Thread: Ted Cruz “goes there” on proposal to force women to register for the draft

Ted Cruz “goes there” on proposal to force women to register for the draft

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON FEBRUARY 8, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW


One of the lesser noted moments from Saturday night’s GOP debate was the conversation the candidates had about forcing women to register for the draft now that they’ve been approved for front line combat service. Most of the hopefuls quickly lined up to vigorously burnish theirAbsolutely No War On Women Here No Sir No Way credentials by saying they could see making such a change. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, while recognizing the valuable contributions that women make in the military, seemed a bit more hesitant. After the dust had settled he commented on it further, leaving little doubt as to where he stands. (Politico)

Ted Cruz on Sunday said he opposes requiring women to register for a potential draft, breaking with Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, all of whom indicated support for opening up the Selective Service to women during Saturday night’s debate.

“I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Cruz said Sunday, speaking at a town hall here. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

To applause, Cruz went on to note that he is a father to two daughters, and he wants them to follow their dreams.

I’m used to taking plenty of flack from around the political sphere over my views on women in combat roles, so feel free to pile on, but I had to resist the urge to stand up and cheer when Cruz came out and said that. At least for the time being we seem to be stuck with new mandates which will allow qualified female soldiers to take on front line combat roles, despite protests from the Marines after lengthy periods of testing. That’s unlikely to change while this administration remains in power and so be it. But the draft?

First of all, the odds of the draft being put back into use are virtually nil at this point. Sure, it’s possible that things could change in some hopefully unlikely, dystopian future, but I hope most of us won’t live to see it. So why increase the paperwork load and expand the system to force young women to register? Besides, it’s not like we’re having any trouble recruiting enough female volunteers for all of the non-combat roles which need to be filled. So let’s move on to the actual combat roles. Traditionally, that was the area where we had the most trouble filling the ranks back in the days of the draft and we wound up conscripting some men for the job. Nobody is talking about putting women on the front lines unless they can pass some extremely rigorous testing and the number who can manage the task is vanishingly small. What point would drafting women serve?

And none of this addresses the fundamental issue of forcing women into combat in the first place. Is there anyone who thinks the political will exists to start pushing them into combat against their wishes? I completely agree with Ted Cruz. This is, for lack of a better term, nuts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/0...tm_campaign=nl

We don't want our women in combat for the following reasons...

#1 Women can make more children and men cannot. In many wars through history the victors have been the society or culture that could produce enough children to replace lost troops.

#2 Women in combat being blown apart by mortars, sniper fire, and landmines are more likely to have a highly negative impact on morale of other troops.

#3 Men and women in trenches and foxholes for long hours will lead to the distraction and security risk of war zone romance and hook ups that could devastate troop readiness and effectiveness.

Throughout the ages, men have sacrificed ourselves to save "Women and Children First" and when we mounted our last desperate defense in front of our villages or from our city walls, the women and children were kept in the rear because of their fragility and important role as mothers and nurturer of children and infants.

A village, town, city, nation state, or empire that loses 80% of its males in warfare and only 10% of its females can bounce back and be ready to fight onward in about 15 years. A group of people that lose 80% of their females that are killed or captured and appropriated to the enemy is forever destroyed.

W

I agree. Cruz is right on the issue of women being drafted.

As a war vet I don't like the idea of women in combat roles for the exact same reasons W posted along with the simple non sexist truth that women are not as physically capable in strength and stamina as men can be. But as now we are forced into allowing them in those roles by liberal policies of *equality* BS its only *equal* to force them into signing up for the draft as well. Its not about wanting to send our women to war but about saying if they want *equality* they will get the negative side of it as well. They can't just have the positives on the issue ignoring all the negatives.

Another problem is that even if you win a war, but in doing so you lose many of your reproductive age females this loss could have a massive negative impact on your nation's ability to recover economically or be prepared for the next conflict a decade down the road.

Just imagine if women had fought in WW2, there would have been no Baby Boomers because we would have lost hundreds of thousands of reproductive aged American women lost in combat.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Another problem is that even if you win a war, but in doing so you lose many of your reproductive age females this loss could have a massive negative impact on your nation's ability to recover economically or be prepared for the next conflict a decade down the road.

Just imagine if women had fought in WW2, there would have been no Baby Boomers because we would have lost hundreds of thousands of reproductive aged American women lost in combat.

W

Also, can you even begin to imagine what a women would have to face as a POW? This alone is something the American public could not stomach.

February 09, 2016 - Tuesday



GOP Plan a Rough Draft for America's Daughters

In debates where most of the surprising comments have come from Donald Trump, the single greatest surprise of Saturday's was when Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Governor Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), and Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), all fathers of girls, couldn't point to a single reason why American women shouldn't be forced to serve in the military. Among other things, it would mean assigning women to ground units with the mission to destroy the enemy through brutal means like hand-to-hand combat. With five daughters between them, their answers shell-shocked voters who struggled to understand what's happening in our country when even Republicans would order women into harm's way in a misguided attempt at parity.

"Political correctness is dangerous," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned -- and never more so than here. As the editors of National Reviewwrite, "Ground combat is barbaric... It is not a video game. It is not a movie, where young Hollywood starlets karate-kick their way through masses of inept thugs and goons. When we order women into ground combat, we are ordering them into situations where men larger and stronger than they will show no mercy." Anyone brave enough to fight for their country understands that war punishes even the strongest of men. The compassionate response is protecting women, not using them as a human shield for a nation preoccupied with political correctness.

Of course, there have been efforts over the past several years to include women in the draft, but they've failed because females couldn't serve in the infantry or special operations. That's all changing now, thanks to President Obama's ongoing social experiment with the military. Once women are assigned to units that are directly engaging in combat with enemy ground forces, as Defense Secretary Ash Carter insists they will be, the barriers to selective service will come tumbling down. That hasn't hurt countries like Israel, some argue, where military service is mandatory for everyone.

But theirs is a unique situation, explains FRC's Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who was actually embedded with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during his time in special operations. There, women (or men) in the IDF can be assigned to a brigade in their area and live at home while they fulfill their military requirements. But the notion that Israeli women are serving in the infantry and special operations posts is largely a myth. Like other nations, Israel tried integrating women into elite fighting roles -- it didn't work. Another key difference between the two countries is that, unlike Israel, the United States is an expeditionary military that fights abroad.

And it should be pointed out that if, or when, America drafts women, they'll have no say in where they're assigned -- including the infantry. Most of us would agree that it's one thing to let our daughters choose this kind of life -- and quite another to force it on them. Unfortunately, this is the natural consequence of a nation idolizing equality with no thought to the practical outcomes. We can still value women and respect their differences, of which there are many. "Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels," the Corps' year-long study found, "and completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall."

The bottom line: we don't do women any favors by pretending that their bodies are the same as men. "One can easily conceive that in thus striving to equalize one sex with the other," Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "one degrades them both; and that from this coarse mixture of nature's works, only weak men and disreputable women can ever emerge." If Rubio, Bush, and Christie want to strengthen the military, why would they support a policy that undermines it?

"Part of the problem, no doubt, is... that they're simply not familiar with the grueling demands not only of combat but also of training for battle," National Review's editors speculate. "Part of it may well be pure political fear. After all, the 'war on women' narrative harmed Republicans in 2012, so it appears that at least three GOP candidates are willing to court an actual war on women to avoid even the appearance of discrimination." And yet, their views not only endanger women -- but America.
Sparing our daughters from the horrors of combat is not some rigid and oppressive attempt to stifle women; it's an informed, compassionate position based on volumes of research and centuries of fighting. Senator Cruz understands that. It's shame the other candidates don't. Join us in telling the presidential candidates, "Don't draft our daughters" by signing FRC's petition here.

Tony Perkins has provided this endorsement in his individual and personal capacity only, and it should not be construed or interpreted in any way as the endorsement of FRC, FRC Action, or any affiliated entity.

---

Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA16B12&f=WU16B04

Originally Posted by MW

Also, can you even begin to imagine what a women would have to face as a POW? This alone is something the American public could not stomach.

All good reasons to ban women from combat roles along with the fact they simply can't pull the same weight a man can. They don't have the strength and stamina for combat roles. I was field artillery for instance and our lightest round for my 155mm Paladin was 98lb-135lb with copperheads around 230lb or so. Lets see any military woman heaving those around like a man having to carry a couple hundred within an hours time. Lets see a woman carry around 60-70 pounds with an m16, gear and 6 magazines... that alone is to much for nearly all. But then also be able to carry a wounded soldier out of the danger line? No possible way.

This is why I'm for mandating the draft for women. Break the agenda of putting women next to men in combat which also impedes a male soldiers ability to do their job. I think mandating a draft for women would be starting to break the liberal agenda of women in combat and teach them if they want to do jobs of men that they need to take the same risks.

There should be no draft. Why is anyone thinking about a draft? The draft ended almost 50 years ago. This debate question was a question to stir up trouble. Ignore it, don't fall for it, don't get trapped in a NeoCon debate designed to divide our country and create tension between men and women. Our country is falling apart because of trade and immigration policies, not because of the lack of a draft or women who have volunteered to serve our country.

Very true Judy. The selective service sign up still has importance to be maintained but as it stands anything less then WW3 wouldn't result in a draft and even if WW3 broke out likely it wouldn't be calling for foot soldiers but likely a nuclear war as the potential opponents have no issue murdering millions of complete innocents to win.

It comes down to a liberal divisive question meant to just stir emotions. Its not about equality, equal rights, or protecting ones country but about trying to stir hatred and distrust over liberal agenda's and policies with a double side.