Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!tridom!atssc!fang!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Women in combat MOS's
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.021916.5397@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 27 Jun 91 02:19:16 GMT
References: <1991Jun22.042142.4254@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1991Jun25.024731.27841@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: The Instrumentality
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
In article <1991Jun25.024731.27841@cbnews.cb.att.com> jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) writes:
>...
>I think that whether or not women are allowed in combat MOSs, they should be
>subject to the draft.  My reasoning is this:  if women are allowed in combat,
>they should be subject to being compelled into combat (same as men).  If not,
>they should be subject to being compelled into service so that men (under this
>assumption capable of serving in combat MOSs) could be transferred into combat
>positions.

The reason why women should _not_ be drafted is very simple: somebody has
to take care of the kids. What's the point of fighting a war if you're
not going to leave anyone behind to take care of the families of the
combatants? One of the main reasons (both practical and psychological) why
armies have fought throughout all of history is to preserve their homes. 

Now, in the name of Political Correctness, it has become fashionable to see
the armed forces as an instrument of social policy, and as a career
opportunity to which everyone ought to have an equal right. Sorry, but
that's not the way it works: the armed forces exists for a social purpose,
all right--but not for _these_ purposes. The army exists to preserve our 
state, and our homes and families, and for no other reason whatever. 
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~