A House Bill that says females don't have to serve on the front lines

[in_cog_ni_to]

in Iraq or any other war the Chimp starts? Have any of you heard about this? My friend just called and said the House passed or is going to pass a Bill that states that females will not have to fight on the front lines anymore. Is this true? Whose bill is this?

[MadHound]

1. Yeah, they've been talking about this for a couple of days now

Seems that the idea of women dying is offensive to Bush's base, therefore he's going to pull them to the back, leaving thousands upon thousands of vacancies in the front line support staff. So how are they going to make up this shortfall? Can you spell D-R_A_F_T? I thought you could. After all, it's for the good of the women:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Unreal.

This is a republican's bill?

[leesa]

10. Duncan Hunter...brain of a flea. I am sure it is in preparation for the

draft. They know women in combat is a stickey issue, so best to get rid of it before they announce the draft.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Ewwwwwww! Duncan Hunter. FIGURES!

Thanks! :hi:

[eyesroll]

2. It's actually not "don't have to."

It's "can't."

As in -- even if they want to, even if they're qualified, even if their physical fitness, marksmanship, whatever is equal to or better than that of the men...they can't.

There already are women in these positions (some versions of this bill would, um, grandmother the women in to their existing jobs), and I've heard that this news is demoralizing to those already in the jobs.

[fob]

4. You mean the "Pre-emptive Bill to make sure Jenna and Not-Jenna

don't get caught up in any draft" also known as the "Jenna and Not-Jenna join the TANG and do their "drills" in Alabama" Resolution?

[prodigal_green]

5. not "don't have to", "not allowed to"

and the problem with that is combat veterens have a higher chance of promotion and generally receive better combat training. Unfortunately, as we've seen in this war, whether you are "officially" on the front lines or not, there is a pretty good likelihood of being engaged in a combat situation at one point or another.

The logic--Americans might get upset if they think their delicate flowers might get shot at - or - it might hurt morale (same as allowing homosexuals in the military), 'cause we all know that military morale is at an all-time high right now and we wouldn't want to spoil that.

Does anybody have the number of female American deaths in Iraq so far?

[beam me up scottie]

9. Thank you.

As an ex-Marine I resent the fact that they are STILL keeping women from competing with men for rank.

It has nothing to do with "saving women's lives" or the "fact" that amerika can't handle seeing women coming home in body bags.

Same shit, different generation.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

6. Institutionalized sexism..............

So much for gender equality.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Typical of these right wing bastards.

I'm surprised they aren't calling for NO FEMALES in the military...period. Keep them home. Pregnant and submissive.

[atreides1]

13. Give them time

I'm sure they'll do that as soon as they make illegal for women to run for political office.

[prodigal_green]

15. Well, a conspiracy theorist

er, I mean "independent alternative theory researcher" might speculate that as the theocracy takes hold, they sure as heck wouldn't want women to know how to fire a gun or plan a military assault...if you were in their shoes, would you?

I'm actually one of those people who over the past five years has come to revise my position on gun control...perhaps those militia groups in Michigan are onto something...

[CrownPrinceBandar]

16. Yup........

It seems like a couple of thousand years of impoverished men dying in defense of their own is not enough for some folks. In no way is this meant as a jab towards the contribution that women have made towards liberty and national goals, because they have been invaluable. But it seems western society has a horrible propensity of killing their men off in the pursuit of "liberty".

[lukasahero]

7. Anna Quindlen about a year ago

noted in one of her columns that "they could never institute the draft today" because they would have to draft women as well. Guess in a way she was right. She just didn't expect them to change the rules and go back 20 years so quickly.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Sounds like they are readying the draft and framing the

argument that women won't be drafted since they can't fight on the front lines anyway.
It would be a fundie-freak-out fest if women were drafted.
Actually my concern would be for all of the innocent farm animals, but I digress.
This is getting scary.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. That sounds about right.

I can just hear the Fundamentalist husbands who wouldn't be able to control their wives anymore. :eyes: Who would cook their meals, wash their clothes and birth their babies?! OMG!