Should it?
Would you argue that every draft order issued in US history was in the defense of American liberty?
Sending drafted men off to Korea in 1950 had nothing to do with American liberty. It was to fulfill US geopolitical goals.
Conscription is a form of slavery. The defenders of liberty will always rise to the occasion if liberty is truly threatened. Conscription is not necessary.
Conscription of women into the IDF doesnât seem to be a big deal.
then ainât now. There is no way any draft would ensue now without a formal DoW from the congress. Not an AUMF, the solemn deal. Reality is what it is, if that happened, it could only be in circumstances where liberty itself was threatened.
Why do you keep saying that? Why do you think that?
Society has evolved. Women could not vote or serve on juries until a century ago. Open discrimination against women in employment was legal until a relatively short time ago.
Womenâs service during WWII was limited to the WACâs, WAVEâs, etc. Then there was a lengthy period in which women could service in various support MOSâs.
But now we have acknowledged as a society that women have the right to serve in combat arms, to include even some special forces outfits.
With RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES and EQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW.
I donât typically use excessive capitalization like that, just want to drive the point home.
If we acknowledge as a society that women are indeed capable of serving, it becomes immoral and unjust to make only men liable to the draft.
When women were deemed incapable of service, it then followed that women should not be liable for the draft.
To me, it comes down to equal treatment before the law.
Why not?
As a side point, I deem it implausible that we will ever again need to forcibly induct people into the military, which is why I support abolition of the Selective Service.
because they are not currently allowed in them.
I donât think it would be a big deal here either.
A century ago, probably.
But today? I donât think it would cause a huge issue beyond the outrage that occurs when conscription is issued.
Yes they are. You need to do a little research buddy.
if all positions are open to them, I am unaware. if so, then equals is what equals is.
It has never been ruled unconstitutional. Correct?
The first female graduated the SFQC a couple of weeks ago.
It hasnât.
In the cases presented gender was never the primary reason.
The plaintiffs always challenged the legality of conscription itself.
And they lost each and every time.
IMO, they were political decisions by the courts.
The lib house of cards comes down.
I wonder⌠did they define âwomanâ?
There is no reason to complicate our response in the case of war. Women do not need to be intermingled with men on the battlefield as comrades. It will create more problems than solveâŚIMHO.
They already are.
good for her! That however does not change what Iâve read. Which is that under the âleaders firstâ initiative women officers are allowed, but so far, still no enlisteds. Maybe Iâm wrong, but this is the last I knew.
They are united side by side from the same platoon on the battlefield?
