This law is different in that it requires all persons to serve, both men and women.
Women have served the United States throughout our history, but have not served in combat positions. The men on the ground in the military have a strong feeling about this. They feel that women are just as capable in combat roles as the men. The only ones that do not feel this way are the generals and politicians that control the military.
This new law requiring military service does not address this aspect of military service. It only requires that both men and women sign up for the draft. Do we need this law? As we have seen in our recent combat in Iraq the "drafted" army of Saddam Hussein did not put up much of a fight, whereas our all "volunteer" army easily defeated their drafted army. We just need to look back at Vietnam to see that the draft does not work.
Most of the soldiers in that conflict came from the poorer and un-educated population of our country. Does this new legislation address that issue or are we going to see more Bill Clinton's and George Bush's? The all-volunteer army seems to work the best.
The simple truth is that soldiers in the military want to be there and want to preserve freedom. Will draftees do the same? Congress has not addressed the role of women in combat issue with this law either. Do we want our women in combat roles? And is it fair and right to require all persons to be drafted and only males to have the privilege to fight for freedom? We must ask ourselves these very important questions before we let Congress enact another law that requires our young people to serve in the military.
Women have served the United States throughout our history, but have not served in combat positions. The men on the ground in the military have a strong feeling about this. They feel that women are just as capable in combat roles as the men. The only ones that do not feel this way are the generals and politicians that control the military.
This new law requiring military service does not address this aspect of military service. It only requires that both men and women sign up for the draft. Do we need this law? As we have seen in our recent combat in Iraq the "drafted" army of Saddam Hussein did not put up much of a fight, whereas our all "volunteer" army easily defeated their drafted army. We just need to look back at Vietnam to see that the draft does not work.
Most of the soldiers in that conflict came from the poorer and un-educated population of our country. Does this new legislation address that issue or are we going to see more Bill Clinton's and George Bush's? The all-volunteer army seems to work the best.
The simple truth is that soldiers in the military want to be there and want to preserve freedom. Will draftees do the same? Congress has not addressed the role of women in combat issue with this law either. Do we want our women in combat roles? And is it fair and right to require all persons to be drafted and only males to have the privilege to fight for freedom? We must ask ourselves these very important questions before we let Congress enact another law that requires our young people to serve in the military.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |