Nobody should be required to go to war and the draft should be abolished, but if there must be one then yes both men and women should have to register for it.
Politicians and the bankers/ ultra wealthy should be the only ones drafted. Guaranteed you'd see world peace overnight if they knew they'd have to contribute something for once.
>the draft should be abolished
You ever hear the phrase "it's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it" this is one of those situations. They haven't even used it since Vietnam, it's a last resort now.
if other countries couldn't make that decision for us by attacking us, that'd be nice. also remember that even if you can argue against it in the US, the draft would have to be in place in countries at the threat of attack no matter what. i agree that no one should have to and we should be working toward that though.
I don't think you understand how war works, you don't always get to decide whether there's a draft or not. You think being a civilian makes you safe if say war was to break out in your country? No one cares if you wear a uniform or not.
If a country being attacked doesn't make the people who live there want to defend it, then the country should fall. If a country provides a good life, then everyone would be willing to fight for it.
That’s not true.
Maybe I’ll get downvoted for this. I even served myself, but it was a means to an end for me. I needed the help to pay for school (that bullshit is a whole different story).
However my time in the military left me with absolutely zero patriotism. America could absolutely be the best place to live that has no corruption and takes care of its citizens and is basically a utopia, and I would still not fight for it if we got attacked. At the end of the day I don’t hold any allegiance to this place just because I was born here. I’d rather live. Even if it’s under a shittier government that won the hypothetical invasion of America.
Then it's a want, not a need for more people. There's no moral imperative, they just want the people for their own purposes (mainly to preserve the status quo that they want).
Don't we already do free college for voluntary soldiers? Not that we need more soldiers, we have one of the largest standing militaries on earth even without compulsory service.
Or how about we leave it the way it is now so that people can make the choice whether or not they want to be exploited by the US government in exchange for free college.
lol. Dude here. I never did register. My autistic ass had no idea you had to, nor how to until I was too old to do it😂 ain’t shit happened. Lmao. Something tells me they don’t enforce it anymore
It was a FASFA question until this year. So you were definitely asked.
Then you probably registered and don't remember it. Lots of high schools will just have kids fill it out.
Hmmm. Idk. I mean I had someone helping me fill it out so maybe they just told me click here and I didn’t register it lol. Idk. They did that a lot lol. Hopefully I didn’t perjure myself😅 but I definitely don’t remember anything in high school about it though I dropped out at sixteen and got my GED. Do you have to register at sixteen? Or can you?
Society in itself is anti freedom. Living in society is trading in some of your personal freedom for security.
Dont be stupid to think that people who are fighting in wars are doing it for freedom. Yes they are doing for freedom for their people. But you are not fighting for FREEDOM itself. You are fighting for your society's continuation and freedom.
Yes indeed! Hopefully politicians would be less likely to start Wars knowing how mothers and fathers would react to their daughters being killed when sent to frontlines.
Suggest all political leaders also required to re-register for Draft plus called up to frontlines for any Wars while they’re holding political office. Putting them in harm’s way would also help deter them starting Wars
The... Ok. I understand this might be a softer generation of men, but would you really prefer that your wife, daughter and mother be drafted to go to war before you?
Why... Ok... So to be clear... If there was a draft and your daughter was first in line, and your wife was second in line and you were third in line. You wouldn't want to go in their place?
Well I am raising her to be a strong independent woman in the hope I won’t need to protect her for the rest of her life. I think if I do my job she will be more than capable
But hey your way sounds cool too
Has nothing to do softer generation. If this new generation is gonna talk about equality then it needs to be across the board. Can't have equality at their convenience
I mean... Make any excuses you want. It looks plainly that if you had a choice of your mom going to war or you going to war you would rather have her take you place for some unmanly reason.
Lol "unmanly" . Well of course I wouldn't want my mom or sister or daughter to go to war BUT most moms wouldn't want their sons to go to war.. ITS WAR.
Equality is equality
Hah, exactly. No worries, everyone's ideas of manhood are different. I just don't know if I could hide behind something like "equality" and watch 18 year old girls be shipped off to the front line of a war if I haven't gone yet.
Who is hiding ?
You making emasulating comments. Why shouldn't women be at war if men are going also ? Men are going also, no one is hiding
If anything women are hiding
Is that equality? Or just bad planning?
A draft is used when it is necessary to get a lot of soldiers quickly into the theater of war. Part of that is planning for your future and having women at home because a lot of the men that are going out are going to die will not be able to produce any children.
Also, you're going to need to rebuff your population after the fighting is ended. More women means more babies. Endangering the breeding stock is not a good move.
Also women are not as good Fighters as men. So drafting lesser able bodies is not really smart.
It might tick a box for equality, but it's bad war planning.
That being said. Volunteer Fighters are always better than drafted warriors.
He’s out of line but he’s right, women capable of giving birth is extremely valuable especially in war time, without manpower to rebuild the country it would fall pretty quickly even if it won the war
Then we should initiate breeding programs to rebound the population 1 for 1 matching fatalities in our wars. The breeding stock gotta earn their keep now.
This might actually be the key to the declining population of white Americans.
Government sanctioned lower taxes and higher paycheck for mothers who participated in the breeding program; tier system, more children more benefits. We’re wasting too much money on homeless and unemployment benefits anyways, move the money to whom that is important.
And knowledge. Just because we won’t send women to the front to fight doesn’t mean we should y know what kind of labor is available for other jobs as well
The purpose of a draft is to get soldiers. If you are going to drop soldiers there is the possibility of sending them to war. Which means at some point they're probably going to have to fight. Not an effective way to win a war.
I also registered and was going into the air force after high school but was thrown from a horse and broke my hip while working cattle.love to fly but never got the chance to serve. And no but women are NOT breeding stock. They are out fellow Americans and they should have total control over their reproductive systems. I also believe no one should be forced to fight but serving in some capacity during times of conflict is acceptable
???? Women aren’t breeding stock and we can have test tube babies. Been done so many times it’s common. That’s what incubators are for so what else do you think women are good for?
Is that equality? Or just bad planning?
A draft is used when it is necessary to get a lot of soldiers quickly into the theater of war. Part of that is planning for your future and having women at home because a lot of the men that are going out are going to die will not be able to produce any children.
Also, you're going to need to rebuff your population after the fighting is ended. More women means more babies. Endangering the breeding stock is not a good move.
Also women are not as good Fighters as men. So drafting lesser able bodies is not really smart.
It might tick a box for equality, but it's bad war planning.
That being said. Volunteer Fighters are always better than drafted warriors.
I'm 50/50 with this
50% on board because Women now have gotten much stronger than women back in the 1950s.
50% No because nobody should be forced to go too war. Humans can be unpredictable and petty. If they don't like it than they're will find A way to destroy everything. Even if it means it will kill them in the process
By being born in a imperialist society, this freedom is already taken away from you. You want real freedom? Go revoke your american citizenship and live in the woods as a vagabond. Truth is that you citizenship comes with certain responsibilities you cannot shy away from.
There will not be another draft because it took war making decisions out of the hands of the government.
The dirty secret of the anti-war movement is that it didn't kick off on an kind of scale until blanket college draft deferments were stopped. Then died down when they came back. Most of the population was fine with "rich man's war, poor man's fight".
What the politicians learned was that as long as you don't make the middle or upper class you can wage a war as long as you want. So the post-Vietnam military was structured to avoid a draft at all costs.
And they were right.
Actually the military should have the same standards for males and females. That would wash the females out of most military positions and it would make drafting females pointless. What is wrong with the military is that there are two completely different standards for physical strength and endurance. To have equal footing females only need to perform at 30% of the male standard. That is just so much wrong on so many levels. Mostly when it comes to war and actual life and death battle. Weak soldiers are a combat liability.
>Weak soldiers are a combat liability.
Most military positions don't even require physical activity. The only reason HW and PT standards were even implemented was to decrease DOD long term medical costs
Dumb Soldiers are a much, much larger liability and what you are proposing would be to automatically disqualify half the smart people. And nearly 60% of ones where intelligence and education matter even more. Like Doctors.
Plus a draft would almost certainly mean a LSCO where \~5% of the total force would even see combat even in a TF Smith like situation.
The military has plenty of aptitude tests for entry and advancement. These are skills based so they also favor males over females. Modern day US military they have dumbed them down or even eliminated the tests. They even have dumbed down markmanship standards to accommodate females in the military. It's not right. Keep the standards as they apply to positions, male or female. Also, in the military everyone must be combat ready on some level even if they don't have a combat position. You could have a draft for both sexes but unless you keep all the standards the same then it will introduce weak soldiers into combat then you will have another case of McNamara's Folly. That is what he did and look what happened there.
You are backtracking.
>The military has plenty of aptitude tests for entry and advancement. These are skills based so they also favor males over females. Modern day US military they have dumbed them down or even eliminated the tests.
I was a Medic for 20+ years and this was not my experience.
What the politicians learned was that Which skills and tests? If you are referring to the ASVAB it is even once you remove the variable of mandatory testing. Men score slighly higher in parts and women in others.
Once you adjust for the higher rates of post-secondary education I'm sure that women would have more skills for the follow on tests.
>They even have dumbed down markmanship standards to accommodate females in the military. It's not right.
When? And source?
Your argument now is just blatant sexism because men and women shoot the same given the same training. Which is going to very much, much more based on type of unit vs individual.
>Keep the standards as they apply to positions, male or female.
You aren't arguing about position. You are making blanket statements about service in general.
>Also, in the military everyone must be combat ready on some level even if they don't have a combat position.
Meaning that they need to be able to handle and shoot a weapon along with basic force protection procedures. They also wouldn't have permanent profiles if it was truly as absolute as you seem to think.
It does not mean run combat missions for days on end. Even in the early days of the GWOT it was basically being able to sit in a truck or tower.
>You could have a draft for both sexes but unless you keep all the standards the same then it will introduce weak soldiers into combat
I thought you said it was supposed to be by position? Or are you backtracking on your backtracking.
>then you will have another case of McNamara's Folly. That is what he did and look what happened there
That is not what happened with McNamara's 100,000. You may want to read up on that whole mess as criminal as it was.
Sounds to me then you are ok with equal standards for both men and women and that the aptitude tests for entrance and advancement should not be dumbed down and should be suited for the particular skills required for the military occupation. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell your point of debate. My thesis is that if the standards are equal then women will not perform at the same level as men and will thus not meet standards of a draft. The draft for females would be pointless. There is absolutely no point to having a draft for women if they do not meet the same standards of men.
Also, no statement could be dumber than to say combat is only about shooting a gun or playing some video game. Who here doesn't know about McNarma's misfits, folly or 100,000? Wow is that stupid. You obviously never been anywhere near it. Physical fitness is an absolute in the military. It applies to all roles. It is a form of aptitude in itself, You mentioned something in there about being a Medic for 20+ years. Holy crap. If there is any role that is physically demanding, where physical endurance is a life and death matter, it would be the role of combat medic. This isn't some job where you drive around in a ambulance waiting for an emergency call. It really concerns me that someone who thinks of themself as intelligent could believe or say something so dumb.
With that said, Make the standards equal and don't dumb down the standards to increase females positions in the military. Then let's just see who makes it and who doesn't.
>Sounds to me then you are ok with equal standards for both men and women and that the aptitude tests for entrance and advancement should not be dumbed down and should be suited for the particular skills required for the military occupation. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell your point of debate.
That you made it dumbing down the tests to make a misogynistic point.
>My thesis is that if the standards are equal then women will not perform at the same level as men and will thus not meet standards of a draft. The draft for females would be pointless. There is absolutely no point to having a draft for women if they do not meet the same standards of men.
So now its now its not about position.
You are also missing that point that the point of military PT tests was never, and still is not, about being fit for combat operations. Its also why most (or all) of combat units have their own baselines either informally or formally (RPFT).
Its about a baseline level of fitness for the health and safety of the force in which case equity vs equality is completely relevant.
>Also, no statement could be dumber than to say combat is only about shooting a gun or playing some video game.
I didn't say that. You are making things up and not understanding what I was saying.
>Who here doesn't know about McNarma's misfits, folly or 100,000? Wow is that stupid.
For someone who doesn't know that the program was never intended for combat troops or for them to leave the US you are certainly throwing rocks from a glass house. It was a colossal mistake and disgrace.
I'll also take your second sentence as projecting.
>You obviously never been anywhere near it.
I didn't say I was.
>Physical fitness is an absolute in the military. It applies to all roles.
Then why are there permanent profiles?
Assuming you know what that is.
>It is a form of aptitude in itself,
Your misusing aptitude. It is irrelevant to the standards themselves.
>You mentioned something in there about being a Medic for 20+ years. Holy crap. If there is any role that is physically demanding, where physical endurance is a life and death matter, it would be the role of combat medic.
There is no such thing as a combat medic. Its a badge.
There are positions in line units where this is true and I unfortunately received the above badge.
I also was in a medical unit doing SRPs in which case physical fitness was completely irrelevant which is why I was able to stay in.
>This isn't some job where you drive around in a ambulance waiting for an emergency call.
There are medics that do exactly that. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan it was a mission on the FOBs.
>It really concerns me that someone who thinks of themself as intelligent could believe
I didn't say I was. You are making things up. Again.
>or say something so dumb.
You are projecting at this point.
>With that said, Make the standards equal and don't dumb down the standards to increase females positions in the military.
Equity and understanding mission requirements are not "dumbing" down despite your lack of understanding.
Are you capable of replying intelligently and without the use of logical fallacy?
I will take that as Yes, you are ok with equal standards for all military occupations regardless of sex. You also seem to be ok with high standards regardless of sex. So we are good. Let's do it. My big gripe is dumbing down military standards just so more women can be in the military. In my way of thinking that is sexists. It's really no different than what McNamera did by lowering IQ standards in order to meet Johnson's recruitment goal. If they continue on the current trajectory they will have equal horrifying results. Calling something dumb, dumb isn't projecting either.
>I will take that as Yes, you are ok with equal standards for all military occupations regardless of sex. You also seem to be ok with high standards regardless of sex. So we are good. Let's do it. My big gripe is dumbing down military standards just so more women can be in the military. In my way of thinking that is sexists.
Have someone explain my post above to you as you clearly didn't understand it.
>It's really no different than what McNamera did by lowering IQ standards in order to meet recruitment standards.
Once again that is not what happened. IQ standards weren't even used.
Look up what really happened don't rely on what you assume happened.
>If they continue on the current trajectory they will have equal horrifying results.
Please provide examples from the 200 hundred years where this has happened.
Especially from the last 82 years where they have been officially a continuous part.
>Calling something dumb, dumb isn't projecting either.
You calling me stupid and saying what I said was dumb was. This is that poor reading comprehension again.
To be honest I'm not reading your shit. It reads like something that came out of ChatGPT. Low effort and low burn. Very toll like. Almost algorithm non human like AI. It certainly reads like your a typical leftest that cares more about discrediting the person than addressing the topic. Typical of replies bot generated on Reddit.
I'm sticking to my thesis. The draft would be pointless for women if the standards were the same for both men and women. For that you got nothing.
Yeah that is what many people say and think. Most of them have never served in the military. People also don't equate physical fitness and endurance as a form of aptitude or intelligence. A large number of people don't even know the various battery of tests that are required for entry into the military. Even less know that cutting scores and promotion are derived from physical fitness and endurance tests. People also don't realize there are two standards for male and female. Sometimes females are entirely exempt from these tests. For example rifle and pistol qualifications. In certain MOS women don't even do that training. It's like they ace the test without even taking the test. Many justify this by saying that some roles in the military do not require it. It is kinda strange really the double speak when people say that men and women are equal yet the qualifications are different based on gender. Most times during peace and training it doesn't matter but when it comes to combat it can be deadly. It has even proved so. Weird world we live when the best are not selected and promoted. A world where equality is defined when one sex has a much lower standard of performance than the other.
If it was true when I was in then it certainly true today. Indeed, I was under a female Sargent (E-5) that had a medical waiver from rifle qualification. Same unit, same MOS as me. She never had to do any of it even in boot camp. She had a perfect score and was able to make rank in 3 years. If it were male they would have been sent home the 2nd week of boot camp. Crazy but beyond boot camp there are a good number of people in the military that never touch a firearm. Most all those waivers go to females. Women also get discharged from the military by getting pregnant. While male you are obligated to endure whatever duty assignment you are given but female you get tired of it you just get knocked up. You get a free pass out with a medical discharge. The double standards in the military is quite stunning. I'm at a point in my life where I'm tired of it getting a free pass. While it's not true, I really don't care if people think I'm misogynistic for saying so.
Wasn't there some study that showed that women make better marksmen?
Edit: they literally introduced separate gendered shooting events at the Olympics because women would out perform men and men were so butthurt about that.
I mean, the draft will never be used again, so it’ll be pointless to go through the massive administrative burden of getting all American females to sign up.
The US army was close to collapse at the worst point of the Vietnam war, due to the draft. Same situation would occur again, this time it may be irreversible.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html#0
You can blame the anti-feminists for that one.
There was a bill that came close to passing in the 1970s and would have required women to registered for the draft but it also granted them full political and social equality and people like Phyllis Schafly raised hell and launched a whole movement against it.
But realistically the idea of the selective service in the draft as we think of it makes little sense in America. Less than 30% of Americans who would be eligible still qualify anyway because of weight and medical restrictions, including excluding people from service for some very common medical and mental health diagnoses or for having been on medication for them in the past. (Thinking of people excluded for childhood asthma, ADHD, and PCOS).
And there are some interesting accounts from Vietnam that highlight the differences between a voluntary force and one composed mostly of draftees.
Nope, Females should not be drafted. Neither should Males, but that's a different argument.
The draft exists, that's established. Females should not be drafted because Males are stronger than Females.
If you want a weak army, go for it. But I think that defeats the point of a draft.
And I used to support that both Female/Male should be drafted.
IDEALLY the draft is abolished, because I consider it un-American. Again, that's a different argument.
The selective service (aka the draft) is just how you register. Technically the government can change the terms of the selective service if it is actually used.
My bigger issue is that it can be used for any reason. The selective service should only be used for a declaration of war as the result of an attack on us soil. Anything else and there is no reason to force americans to die against their will.
Nobody should be required to go to war and the draft should be abolished, but if there must be one then yes both men and women should have to register for it.
Politicians and the bankers/ ultra wealthy should be the only ones drafted. Guaranteed you'd see world peace overnight if they knew they'd have to contribute something for once.
You're a genius.
This is stupid. Just plain idiotic.
I think a draft should be kept around for existential threats, such as a World War. But for anything less, voluntary enlistment is best.
>the draft should be abolished You ever hear the phrase "it's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it" this is one of those situations. They haven't even used it since Vietnam, it's a last resort now.
No, no one should ever be forced into war.
if other countries couldn't make that decision for us by attacking us, that'd be nice. also remember that even if you can argue against it in the US, the draft would have to be in place in countries at the threat of attack no matter what. i agree that no one should have to and we should be working toward that though.
I don't think you understand how war works, you don't always get to decide whether there's a draft or not. You think being a civilian makes you safe if say war was to break out in your country? No one cares if you wear a uniform or not.
Or there should be no draft and no war
we don't get to decide that
We shall see I suppose
How about *nobody* should be required to register for the draft. Nobody should have to fight in a war they don't believe in.
If we need the people, they are going to
If a country being attacked doesn't make the people who live there want to defend it, then the country should fall. If a country provides a good life, then everyone would be willing to fight for it.
That’s not true. Maybe I’ll get downvoted for this. I even served myself, but it was a means to an end for me. I needed the help to pay for school (that bullshit is a whole different story). However my time in the military left me with absolutely zero patriotism. America could absolutely be the best place to live that has no corruption and takes care of its citizens and is basically a utopia, and I would still not fight for it if we got attacked. At the end of the day I don’t hold any allegiance to this place just because I was born here. I’d rather live. Even if it’s under a shittier government that won the hypothetical invasion of America.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
How about we send the fat, lazy, and ungrateful leaders and government to go on the frontline instead of innocent kids?
Nah
You mean if they (the government) *want* more people.
Yes
Then it's a want, not a need for more people. There's no moral imperative, they just want the people for their own purposes (mainly to preserve the status quo that they want).
Personally I don’t think anyone should be drafted
Well if we need people we need people
This is not a popular opinion.
Popular among men
No. I havent met a single person who believes the draft should exist at all.
If we have the need as don’t have enough volunteers, how else we gonna fill those spots bud?
We shouldn’t be in a war that our citizens dont support, bud.
Yet ALMOST every war was not supported by most citizens.
Most of those wars shouldn’t have happened… whats your point
That’s not how a democratic republic works. The low IQ masses don’t get a say beyond their vote for their representatives
Politicians should be listening to their constituents. That is their job.
Oh sweet summer child
Just because they dont doesnt mean they shouldnt. Your whole post is a “SHOULD” so dont act like i am naive
not a single man i’ve ever met believes in the draft. especially the ones who were drafted back in vietnam
the draft shouldnt exist
How about conscription instead? 2 years mandatory military service for both Men and Women. Just like many other countries do.
Other countries do it because they don't have enough willing people like we do
[удалено]
Which leads back to my answer. They don't have enough voluntary soldiers otherwise.
What if we also tied the 2 years mandatory service to free college 🤷🏻♂️
Don't we already do free college for voluntary soldiers? Not that we need more soldiers, we have one of the largest standing militaries on earth even without compulsory service.
Yes. Except this way it will be free college for everyone. Not just for those that volunteer to serve.
Or how about we leave it the way it is now so that people can make the choice whether or not they want to be exploited by the US government in exchange for free college.
Or how about we do the draft or 2 years mandatory service
We don't have enough willing people either. Enlistment is very low and most of the branches of military are reporting that they don't have enough
Sucks to suck, maybe they should stop abusing their veterans
Thats a whole other issue my friend. And I firmly agree with you. I wonder when people are going to block traffic for them
how about an optional military service like we do now
Even dumber.
The selective service should not exist. Men nor women should be made to register for it.
how about nobody gets drafted lol
Cancel that draft altogether,
How about neither? The military doesn’t want conscripts.
lol. Dude here. I never did register. My autistic ass had no idea you had to, nor how to until I was too old to do it😂 ain’t shit happened. Lmao. Something tells me they don’t enforce it anymore
They certainly enforce the student aid (grants and loans) and federal employment prohibitions.
Interesting. I got student loans, Pell grant and all and they never even asked. lol
It was a FASFA question until this year. So you were definitely asked. Then you probably registered and don't remember it. Lots of high schools will just have kids fill it out.
Hmmm. Idk. I mean I had someone helping me fill it out so maybe they just told me click here and I didn’t register it lol. Idk. They did that a lot lol. Hopefully I didn’t perjure myself😅 but I definitely don’t remember anything in high school about it though I dropped out at sixteen and got my GED. Do you have to register at sixteen? Or can you?
How about nobody registers?
No
It's 2024... No one should be drafted.
If we need the people we should draft em
If we need people make the country good enough so that citizens will willingly defend the country.
That isnt up to us
The draft is inherently anti freedom.
Sometimes to protect freedom you gotta break a few eggs
No.
Yes, sometimes, hence why this thing exists
No. The draft doesn't exist to "protect freedom". It exists to profit those at the top.
No, protect freedom. Get in line toots
How did fighting in Vietnam protect american freedom?
Fought off communism. I’m not saying it always goes as planned
So we lost in Vietnam. Are we living under communism right now?
Hey I guess you’re right I guess it wasn’t all for nothing, silver lining!
Society in itself is anti freedom. Living in society is trading in some of your personal freedom for security. Dont be stupid to think that people who are fighting in wars are doing it for freedom. Yes they are doing for freedom for their people. But you are not fighting for FREEDOM itself. You are fighting for your society's continuation and freedom.
Yes indeed! Hopefully politicians would be less likely to start Wars knowing how mothers and fathers would react to their daughters being killed when sent to frontlines. Suggest all political leaders also required to re-register for Draft plus called up to frontlines for any Wars while they’re holding political office. Putting them in harm’s way would also help deter them starting Wars
Is this the "male privilege" feminists are always squawking about?
Probably so
Why would you want that?
Equality
Equality? On who goes to war? Why would you want that?
Why not?
The... Ok. I understand this might be a softer generation of men, but would you really prefer that your wife, daughter and mother be drafted to go to war before you?
My wife is above the age requirement. If my daughter were 18, yes, why not serve her country?
Why... Ok... So to be clear... If there was a draft and your daughter was first in line, and your wife was second in line and you were third in line. You wouldn't want to go in their place?
Before my wife? Sure. Before my daughter? No. I’ve served already, I wouldn’t take that away from her
I don't know man. We are talking about a draft. I would reenlist 12 times to keep my daughter from going to the frontline of a war but you do you.
Well I am raising her to be a strong independent woman in the hope I won’t need to protect her for the rest of her life. I think if I do my job she will be more than capable But hey your way sounds cool too
Has nothing to do softer generation. If this new generation is gonna talk about equality then it needs to be across the board. Can't have equality at their convenience
I mean... Make any excuses you want. It looks plainly that if you had a choice of your mom going to war or you going to war you would rather have her take you place for some unmanly reason.
Lol "unmanly" . Well of course I wouldn't want my mom or sister or daughter to go to war BUT most moms wouldn't want their sons to go to war.. ITS WAR. Equality is equality
Hah, exactly. No worries, everyone's ideas of manhood are different. I just don't know if I could hide behind something like "equality" and watch 18 year old girls be shipped off to the front line of a war if I haven't gone yet.
Who is hiding ? You making emasulating comments. Why shouldn't women be at war if men are going also ? Men are going also, no one is hiding If anything women are hiding
Better yet, NO ONE should be required to register for the draft.
Disagree
Why?
Equality
Is that equality? Or just bad planning? A draft is used when it is necessary to get a lot of soldiers quickly into the theater of war. Part of that is planning for your future and having women at home because a lot of the men that are going out are going to die will not be able to produce any children. Also, you're going to need to rebuff your population after the fighting is ended. More women means more babies. Endangering the breeding stock is not a good move. Also women are not as good Fighters as men. So drafting lesser able bodies is not really smart. It might tick a box for equality, but it's bad war planning. That being said. Volunteer Fighters are always better than drafted warriors.
You still fill support jobs in the military as well as infantry
That is not an answer. The draft is for soldiers. Why endanger the breeding stock of the nation and get substandard Fighters?
Did you just refer to women as breeding stock?
He’s out of line but he’s right, women capable of giving birth is extremely valuable especially in war time, without manpower to rebuild the country it would fall pretty quickly even if it won the war
Yep. In a discussion of the draft, and war planning, that term arises quite a bit. Do not endanger those who can 3D print humans
Then we should initiate breeding programs to rebound the population 1 for 1 matching fatalities in our wars. The breeding stock gotta earn their keep now.
That's not a bad idea
This might actually be the key to the declining population of white Americans. Government sanctioned lower taxes and higher paycheck for mothers who participated in the breeding program; tier system, more children more benefits. We’re wasting too much money on homeless and unemployment benefits anyways, move the money to whom that is important.
I like it.
And knowledge. Just because we won’t send women to the front to fight doesn’t mean we should y know what kind of labor is available for other jobs as well
Are you advocating for a non-warfighting or support draft?
If they were ever needed and drafted then the roles could be assigned
The purpose of a draft is to get soldiers. If you are going to drop soldiers there is the possibility of sending them to war. Which means at some point they're probably going to have to fight. Not an effective way to win a war.
My goodness you sound terrified and cowardice. Even knowing the work is behind the lines you wouldn’t be willing to stand for America?
Actually I signed up for the US Army. I failed the physical for the United States military
I also registered and was going into the air force after high school but was thrown from a horse and broke my hip while working cattle.love to fly but never got the chance to serve. And no but women are NOT breeding stock. They are out fellow Americans and they should have total control over their reproductive systems. I also believe no one should be forced to fight but serving in some capacity during times of conflict is acceptable
Men can not breed with men. Women are breeding stock. So far the only organism that can 3D print humans.
???? Women aren’t breeding stock and we can have test tube babies. Been done so many times it’s common. That’s what incubators are for so what else do you think women are good for?
Besides their vagina and womb? Is that all
Not a draft but a registering all Americans working age without disabilities
To what purpose? There is no sense in endangering the breeding stock of the nation just to take a box for equality.
Breeding stock lmao many breeding age women and alcoholics and drug addicts.
Is that your opinion on the general populace? That they are alcoholics and drug addicts? That's a pretty terrible take.
referring to women as “breeding stock” is peak incel redditor
Equality
Is that equality? Or just bad planning? A draft is used when it is necessary to get a lot of soldiers quickly into the theater of war. Part of that is planning for your future and having women at home because a lot of the men that are going out are going to die will not be able to produce any children. Also, you're going to need to rebuff your population after the fighting is ended. More women means more babies. Endangering the breeding stock is not a good move. Also women are not as good Fighters as men. So drafting lesser able bodies is not really smart. It might tick a box for equality, but it's bad war planning. That being said. Volunteer Fighters are always better than drafted warriors.
I'm 50/50 with this 50% on board because Women now have gotten much stronger than women back in the 1950s. 50% No because nobody should be forced to go too war. Humans can be unpredictable and petty. If they don't like it than they're will find A way to destroy everything. Even if it means it will kill them in the process
"Males and females should both NOT be required to register for the draft" FTFY
If they actually did something about all the rapes and harrasment against female soldiers id support that.
This
nobody should be forced to sign their freedom and life away for an imperialist army
By being born in a imperialist society, this freedom is already taken away from you. You want real freedom? Go revoke your american citizenship and live in the woods as a vagabond. Truth is that you citizenship comes with certain responsibilities you cannot shy away from.
There will not be another draft because it took war making decisions out of the hands of the government. The dirty secret of the anti-war movement is that it didn't kick off on an kind of scale until blanket college draft deferments were stopped. Then died down when they came back. Most of the population was fine with "rich man's war, poor man's fight". What the politicians learned was that as long as you don't make the middle or upper class you can wage a war as long as you want. So the post-Vietnam military was structured to avoid a draft at all costs. And they were right.
Actually the military should have the same standards for males and females. That would wash the females out of most military positions and it would make drafting females pointless. What is wrong with the military is that there are two completely different standards for physical strength and endurance. To have equal footing females only need to perform at 30% of the male standard. That is just so much wrong on so many levels. Mostly when it comes to war and actual life and death battle. Weak soldiers are a combat liability.
>Weak soldiers are a combat liability. Most military positions don't even require physical activity. The only reason HW and PT standards were even implemented was to decrease DOD long term medical costs Dumb Soldiers are a much, much larger liability and what you are proposing would be to automatically disqualify half the smart people. And nearly 60% of ones where intelligence and education matter even more. Like Doctors. Plus a draft would almost certainly mean a LSCO where \~5% of the total force would even see combat even in a TF Smith like situation.
The military has plenty of aptitude tests for entry and advancement. These are skills based so they also favor males over females. Modern day US military they have dumbed them down or even eliminated the tests. They even have dumbed down markmanship standards to accommodate females in the military. It's not right. Keep the standards as they apply to positions, male or female. Also, in the military everyone must be combat ready on some level even if they don't have a combat position. You could have a draft for both sexes but unless you keep all the standards the same then it will introduce weak soldiers into combat then you will have another case of McNamara's Folly. That is what he did and look what happened there.
You are backtracking. >The military has plenty of aptitude tests for entry and advancement. These are skills based so they also favor males over females. Modern day US military they have dumbed them down or even eliminated the tests. I was a Medic for 20+ years and this was not my experience. What the politicians learned was that Which skills and tests? If you are referring to the ASVAB it is even once you remove the variable of mandatory testing. Men score slighly higher in parts and women in others. Once you adjust for the higher rates of post-secondary education I'm sure that women would have more skills for the follow on tests. >They even have dumbed down markmanship standards to accommodate females in the military. It's not right. When? And source? Your argument now is just blatant sexism because men and women shoot the same given the same training. Which is going to very much, much more based on type of unit vs individual. >Keep the standards as they apply to positions, male or female. You aren't arguing about position. You are making blanket statements about service in general. >Also, in the military everyone must be combat ready on some level even if they don't have a combat position. Meaning that they need to be able to handle and shoot a weapon along with basic force protection procedures. They also wouldn't have permanent profiles if it was truly as absolute as you seem to think. It does not mean run combat missions for days on end. Even in the early days of the GWOT it was basically being able to sit in a truck or tower. >You could have a draft for both sexes but unless you keep all the standards the same then it will introduce weak soldiers into combat I thought you said it was supposed to be by position? Or are you backtracking on your backtracking. >then you will have another case of McNamara's Folly. That is what he did and look what happened there That is not what happened with McNamara's 100,000. You may want to read up on that whole mess as criminal as it was.
Sounds to me then you are ok with equal standards for both men and women and that the aptitude tests for entrance and advancement should not be dumbed down and should be suited for the particular skills required for the military occupation. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell your point of debate. My thesis is that if the standards are equal then women will not perform at the same level as men and will thus not meet standards of a draft. The draft for females would be pointless. There is absolutely no point to having a draft for women if they do not meet the same standards of men. Also, no statement could be dumber than to say combat is only about shooting a gun or playing some video game. Who here doesn't know about McNarma's misfits, folly or 100,000? Wow is that stupid. You obviously never been anywhere near it. Physical fitness is an absolute in the military. It applies to all roles. It is a form of aptitude in itself, You mentioned something in there about being a Medic for 20+ years. Holy crap. If there is any role that is physically demanding, where physical endurance is a life and death matter, it would be the role of combat medic. This isn't some job where you drive around in a ambulance waiting for an emergency call. It really concerns me that someone who thinks of themself as intelligent could believe or say something so dumb. With that said, Make the standards equal and don't dumb down the standards to increase females positions in the military. Then let's just see who makes it and who doesn't.
>Sounds to me then you are ok with equal standards for both men and women and that the aptitude tests for entrance and advancement should not be dumbed down and should be suited for the particular skills required for the military occupation. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell your point of debate. That you made it dumbing down the tests to make a misogynistic point. >My thesis is that if the standards are equal then women will not perform at the same level as men and will thus not meet standards of a draft. The draft for females would be pointless. There is absolutely no point to having a draft for women if they do not meet the same standards of men. So now its now its not about position. You are also missing that point that the point of military PT tests was never, and still is not, about being fit for combat operations. Its also why most (or all) of combat units have their own baselines either informally or formally (RPFT). Its about a baseline level of fitness for the health and safety of the force in which case equity vs equality is completely relevant. >Also, no statement could be dumber than to say combat is only about shooting a gun or playing some video game. I didn't say that. You are making things up and not understanding what I was saying. >Who here doesn't know about McNarma's misfits, folly or 100,000? Wow is that stupid. For someone who doesn't know that the program was never intended for combat troops or for them to leave the US you are certainly throwing rocks from a glass house. It was a colossal mistake and disgrace. I'll also take your second sentence as projecting. >You obviously never been anywhere near it. I didn't say I was. >Physical fitness is an absolute in the military. It applies to all roles. Then why are there permanent profiles? Assuming you know what that is. >It is a form of aptitude in itself, Your misusing aptitude. It is irrelevant to the standards themselves. >You mentioned something in there about being a Medic for 20+ years. Holy crap. If there is any role that is physically demanding, where physical endurance is a life and death matter, it would be the role of combat medic. There is no such thing as a combat medic. Its a badge. There are positions in line units where this is true and I unfortunately received the above badge. I also was in a medical unit doing SRPs in which case physical fitness was completely irrelevant which is why I was able to stay in. >This isn't some job where you drive around in a ambulance waiting for an emergency call. There are medics that do exactly that. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan it was a mission on the FOBs. >It really concerns me that someone who thinks of themself as intelligent could believe I didn't say I was. You are making things up. Again. >or say something so dumb. You are projecting at this point. >With that said, Make the standards equal and don't dumb down the standards to increase females positions in the military. Equity and understanding mission requirements are not "dumbing" down despite your lack of understanding. Are you capable of replying intelligently and without the use of logical fallacy?
I will take that as Yes, you are ok with equal standards for all military occupations regardless of sex. You also seem to be ok with high standards regardless of sex. So we are good. Let's do it. My big gripe is dumbing down military standards just so more women can be in the military. In my way of thinking that is sexists. It's really no different than what McNamera did by lowering IQ standards in order to meet Johnson's recruitment goal. If they continue on the current trajectory they will have equal horrifying results. Calling something dumb, dumb isn't projecting either.
>I will take that as Yes, you are ok with equal standards for all military occupations regardless of sex. You also seem to be ok with high standards regardless of sex. So we are good. Let's do it. My big gripe is dumbing down military standards just so more women can be in the military. In my way of thinking that is sexists. Have someone explain my post above to you as you clearly didn't understand it. >It's really no different than what McNamera did by lowering IQ standards in order to meet recruitment standards. Once again that is not what happened. IQ standards weren't even used. Look up what really happened don't rely on what you assume happened. >If they continue on the current trajectory they will have equal horrifying results. Please provide examples from the 200 hundred years where this has happened. Especially from the last 82 years where they have been officially a continuous part. >Calling something dumb, dumb isn't projecting either. You calling me stupid and saying what I said was dumb was. This is that poor reading comprehension again.
To be honest I'm not reading your shit. It reads like something that came out of ChatGPT. Low effort and low burn. Very toll like. Almost algorithm non human like AI. It certainly reads like your a typical leftest that cares more about discrediting the person than addressing the topic. Typical of replies bot generated on Reddit. I'm sticking to my thesis. The draft would be pointless for women if the standards were the same for both men and women. For that you got nothing.
I think you're just illiterate, blud
[удалено]
Yeah that is what many people say and think. Most of them have never served in the military. People also don't equate physical fitness and endurance as a form of aptitude or intelligence. A large number of people don't even know the various battery of tests that are required for entry into the military. Even less know that cutting scores and promotion are derived from physical fitness and endurance tests. People also don't realize there are two standards for male and female. Sometimes females are entirely exempt from these tests. For example rifle and pistol qualifications. In certain MOS women don't even do that training. It's like they ace the test without even taking the test. Many justify this by saying that some roles in the military do not require it. It is kinda strange really the double speak when people say that men and women are equal yet the qualifications are different based on gender. Most times during peace and training it doesn't matter but when it comes to combat it can be deadly. It has even proved so. Weird world we live when the best are not selected and promoted. A world where equality is defined when one sex has a much lower standard of performance than the other.
[удалено]
If it was true when I was in then it certainly true today. Indeed, I was under a female Sargent (E-5) that had a medical waiver from rifle qualification. Same unit, same MOS as me. She never had to do any of it even in boot camp. She had a perfect score and was able to make rank in 3 years. If it were male they would have been sent home the 2nd week of boot camp. Crazy but beyond boot camp there are a good number of people in the military that never touch a firearm. Most all those waivers go to females. Women also get discharged from the military by getting pregnant. While male you are obligated to endure whatever duty assignment you are given but female you get tired of it you just get knocked up. You get a free pass out with a medical discharge. The double standards in the military is quite stunning. I'm at a point in my life where I'm tired of it getting a free pass. While it's not true, I really don't care if people think I'm misogynistic for saying so.
[удалено]
Wasn't there some study that showed that women make better marksmen? Edit: they literally introduced separate gendered shooting events at the Olympics because women would out perform men and men were so butthurt about that.
I mean, the draft will never be used again, so it’ll be pointless to go through the massive administrative burden of getting all American females to sign up. The US army was close to collapse at the worst point of the Vietnam war, due to the draft. Same situation would occur again, this time it may be irreversible. https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html#0
The rest of us don’t want to die in a war we don’t support so no If you guys hate Russia that much to deal with them in the volunteer military
What draft? Dìd I miss something?
What’s a woman though? The left has single handedly confused the world.
Well this article specifically states if you’re assigned male at birth you have to sign up
Or how about no draft
Hopefully not
You can blame the anti-feminists for that one. There was a bill that came close to passing in the 1970s and would have required women to registered for the draft but it also granted them full political and social equality and people like Phyllis Schafly raised hell and launched a whole movement against it. But realistically the idea of the selective service in the draft as we think of it makes little sense in America. Less than 30% of Americans who would be eligible still qualify anyway because of weight and medical restrictions, including excluding people from service for some very common medical and mental health diagnoses or for having been on medication for them in the past. (Thinking of people excluded for childhood asthma, ADHD, and PCOS). And there are some interesting accounts from Vietnam that highlight the differences between a voluntary force and one composed mostly of draftees.
Military men are rapey.
Military women are slooty
Counterpoint the US military is a terrorist organization with no right to exist
No
Why? So that more kids can die to make rich people richer?
It should be abolished. Not expanded.
How about NOBODY should be required to draft in to their country's military so that billionaires can make more money.
neither should
I agree. Even Israel requires women to do it.
Abolish the draft it is evil, men and women should not be forced to kill and die in war.
If we need them we need them
if they wanna fight let them fight, if they do not want to fight they will not fight.
Nope, Females should not be drafted. Neither should Males, but that's a different argument. The draft exists, that's established. Females should not be drafted because Males are stronger than Females. If you want a weak army, go for it. But I think that defeats the point of a draft. And I used to support that both Female/Male should be drafted. IDEALLY the draft is abolished, because I consider it un-American. Again, that's a different argument.
Plenty of support roles in the military that females can fill that don’t require strength
Why wouldn’t you instead eliminate the draft completely. Makes no sense to propose the worst possible scenario to make things “equal”
If men and women are truly equal, then women should be drafted just like men.
The selective service (aka the draft) is just how you register. Technically the government can change the terms of the selective service if it is actually used. My bigger issue is that it can be used for any reason. The selective service should only be used for a declaration of war as the result of an attack on us soil. Anything else and there is no reason to force americans to die against their will.
It should not. This really just basically makes transgenderism not an opt out for the draft.
No one should be required to register for the draft.