• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Bill Requires Women to Sign Up For Draft

jonny5 said:
Better than passing more laws to give themselves more power. If all they ever did was rename post offices, I would be happy.
Click to expand...

if that meant no more new attempts at trickle down, no more proposals to privatize medicare, and no more war funding, then that would be a nice side effect of a post-office-naming-only congress.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Israeli women have been fighting since 1949.

They understand better than most of the American and Euro girly men what it means to defend borders.

The Americans and Euro's have the luxury of larger land masses, and populations for the most part, and have the luxury of having women serve or not.

We look at women serving in a different way.
Click to expand...
Not only the Israeli women are world class but Kurdish women as well. The angels of death: ISIS savages fear Kurd women fighters more than any other foe - Mirror Online
 
It makes more sense just to get rid of the Selective Service. It's dumb
 
Paleocon said:
You're correct. The Israelis are contemptible cowards with no sense of honor. We should not be like them.
Click to expand...
Quite brave when hiding behind a false name. You certainly wouldn't dare say that to an Israeli woman, much less an Israeli man.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
After the 2012 election even Republican experts said for the GOP to win in 2016 they have to make nice with certain demographics. Like Hispanics, and younger women. But instead of making nice it's like some in the GOP are purposely going out of their way to piss off those demographics. Trump and him attacking Mexicans. Some Republicans stance and comments about abortion aren't helping to bring younger women into the GOP camp.

So this year they figure it's a good idea to double down and put a bill forth to draft younger women.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I said this is another thread and I'll say it in this one.
There is something not right about a body of people being able to vote for war, but not ever being subject to serve in said war.
 
Grant said:
Quite brave when hiding behind a false name. You certainly wouldn't dare say that to an Israeli woman, much less an Israeli man.
Click to expand...

Why would he not say it to their face? Are they going to assault him for it? :lol:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I said this is another thread and I'll say it in this one.
There is something not right about a body of people being able to vote for war, but not ever being subject to serve in said war.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of the draft. But I would be in favor of it IF there was a draft AND a 100% certainty our Congressmen's, and Senator's and President's children would be drafted and be put in harm's way if there was a war. Because if that happened I'm sure there would be less wars and less times the US would be running around the globe being the 'world's policeman'.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I'm not in favor of the draft. But I would be in favor of it IF there was a draft AND a 100% certainty our Congressmen's, and Senator's and President's children would be drafted and be put in harm's way if there was a war. Because if that happened I'm sure there would be less wars and less times the US would be running around the globe being the 'world's policeman'.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm more talking about the fact that females can vote in war hawks, that could theoretically send us to war, without those females being at risk to be drafted into war.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I'm more talking about the fact that females can vote in war hawks, that could theoretically send us to war, without those females being at risk to be drafted into war.
Click to expand...

Ah.. Problem with that is men can do that too. Because again, there's no draft. And there will never be another draft. The days of huge Armies on massive battlefields is long gone. It's guided missiles and drone wars from now on.
 
Grant said:
Quite brave when hiding behind a false name. You certainly wouldn't dare say that to an Israeli woman, much less an Israeli man.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it to an ordinary Israeli, though if I had an audience with Netanyahu the coward I would.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Ah.. Problem with that is men can do that too. Because again, there's no draft. And there will never be another draft. The days of huge Armies on massive battlefields is long gone. It's guided missiles and drone wars from now on.
Click to expand...

Never say never.
You don't know what the future actually holds and what twists of fate can actually happen.
 
I still say this is stupid. And not because I have any issue with women signing up personally (I do see the problems though). It is because the reasoning is severely flawed for introducing this now. The number of women who qualify for combat roles didn't magically increase by opening up combat roles to women in the military. Very few women, whether volunteers or drafted (should it ever happen) will qualify for combat roles, whether they can be in them or not. Unless there is some serious change in how we conduct combat, this will be true for the foreseeable future.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Should every man be drafted? Nope. Should we **** one gender while giving the other a free pass? Nope. It's one or the other. Equality is here to stay, learn to deal with it. Fair is fair.
Click to expand...

But men are going to be the main ones on the front lines either way. There is no getting around that. Most women will not qualify for the front lines. I've been in the military for over 17 years, and at no point in my career do I feel that I could have been on the front lines of a war. There were men I served with who this was true for too, but far fewer men than women unless we conducted some very different wars than we've been involved with.
 
Hated to burst your bubble, but war aint pretty.
 
roguenuke said:
But men are going to be the main ones on the front lines either way. There is no getting around that. Most women will not qualify for the front lines. I've been in the military for over 17 years, and at no point in my career do I feel that I could have been on the front lines of a war. There were men I served with who this was true for too, but far fewer men than women unless we conducted some very different wars than we've been involved with.
Click to expand...

And? What is your actual position? We need to have the possibility of a draft for emergencies, such as a major attack on the homeland or WWIII, and it simply isn't fair or equal to **** one gender over horrendously while leaving the other completely unscathed. As you pointed out, there are LOTS of men who couldn't handle combat, yet they get drafted anyway when the time comes.

roguenuke said:
I still say this is stupid. And not because I have any issue with women signing up personally (I do see the problems though). It is because the reasoning is severely flawed for introducing this now. The number of women who qualify for combat roles didn't magically increase by opening up combat roles to women in the military. Very few women, whether volunteers or drafted (should it ever happen) will qualify for combat roles, whether they can be in them or not. Unless there is some serious change in how we conduct combat, this will be true for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

The draft isn't only for combat roles, so there is no reason to not include women, even if we had a no-women-in-combat policy. Females should have always been part of the draft. Suspect timing or not, an injustice is being corrected.
 
Helix said:
if that meant no more new attempts at trickle down, no more proposals to privatize medicare, and no more war funding, then that would be a nice side effect of a post-office-naming-only congress.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we have a deal. No more attempts to control my healthcare, internet, or campaign speech.
 
jonny5 said:
Sounds like we have a deal. No more attempts to control my healthcare, internet, or campaign speech.
Click to expand...

ah, another argument against net neutrality on a site that would be slow laned into obscurity under the other model. that always warms my heart.

let's just say that i doubt that we'll come to an agreement about much. have a good one.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And? What is your actual position? We need to have the possibility of a draft for emergencies, such as a major attack on the homeland or WWIII, and it simply isn't fair or equal to **** one gender over horrendously while leaving the other completely unscathed. As you pointed out, there are LOTS of men who couldn't handle combat, yet they get drafted anyway when the time comes.

The draft isn't only for combat roles, so there is no reason to not include women, even if we had a no-women-in-combat policy. Females should have always been part of the draft. Suspect timing or not, an injustice is being corrected.
Click to expand...

We should have people volunteer to be called up in case of emergency, basically volunteer to be drafted, both men and women. That would be better.

However, I have an issue with this because people aren't talking about the problems that this creates if we do go to war and need a draft again. There is the fact that most of the support billets/jobs will have to be filled by women and that means almost all the men would be on the front lines. This can breed resentment toward women for getting those jobs. Also, women can get out of the draft much easier than men can and in at least one way that causes some unwanted consequences, more babies born outside of long term relationships or simply unwanted and only here because women between the ages of 18 and 26 wanted a way to get out of being drafted. We will also see women putting in for religious exemptions, much more than men. There are different religious rules in many different religions for men and women. And it's not too hard to see a woman claiming her religion doesn't allow her to fight, have a job, shoot a gun, even wear pants (there are a couple of Christian religions at least with this rule).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom