks!!

If it were up to me and we have to have a draft, I'd say start the draft age at 35 and up. Also, make EVERYBODY eligible, politicians first. We'd probably never have another war again. It is always the old politicians who start wars and send our kids to die in them.

In the history books there were great descriptions of the King leading the soldiers to battle. Nowadays these 'kings' stay at home on their cozy armchairs.

Who me?
It wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?

Awww...now you're making me blush

You know, you look good in red. :D

Baby--I look good in anything

And, now we've officially turned this into our pseudo-flirting thread ....but hey! I'm still the one with an out when the draft comes up! Don't worry darlin, I've got some Canadian friends you can borrow.

Hon--I am pretty damn sure you look good in anything too.

True you many have a way out, but I will take my chances here in the US, I think I'll try my luck with the hot beauty over here, ... assuming I am not too late.

That all depends on what you're offering!

Oh sweetie - I know I got what you want and more.

This is the new millennium, all factors considered, in an effort for equality amongst all Americans, the draft boards will be forced to comply with the ideal that we are all the same, man, woman, gay, married, single, student, handicapped, it will not mater with the exception of age, the courts will see that nobody gets discriminated agaisnt. No deferments.

XicanoPwr, Starrygalore, concider a motel room, we have stuff to talk about here

On the old forum (K/E) someone documented and linked to the current draft laws-
which are on the books. (I wish I had bookmarked the thread) Women are not included.

There was also documentation that the Supreme Court has ruled that women can be excluded from a draft.

THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
( As Amended Through July 9, 2003 )
50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq. * (The US Code as written in the books)
http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT TO INCLUDE WOMEN IN DRAFT REGISTRATION
9/4/2003
http://www.cmrlink.org/recruit.asp?DocID=212

Opinion Cites Law, Precedent and Presidential Commission Findings

The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to report that a lawsuit intended to impose Selective Service obligations on young women has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 1

In an 8-page opinion, U.S. Senior District Judge Edward F. Harrington upheld the right of Congress to exempt women from Selective Service registration for a possible future draft. In doing so, the Court frequently cited the landmark 1981 decision Rostker v. Goldberg, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of America’s male-only draft registration system. 2

Judge Harrington stated unequivocally that the Judiciary has neither the power nor the competence to undertake the awesome responsibility to make policy in this area.


As reported in the February 2003 edition of CMR Notes, the litigation in question was filed about the same time that liberal Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) made national headlines by introducing legislation to include young women in registration for the draft. Five students in Boston, MA, (four male and one female) challenged the constitutionality of military registration for men only. (New York Times, Jan. 9, 2003)

The Plaintiffs’ attorney was Harvey Schwartz, a lawyer affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had challenged male-only draft registration, without success, 22 years ago. Schwartz said he would base his case on the changed role of women in the military in the decade following the first Persian Gulf War.

The Court, however, agreed with Selective Service Director Lewis C. Brodsky in disputing the point. The Plaintiffs had failed, said the Court, to show that the “government interest advanced by having a gender-based classification” in the federal Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) has changed since the 1981 Rostker decision.

Draft for Combat Troops Only
Noting that “the Constitution does not require what the Rostker decision described as “gestures of superficial equality,” the court noted that:


The Court went on to recognize a fundamental principle that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several major decisions:


Court Cites Presidential Commission Recommendation
The Court went on to quote the November 1992 Report of the congressionally authorized Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces in amplifying the point that there is no evidence of official support for the Plaintiffs’ goal of subjecting women to the draft:


The Court also reaffirmed the historic nexus between land combat assignments and Selective Service obligations. Even though female soldiers have served and will serve their country in many ways, women’s exemptions from assignments in direct ground combat units, such as the infantry, armor, Special Forces, and associated helicopters, remain in policy for many good reasons. To summarize, in units that directly engage the enemy on land, women do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

As a consequence of that policy, said the Court in an interesting footnote, the exemption of young women from Selective Service registration is on solid ground:


Lack of Congressional Support for a Unisex Draft
On June 10, 1980, the Senate Armed Services Committee summarized a number of reasons why the Committee was not persuaded, after many hearings, to support a legislative proposal to include young women in the draft. Despite the advocacy of then-President Jimmy Carter, the Committee Report affirmed that: “[A]ny attempt to assign women to combat positions could affect the national resolve at the time of mobilization, a time of great strain on all aspects of the Nation’s resources.”

After noting the significant contributions that women make in combat support units, the Committee added, “[A]n induction system that provided half men and half women to the training commands in the event of mobilization would be administratively unworkable and militarily disastrous.” (Emphasis added)

It is not likely that the draft will be reinstated unless there is a compelling need for great numbers of “combat replacements” (the technical term for soldiers deployed to replace those fallen in combat) in a future war. Nor will the draft be reinstated, for young men or both sexes, without sufficient support in Congress.

Judge Harrington noted that legislation sponsored in the House and Senate by Rep. Rangel and others—which would require young men and women to register with the Selective Service—is still pending. Said the Court, quoting Rostker at p. 66,


[I]A Victory for the U.S. Constitution
Legal counsel for the Selective Service Administration, led by Department of Justice attorney Ms. Rupa Bhattacharyya, deserve thanks and congratulations for winning this case. Their victory, which was virtually ignored by major media, is especially important to young women who would have had to register for the draft if the Schwartz litigation had succeeded. (There are no indications that an appeal will be filed.)

Judge Harrington’s ringing re-affirmation of the principle of “deference to the military” is encouraging, especially in view of attempts by homosexual activist groups to use the Supreme Court’s recent Lawrence v. Texas decision. That controversial ruling, which struck down all laws regarding sodomy, is already being cited in new litigation challenging the 1993 law excluding homosexuals from the military.

If the same type of sound legal strategy is used by the Bush Administration to defeat those lawsuits, they will be defeated as well.

ENDNOTES:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Samuel Schwartz et al. v. Lewis C. Brodsky, Director of the U.S. Selective Service and Thomas Reilly, MA Attorney General, Civil Action No. 03-10005-EFH, May 29, 2003.

2. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).

3. Referring to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

4. H.R. Report 103-200, July 30, 1992, at 283, accompanying P.L. No. 103-160, added emphasis in original, quoted on p. 6.

5. Report to the President, November 15, 1992, p. 40, quoted by the Court on pp. 6-7. The Center for Military Readiness brought to the attention of Selective Service counsel the findings of the Presidential Commission, which did considerable research on the draft registration issue in 1992.

When men can have babies, I'll join the service.

Hmmmm.....remember that move with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito, Junior, I will be the first one in line to try it. :D

XicanoPwr thanks so much for finding the info and posting it !

Only wish I could figure out how to copy & paste in PDF (duh!) or convert the MSSA to html.

I have been re-reading it and it is tedious but very informative.

Thanks- Pie

Click on the <Print Topic> button.
Save the file as an html file.
Open the HTML file with a text editor notepad.
Remove all articles you do not want to keep. They start with "posted by".
Finally, look at http://www.gohtm.com/convert_pdf.asp to convert the resulting html file to PDF, Online !

lol--I'd been waiting for someone to make that comment! Surprised it took as long as it did!

Jeez!...Don't you people ever get tired of these never-ending draft threads?

The repubs have nothing on you when it comes to fear mongering!

Maybe it's time to try a different tack, like "Let's Draft Nuns", or "Let's Draft Girl Scouts"? Although that wouldn't be anymore worthwhile it would certainly make as much sense as what's been discussed so far.

Funny repuks are allowed to use fear when comes to terrorist, yet somebody asks about the draft, it is called fear mongering. Hmmmm <_<

Democrats never fear monger
PS. Monger comes from a Latin word mango meaning “dealer”
or “trader”

Have you ever noticed when a topic has a lot of replies, the nay sayers pop-up out no where?

What's so wrong with drafting women if they did reinstitute a draft! Didn't you all support the ERA? Do you want to discriminate only when it suits you? Women should not be treated like wilting flowers and they should be insulted if there is a draft and they are excluded!

Israel drafts women and I think the Soviets did too and it's hard to beat the women of the Peshmerga. The only argument against women in war is an Israeli study that showed that women get a bit more squeamish about killing after they have children. Britain "virtually" drafted women during WWII cause they were running out of people of age to fight. Norway is considering a draft of women right now. The number of females in NATO uniforms, all volunteers, has jumped from 30,000 in 1961 to 288,000 today. They seem to be quite able and I think that if there is a draft, then we all should go.