|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congressman's Rangel's argument is conclusory and thus illogical in that he assumes that a military draft will produce peace rather than produce war.
The professional military does not like to sustain significant combat casualties. They view the military profession as a "career". They prefer training and military campaigns in which there is little chance of significant combat casualties. If there is serious fighting and dying to be done, the career military prefers that military draftees and those forced into the military do the same. Thus, it is highly more likely that a military draft will encourage unnecessary military aggression rather than discourage the same.
If women are excluded from the military draft and combat duty, they are much more likely to encourage unnecessary military aggression as it in their personal interests individually and collectively to do the same.Why? With a male only military draft, women obtain the jobs amd careers that men would have had. While men's careers are either diminished or destroyed by the military draft, women's careers are inhanced by the same. Further, after returning soldiers return home, they will in fact receive no adequate compensation for the degree to which their civilian careers have been diminished. Just witness the terrible discrimination in employment and otherwise that returning Vietnam Veterans experienced.Veteran's Employment Preference laws have no effective "enforcement" provisions. A right without a remedy is no right at all.Further, both civilian and governmental entitites often find reasons to discriminate in employment against veterans. Women and minorites , on the other hand, receive preferential treatment over veterans in employment which is strictly enforced by a variety of governmental agencies and a business community which does the same.
The American government does not have the Constitutional right to destroy men economically, emotionally, and physically such that others, unwilling and/or unable to serve in the defense of the USA, will be unjustly enriched as is the case with the military draft and the failure of our society to justly compensate returning veterans.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further, after returning soldiers return home, they will in fact receive no adequate compensation for the degree to which their civilian careers have been diminished.
This is such a profound statement.
The "Family Leave Act of 1993" requires most employers to give employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain events such as the birth of a child. While technically gender neutral, this act was primarily designed to serve the interests of women. You know, make the workplace more friendly to women. Undoubtably, and we are seeing the beginning of this now, the push will be to extend this legislation to paid leave and for longer periods of time. They do this in many European countries.
The Family Leave Act is a privilege we grant mostly to women when they make personal *choices* about how they wish to live their lives. We need to make certain the little darlings are happy. Their employers are required to foot the bill. Contrast this with a military draft. Men are forced into a servitude where there is a good chance they will not come back alive. We make essentially no demands on employers (or the government) to either hire these men when they return or provide them with just compensation.
What turns out to be primarily a woman's choice is compensated at a much higher level than the life-threatening obligations forced upon men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 01, @03:37PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
CShaw, You Wrote:
“If women are excluded from the military draft and combat duty, they are much more likely to encourage unnecessary military aggression as it is in their personal interests individually and collectively to do the same. Why? With a male only military draft, women obtain the jobs and careers that men would have had. While men's careers are either diminished or destroyed by the military draft, women's careers are enhanced by the same.”
My Reply:
In addition to your adroit comments let me add my scathing sarcasm:
“Fortunately the “slave class” of men who would be drafted and sent off to war would have the privilege of coming back to a country where there is a “Zero Tolerance,” Violence Against Women Act. Thereby, there own acts of violence in war could be used against them in a court of law as evidence of a propensity toward violent behaviors. They could then be sent to anger management classes so they don’t scare or hurt any privileged women, and the criminal record could be further used to disadvantage and disempower them in all areas of life.
“Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave, ore the land of the free and the home of the brave?” The answer to that is a resounding, “NO!” It waves over a land of FemiNazi laws that discriminate against the equal rights of men every time it gets a chance. The new law of the land governing the rights of the “male slave class” is that loudly proclaimed feminists creed, “What’s your’s is mine and what’s mine is mine as long as it’s in the best interest of the woman.” For most men in America today our national anthem rings very, very hollow.
To help ameliorate this plaguing problem, I suggest that we not only draft women into combat positions, but that we send them into combat situations until their casualties reflect an equitable balance of gender representation in that work position. Let us finally correct the historical gender discrimination that is present there, until a fair and equal balance are obtained (as reflected by the numbers). After that, suspend the quotas and just use goals to encourage women to go off to combat and reap all the privileges(death, mutilation, psychosis, G.I. bill) of that fine old American duty ). Did I forget to mention the "grateful" thanks of a nation that vacillates between honor and disrespect depending on their mood (patriotic or apathetical?
The feminists are fond of saying that war is a man’s institution and that women can correct the problems of the world if empowered. I say great, this is your big chance. Go off and use your big mouths against the war tools of other nations, since that is your weapon of choice. I suspect women will continue to blame men forever saying things like, “They invented the weapons,” and “ They made us go off to war,” until they finally, in their arrogant, presumptuous ignorance, turn this poor old world into toast a lot quicker than men would have.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note the use of the gender-neutral "children" - does anyone know if he's planning to include women in this draft legislation?
I don't know the answer.
In his opinion piece, however, Rep. Rangel was clear to point out that minorities make up a disproportionate fraction of the military. His argument was that a high percentage of war casualties would be minorities and that a draft would serve to equalize this casualty ratio.
This is an interesting concept. However, if Rangel was true to his convictions he could have made an even stronger argument by pointing out that the military is even more disproportionately men and that almost all casualties in a war with Iraq would be men. Rangel did not do this. Instead, Rangel expresses concern for minority deaths but doesn't even acknowledge the even greater percentage of men who would be killed.
Clearly, this is political grandstanding. Words without conviction. My guess is that he doesn't support the drafting of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shawn,
Here! Here!
Rangle needs to either look at the FACTS, or take his medication, or something.
Proportionately, American-Indians have the highest volunteer rate of all Americans put together. put that together with a draft and even MORE minorities will die.
The majority of our volunteers are also men, so with a draft, coupled with the high volunteerism, Indian men get a double whammy.
(won't hear EITHER of those points in the media, guaranteed!)
As far as drafting women...,
Yeah, THAT'LL happen when certain very warm places freeze over.
Women have equality when it is convienient for them to have it. But when equality means they may have to get their hands dirty, (or bloody) they will pull the old; "But I'm just a poor helpless woman, stop picking on me, or I'll tell Washington on you!" routine.
No, My guess is, if the draft is revived, You will not be seeing any female faces amoung the draftees.
Which is strange. After all we are always being told that "WOMEN ARE THE STRONGER SEX."
Hmm, Go figure.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as drafting women...,
Yeah, THAT'LL happen when certain very warm places freeze over.
I wouldn't be too sure that women won't be drafted.
The most probable scenario, if the draft is reinstated and we get into a prolongued war, will be women and men being drafted. A few American women will die, and we will be told that women are sharing the burden. Men will die by the thousands. In fact hundreds of thousands of men will face death, while the overwhelming majority of women draftees are trained at taxpayers' expense to learn skills such as air traffic control, medicine, and computer science.
The women will return home, be hailed as heroes, and use their new skills to become wealthier. The men will be maimed, captured and tortured, and killed. Those who make it home in one piece will be reviled as baby killers, for doing what they believed they had to do in the madness of war or because the horrors broke them.
Women will glide into honors and wealth. Men will be ripped to shreds. And we will continue to hear that women are brutally oppressed by the evil patriarchy.
However, men have started to awaken.
If the above scenario starts to play out, well...
I just hope I can escape from this degenerate society that may well be brought down in flames.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 02, @03:48PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Thomas your hypothesis sounds like it might, unfortunatley be reality someday. I get really annoyed when people talk about vetrans as men 'and' women, as if women made up the same numders and burdens in war. And then when war is being spoken about in the negative they only focus on 'men' in war. It is most frustrating. I hope someday our sacrifices that men have made will be recognized. I hope you're right that men are starting to wake up. But I'm not so optismistic sometimes.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Yeah, When I said only men will be drafted and not women. I should have said; "But not (drafted) in the SAME way men are."
Because I agree with what you say, that if women ARE drafted they would likely serve in the way you stated.
And if that were to come about, none of us should be suprised.
BTW, Anyone else notice that when the media interviews soldiers, they almost always try to find a female one, to talk to?
What's up with THAT? (as if we didn't know.)
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 01, @09:53PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, adding draftees is more likely to encourage a number of things, including military escalation, but may also encourage such other things as draft riots and men not showing up to draft centers, thereby showing just how unpopular the current course of action really is. Frankly I do not think this legislation will get anywhere because they are afraid of just this. 1.4 million men (and a few thousand women here and there) in the US armed forces is more than enough, what with all the gadgetry, to staff the US side of a war with Iraq (and Iran, and N. Korea, and Saudi Arabia, etc.).
But the point that the original post made: "Are there women included in this legislation?"-- is well-taken and it has always been thus. Why women are not even eligible for a non-active draft is utterly beyond me. There is simply no reason why they should not be even theoretically forced to serve should a draft be activated. An unpopular draft would result in no-shows, which would subject those men who are caught to arrest and other such dangers, such as, for example, perhaps loss of drivers licenses, etc. (this is done to men who "fail to pay child support", so hey, it's not beyond the pale that they would do the same for men who refuse to be drafted). But why women are not subject to the same exposure to danger is unexplained as of yet, except to say it's clearly a sexist and male-using policy. Women who serve in the armed forces themselves insist that they are as able to carry on military duties as well as (and N.O.W. even insists: *better than*) men; so why are they not also subject to the draft, even to register for a theoretical one?
Well I can tell you that at 34 I am unlikely to be subject to any new draft, esp. as I will turn 35 in 4 months. But I can say if I were in the draft-eligible age group there's no way in hell I'd allow myself to be drafted for a number of reasons: 1. The potential war with Iraq would be unjust at its core and 2. Drafting men only is unconstitutional; it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. (If they would want to come and lock me up, so be it, but there's no way in hell I'd even show up at the draft center...)
But you can bet my arse I'll be protesting the draft if it happens!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""Drafting men only is unconstitutional; it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause."""
I think this argument has already been before the US Supreme Court. It was ruled on years ago.
Does anyone know what the rationale for the ruling was to continue the 'male only' draft garbage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the rationale for the ruling was to continue the 'male only' draft garbage?
As far as I know, it was "compelling national interest."
Now this brings up an interesting corollary. (I ran across the germ of this idea on the ifeminist bulletin board recently.) If the current population collapse in industrialized nations continues unabated, or accelerates as men gain more control over reproduction, will it become a "compelling national interest" to draft women to bear children? Will the government decide who the fathers should be and who the mothers should be, just as it decides who the warriors should be? Will it be a "compelling national interest" for the finest male specimens to mate with the finest female specimens (artificial insemination being too expensive on a grand scale)? And will the government force them to do so? This would be no more a violation of individual rights than the draft for war.
The governmental mechanisms being put into place by the feminist totalitarians may well come back to haunt women at least as much as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DOD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women.
Thanks for the links, tparker. It seems that, as long as there are enough male bodies to put through the grinder, we won't see women drafted, at least not for combat on a large scale. Also, congress is aware of the fact that society is disinclined to tolerate such abuse of women. I wonder if they're aware of the possible backlash, if society, once again, engages in such murderous oppression of men.
As for the "Order of the White Feather" article, maybe I looked too fast, but I didn't find it on the page to which you linked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as long as there are enough male bodies to put through the grinder, we won't see women drafted, at least not for combat on a large scale. Also, congress is aware of the fact that society is disinclined to tolerate such abuse of women.
Actually, if Rangel wanted to make the populace less inclinded to accept war, he would be proposing amendments to the Military Selective Service Act that would ensure the large scale drafting of women for combat.
If we go to war, women should be drafted and end up maimed and slaughtered in numbers commensurate with their percentage of the draft age population. To force males to kill and die, in the majority of cases, would be to engage once again in the blatent, mass-murdering of young men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for the "Order of the White Feather" article, maybe I looked too fast, but I didn't find it on the page to which you linked.
I found it here, and it's a good article. Thanks again.
"idiotic young women were using white feathers to get rid of boyfriends of whom they were tired." Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, for crying out loud...!
I went and read that article. Give me a BREAK!
I read the recruitment poster below the article, too. I mean, how manipulating, and misandrist can one GET?!?
Incidently, I find it interesting that these women gave men feathers for being "cowards".
My people always gave them for bravery...!
Ironic, that's all.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) William Brooks was interviewed about his experiences during the First World War in 1993. He explained why he joined the British Army in 1915.
Once war broke out the situation at home became awful, because people did not like to see men or lads of army age walking about in civilian clothing, or not in uniform of some sort, especially in a military town like Woolwich. Women were the worst. They would come up to you in the street and give you a white feather, or stick it in the lapel of your coat. A white feather is the sign of cowardice, so they meant you were a coward and that you should be in the army doing your bit for king and country.
It got so bad it wasn't safe to go out. So in 1915 at the age of seventeen I volunteered under the Lord Derby scheme. Now that was a thing where once you applied to join you were not called up at once, but were given a blue armband with a red crown to wear. This told people that you were waiting to be called up, and that kept you safe, or fairly safe, because if you were seen to be wearing it for too long the abuse in the street would soon start again.
I had a vague awareness of the white feather thing from a film I saw many years ago, but this is the first time I've come accross a proper explanation of it, complete with the recollections of some of the people who had to endure it. The above quote is bad enough, but look at the one the precedes it:
(4) James Lovegrove was only sixteen when he joined the army on the outbreak of the First World War.
On my way to work one morning a group of women surrounded me. They started shouting and yelling at me, calling me all sorts of names for not being a soldier! Do you know what they did? They struck a white feather in my coat, meaning I was a coward. Oh, I did feel dreadful, so ashamed.
A bunch of women beating up on a sixteen-year old boy! Where was the patriarchy with its sticks the width of a man's thumb, beating these women away and saving their privileged brother? And why isn't this shameful piece of history more widely known?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""The pacifist, Fenner Brockway, claimed that he received so many white feathers he had enough to make a fan."""
I like Fenner Brockway's response! :)
Maybe we should start a "White Feather" campaign for women who do not support females being drafted? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I buy into this because I think that drafting women is a bad idea, since they are essentially useless in the field of battle. If you draft 'em, what the hell are you going to do with 'em?
But I DO propose this for the female member of Congress who vote for continued inequality AND who vote FOR war.
Whateve course we take on this, it NEEDS to be a public thing: press releases, web site, the rest. It'll be useless to just keep it to ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That women have the RIGHT to attend any of our nation's elite service academies but not the RESPONSIBILITY to so much as even register for the draft is a slap in the collective faces of men like nothing else. This blatant and stunningly sexist incongruity lays it out: women are good enough to be trained as leaders and strategists in time of war, but they are TOO GOOD to be forced in as foot soldiers and grunts.
Female privilege, anyone? If rights without responsibilities isn't privilege, what is?
At the time that feminists were clamoring for women to gain admittance to West Point, Annapolis, etc. (back in the 70's), I for one do not recall a commensurate outcry from these same wonderful people that Selective Service be similarly opened up to men and women alike.
Feminists are hypocrites, pure and simple -- first, last, always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 02, @06:45PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
that's a hell of a comment.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 02, @09:06PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree. Just another case of men being treated like second-class citizens, best put in jail or in front of bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you're right that men are starting to wake up. But I'm not so optismistic sometimes.
I don't think anything today could awaken men faster than the reintroduction of the draft in time of war. I lived in Washington, D.C., during the height of the Vietnam War demonstrations. Believe me, a prolongued war in the Middle East, accompanied by the disproportionate maimings and deaths of thousands of drafted American men, will almost certainly get very ugly at home.
I don't think I'd want to be a Women's Studies professor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a decorated combat veteran, I can tell you that if women are sent to the front lines they'll either be shunted off to dunsel-duty (Dunsel: A thing which serves no useful purpose) or - quite frankly - shot as liabilities if they refuse to go to such duty quietly.
And were I still active, such would be my orders to the men under my command.
I've served with women, and the brutal truth of the matter is that useless is much too kind a word to describe them on a combat field. They are soft, weak, and squeamish, and generally incapable of initiating thought; put them into a situation not covered by regulations or the manual and they will dither for hours on end waiting for instructions rather than showing any initiative.
Not worth a bag of sour owl shit.
It's a pisser, but I wouldn't endanger the lives of good and brave men under fire by forcing them to serve with women in a combat unit, or even to depend on a "womyn only" combat unit for their support.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a pisser, but I wouldn't endanger the lives of good and brave men under fire by forcing them to serve with women in a combat unit, or even to depend on a "womyn only" combat unit for their support.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a pisser, but I wouldn't endanger the lives of good and brave men under fire by forcing them to serve with women in a combat unit, or even to depend on a "womyn only" combat unit for their support.
I understand the concerns about "womyn" in combat. The reasons for the concerns are well documented. I'm not so sure that women would be utterly useless as soldiers, however, if they weren't pampered and catered to so much.
When a woman bitches about morning runs being degrading, because she can't keep up with the men, instead of dropping the runs for everyone, the way the current military has done, the response should be one of three statements:
1. Shut up and run.
2. Into the brig.
3. Readers can fill this in themselves.
I do, however, hope that the army learns soon to keep men and women separated, so that women-soldiers don't continue to expect men to do the heavy, nasty, and deadly work for them. If there were battles into which only women were sent to fight, with all female support -- female supply units and female medical units, the women could show what they're capable and worthy of. Win or lose, if they fight well, they should be hailed as heroes. Perhaps it would be necessary to send them in with far greater numerical strength than the enemy. No problem, draft more.(Gotta get those artificial wombs developed to the point where they're relitively inexpensive.)
Of course the women just might prove, after a number of battles where they have the chance to show what they can do, to be worthless as soldiers. In that case, since men would again be the only ones facing the monstrous burden of the draft for combat, then men should receive tremendous social benefits that are not available to women.
Perhaps only women should pay taxes if that end up the way things are done. It's a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the lousy spelling in my last post, I wrote it in a hurry and forgot to spell check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had, at one time, a crew of three men loading missles onto a truck. One was taken out and replaced with a woman. The result was a reduction by a third in efficiency because it was physically impossible for this woman to lift the ordnance.
The whines of "I have to pee!" while on a long and forced march are legion. So we all have to stop while she runs off behind the bushes, and I have to send someone to stand watch lest she be caught with her pants down.
Did I have recruits in my office crying? Sure. and I had 10:1 men to women, or more; and the amount of people breaking down in my office were 10:1 in the other direction.
We had war games. I had a squad whose instructions were to take a piece of terrain by a certain time. Instructions would be forthcoming as to whether to approach from a ridgeline, or through a ravine, depending on support. Their radio went out, and rather than look to see if the artillary sims were on the ridge or in the ravine, the squad never moved. You guessed it, a woman in command.
The examples go on. My money would be on "Worthless." Sure, get them away from a combat environment, and they can push buttons with the best of them. And so could civilians.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect your opinion and the experiences on which it is based, TGK. Women may well prove to be worse than useless in combat. If that's the case, this country may find itself in a self-destructive situation from which there is no escape. Putting women into combat may destroy the military; men may not tolerate women being free of the burdens of combat unless the women surrender some of their privileges; women may refuse to give up any privileges in return for being relieved of the responsibilities of the military.
This could lead to a more severe crisis than this nation has ever known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 03, @11:24AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Hallo, I am from Greece and I am writing to inform you that here we have a compulsory men's only conscription which lasts 12-15 months. Conscripts are "paid" with 8.8 euros per month (1 euro roughly equal to 1$).
You can't be hired in a serious job -whether it is for the private or public sector- unless you have fulfilled your military obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Friend from Greece,
You are clearly suffering terrible discrimination because you are male. Do most Greek women believe that you enjoy endless privileges and that they are monstrously oppressed by an evil patriarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 04, @03:06PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Ordinary (that you meet everyday) women certainly no! (And I don't think that this happens to the majority of women in the US). Feminism is used by women in order to be appointed easier to positions in the public sector.
Until 2001 conscription was 18-21 months but they reduced it from 2003. Only the far-right party (mostly voted by men) objected to the reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 03, @07:48PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I remember during my distinguished military career, on a number of occassions, asking questions such as: "Why do I have to do this," or "Why do I have to go there," or "Why is this the way we do this?"
The impenetrable logic that always came back to me was, "Because of the needs of the ______(enter your branch of the service in the blank space)" ...end of conversation.
Why no women in combat? "It doesn't suit the needs of the military."
Why men in combat? It fits the needs of the military.
The military was very fond of relating that they were not a democracy, but instead were dictatorial in what they required of members of the service. "When you're a civilian, I was told, "then you will have rights and priveleges."
This leads me to my next question, "Why are there no women in the all male draft? Could it be that this scheme fits the needs of the country?
I guess if you have a historical pattern of discrimination there's no real need to change it as long as you can keep pulling the wool over the dummies' eyes, who aren't doing anything about it.
It's been a long time coming, but their is no mistaking that America is not a country of free men with rights equal to those of free women.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Ray.
I honor you, your sacrifices, and your contributions, and those of all other men and women, who have truly served.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 04, @12:00PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
Thank You. I respect and value you your decency.
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. While our nation was watching for the "Commie" threat to come in the front door, FemiNazism snuck in the back door and stripped away more of this nation's freedoms from men than anything has done in the last two hundred years.
It appears that we support a nation that no longer truly offers men freedom, merely the option of nowhere else to run, the lesser of evils that exist in an oppressive and exploitive world.
The message for young men going off to war appears clear today; After you go off to other countries to correct those threats to your freedoms come back to America and confront the insidious evils of radical feminism that have destroyed men's equal rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We should all work hard to do this quickly, because there is no telling how much longer we will be allowed any of the privileges that our founding fathers struggled so hard to obtain for us.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw Congressman Rangel on MSNBC Yesterday and he did state the bill would require that women be drafted.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he did state the bill would require that women be drafted.
Let's hope he's not planning on drafting women to get a free education and drafting men to be exterminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's hope he's not planning on drafting women to get a free education and drafting men to be exterminated.
That intention goes unsaid. Women would get the low-risk positions with high potential for a career in civilian life and men would be slaughtered to protect women. All of which are normal chivalrous mandates. Men die and women get a free ride.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @04:47PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Here are a few protest signs for war protesting from a man's perspective:
#1
STOP MAKING ONLY MEN
SERVE IN COMBAT
#2
MEN DIE IN WARS
WOMEN GET VAWA
(Violence Against Women Act)
#3 (my favorite)
STOP DENYING
WAR & WOMEN
BATTER MEN
#4
SELECTIVE
SERVICE
IS SEXIST
AGAINST MEN
#5
WAR IS JUST
ANOTHER EXCUSE
FOR VIOLENCE
AGAINST MEN
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a former Marine. I can tell you I WILL NOT ever again defend this country nor will I let my sons. You to should be doing the same. Let the Anti Male groups take care of it from now on.
1.2 million men have died defending a country that thinks we should all be locked up until they need us for a war. Its time to say NO MORE until things change. I believe if we stand together on this we will have there attention. Dont let your sons register, tell other males not to enlist. I realize this is radical, but I ask all vets to think back about how you have been treated by this government, they keep taking our benefits away. People on welfare are taken care of better than our military, as a Viet Nam vet I never asked for anything more than what they promised. The history is there, all vets from all wars have been treated like dirt and it will continue unless we stop it. Now add to that whats happening to Males in this country now, are we really that stupid. We have the power to stop this and we owe it to our sons. All Mens Groups must unite to stop this. This should be a big part of the Million Man March. I will be there! Will you or do you just talk!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
