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

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.

Exactly.

I hope we never do get into another war that would require the draft. However, it is folly not to be prepared for such an event. I have absolutely no problem with women serving in non-combat roles in the military, however, I draw the line at placing them in combat situations for a number of reasons. Most of which have already been touched upon in this thread. I think we can agree, as the Marine Corps has already proven, that women degrade combat functionality and could jeopardize the lives of their fellow soldiers. This jeopardy would not come from lack of dedication, motivation, or intelligence, but from lack of overall body strength and possibly even the mental conditioning necessary to deal with the gore that would surround them. It's not their fault, it's just the way it is. If a woman volunteers for the duty and can meet the same requirements of those around her in every sense, than maybe there can be exceptions. However, It would be wrong to force our women into these positions against their will. As a war veteran and the father of a son who served three tours in Afghanistan, I could not imagine my 3 daughters being thrust into such a position against their will for the sake of equality. If women can't make it in the NFL, what would possess anyone to think combat would be any less demanding? Just my opinion, for what it's worth.