I agree in principle, but if that idea were law it would mean that the US can't carry out its treaty commitments to defend countries most Americans don't care about saving.

Thus I would do what many European nations have done, and require a vote of the American people, preferably repeated every 10 years or so, for any treaty of alliance with other countries. Or better yet, for any treaty at all (as the Swiss have it). This would be in addition to, not instead of, approval by the president and Senate.

I served for six years in the Air Force on several overseas combat deployments. We were basically 50/50 men to women, the women could do almost everything the men could with the exception that I'm still against women in ground combat operations. It's not a derogatory statement about their ability, it's the fact that a male will generally take unusual risks to protect a woman that they wouldn't necessarily do for another male - often to the detriment of theirselves and the rest of the unit. For non-combat support jobs (which is at least 90% of the military), I have zero problem with it.

I also think it's only "fair" - women have long fought for the right to serve in the military, and now to serve in ever-increasing capacities and want things like the post-9/11 GI bill with basically unlimited education benefits, excellent training, etc. With that comes the obligation that they should also have the same risks as a male.

We are not alone in that - most countries around the world (other than Muslim ones) have women serve in similar capacities, in Israel, it's all-hands-on-deck for national defense.

It doesn't take a penis to pump gas in a plane... You don't need one supporting a 7000 person floating ship at sea, etc. If anything, it helps morale and stabilizes the military community.

Korea - Initially we got involved in Korea when Douglas MacArthur attacked to strike back at the invading forces. The invaders had already begun rolling over not only the North Koreans, but our own people in country. At the time, McArthur was in charge of all ground forces in WestPac. Air Force was a bit of a gray area, since it was also newly created.

Anyway South Korea's "side" of the dispute was sponsored, for want of a better word, by the UN once the conflict broke out. That UN sponsorship was one of the fig leaves that saved MacArthur from being relieved right away. Truman did not like him at all since McA's arrogance was profound to say the least.

Vietnam - Two wars there, the first one started in the late 40s until 1950. It was a proxy war with the north being a communist supported force and the south being an anti-communist supported force. The UNs involvement was not really relevant in this one.

The second war there, was a little different, still a proxy war, but this time the breaking of the treaty from the North was a big deal. Our direct involvement was two-fold. We had advisors on the ground, and then the Gulf of Tonkin incident. That drew us in. The UN was a sideshow really, but a useful "authority" for both sides.

Your last sentence above is exactly why the UN is not of any real use.

The 9/11 attack did make me wish I was young enough to volunteer.
Pearl Harbor had the same effect on my father.
Anyway, I have said "thank you" to people I've seen in a military uniform.

Old dino remembers the very fresh and idealistic UN.
I also recall how Japan fought many a man in a monster suit with "UN" pasted on toys.

The UN at that point was still very fresh, very idealistic, and the corruption hadn't pervaded it to the point of making it the complete joke it is now. But I'd like to hear more about how you think the UN supported the Korean and Vietnam wars simply because both Russia and China had seats on the Security Council and would have vetoed any measures passing through that body...

I can well imagine that Planned Parenthood would some lose business.

In my opinion a lot of what support there was initially for those actions was more or less support for the UN. The UN had not yet lost its luster to they extent it has now.

Agree, but a note worth mentioning: the public was in favor of both Korea and Vietnam: Korea for the duration and Vietnam until Johnson made it into a money-makey scheme for the industrial war complex.

Korea ended in an armistice because the US was tired of war and you had a lot of Democrats (who were actually Communist sympathizers - McCarthy was dead on) who actively made it difficult to prosecute that war. In addition, it was really the US against both China and Russia at that point in a battle of attrition.

Vietnam was a classic case of armchair quarterbacking and why it is a bad idea to have civilians running military operations. The US was winning the war early on, but a change in Presidents and the subsequent priorities and focus on "diplomacy" - the nonsense of every Democratic politician. It was at that point that the hippy protesters like Barbara Streisand started coming out of the woodwork. One of my favorite John Wayne movies was "Green Berets" where he deals with the whole Vietnam issue very pointedly.

I feel that if a country is going to conscript, it should do so from an equal cross section of society - doesn't matter if they're male, female, or somewhere in the middle; Gay Straight, Bi, etc... it DOESN'T MATTER!!!

And honestly - the whole division between men being eligible for combat and women being excluded - are crap. If you can measure up to the standards for the job, what you have between your legs should be the LAST consideration. Anything else is patronizing, and says "you really ARE a second class thing, that someone else has to protect and watch over", or worse", You're not WORTHY to defend your country like someone else is"...

Having served (volunteered, because that was the only way to get in,) one thing I got from my service was the requirement to go from needy, whiney kid to self-sufficient and determined adult. It taught me to be responsible, that my word is worth something, and that I had to make it on my own, without relying on someone else (parents, hubby, whatever)... The other thing it taught me, of course, was (to quote a drill sergeant I remember surprisingly fondly) was "Life ain't fair, sometimes it sucks, so suck it up, buttercup, and get it done". (We were talking about this very subject last night...)

What I see with those lacking this "experience" are, in general, a generation of those who either learned this some other way, or (sadly) never learned it at all.

Sure, the draft sucks. Being forced to do something you don't want to do sucks. But sometimes... you gotta do something you don't like. And doing so may benefit you in ways you don't see. (Or to quote another famous Drill Sergeant line - "No Pain, No Gain.")

Unintended consequence of women draft: significant rise in the number of 18 year old mothers. Beats student deferment and should qualify them for ADC, food stamps and a whole plethora of entitlements. Do the idiots in Congress ever thinks these things through or are they too busy attending parties.

Hanging over me way back when was a threat that became reality almost as fast as I lost that student deferment in my sophomore year due to being too sophomoric. I really had no idea what I wanted to do with my life or what courses I wanted to take.
Uncle Sam had an idea and scooped me up in a heartbeat. I wound up in the Marines as a supply clerk.
I never went to Vietnam but Parris Island was as bad as it was in Full Metal Jacket. Believe a drill instructor's fist slammed into me at least five times. I got tough, though..
The first time I felt fully free in since my late teen years was during that last taxi ride to the airport as a corporal with an honorable discharge.
I got out two months early on a "school cut" and went back to college paid for by the G.I; bill.
I figured out what I wanted to do and two years later I graduated,
An honorary discharge and a piece of paper that states that my last promotion was under meritorious conditions DOES look good on a resume..
I was lucky. Things did not turned out the same way for everyone who got drafted during the 60s.
A thing to remember about that Vietnam black wall monument is that not every name on it was a volunteer.

My position, as I have stated in the past is that there should be no conscription. If women insist they want equality in every way with men, that includes the "right" to be conscripted.

Again, we should not have conscription in the US. We do not need it. If the public supports the military action, more than enough will volunteer, for example WW2. If the public does not support it, they should rethink getting involved in the first place. For example, Vietnam, Korea.

Note: I don't mention the more recent actions, we are still in there, and too many lies spewed to have an honest discussion about it yet.

There is a new book out; Tied up or twisted up...it's about how the equality issue didn't solve anything, no one is any happier, in fact, everyone is more confused and unhappy than they perceived themselves to be before.

Men and Women are equal...Equal partners according to each their own essence, just as the laws of nature intended.

I always valued the American way of appreciating women, pretty much differently than the rest of the world...sure there are some that don't here in America, but back in my day...it wasn't representative. I see women on our front lines, no matter how capable, a travesty and a net negative for society as a whole, it just doesn't seem right...but this is the "be what ever you will" society...only time will tell, long after we're gone.

I'm sorry you got drafted. I had a reasonable number and a student deferment until they weren't drafting many, but it was clearly a threat hanging over me.

This is a weird one because I think it should be both genders if it exists -- and I don't think it should exist. I'm hoping that adding young girls to the registration will end the whole thing.

All the money we spend on maintaining a useless database is simply wasted. I don't think the Soviet Union is intimidated anymore -- if it ever was.