• 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!

Polling: Women want equal Access, but not equal Responsibilty.

I almost agreed with that, except that in reality, it means that men can still have sex and women cannot, because no birth control methods are 100%. Sex is a vital part of many people's emotional health and welfare, like recreation or entertainment or decent food or other stress-relieving things.

I mean, many of these people would already be married....and you'd in effect be telling a woman she could no longer have sex from the time she received the notice being called up until shipping out. And any time on leave with husband.

forbidding pregnancy is not the same thing as forbidding sex... that's silly.

in the military, men used to get punished for contracting an STD ( under certain circumstances, such as right before a deployment)....that was in no way forbidding them from having sex.

I've sat in defense of a female Marine who was charged with offenses stemming from her getting pregnant before a deployment... her pregnancy caused her to miss a movement( which is a big deal).. but she was absolved of wrongdoing when she provided adequate proof her birth control simply failed at a bad time.





as with any other justice system, the UCMJ proceeding allow for mitigating factors.. such as birth control being used, but failing.
 
And so who's this 61% of men who want women drafted . . . are they also the same % of men who don't want women in the military?

This is looking more and more like just a gender spite war rather than true representation and common sense.

I support females being in the military (etc) - IF they are capable of meeting the same fitness standards that a male of similar stature would be (READ: I don't support differential treatment between genders). And that narrows the field down to less than 1% of the female population . . . and doesn't represent or cast a few on "most" women, either.

Don't point fingers at me as if others speak FOR me - because they don't (this memo should be sent to Hillary Clinton . . . who's still scrambling her noggin trying to figure out why in the **** women are Republicans and Conservatives).

But of course - I think the %'s you're harping on coincide with the %'s of people who generally oppose the concept of the draft in general (36% of men - 21% of women).

I oppose the draft in general - and would only support it if we're in a dire and extreme situation to the extent of WWI or WWI. Not some measly pathetic idiotic campaign like what Vietnam turned out to be. So do I support the draft for women? For things like Vietnam? **** no. Of course not - how stupid is that? If I don't support it for men of course I don't support it for women.

the vast majority of us Vietnam vets, including the draftees, supported that " measly pathetic idiot campaign"....so don't be too hard on us.
 
the vast majority of us Vietnam vets, including the draftees, supported that " measly pathetic idiot campaign"....so don't be too hard on us.

I think it was a classic example of all the many things that can go wrong in our country's military complex if all the wrong people are making serious decisions without understanding or eating the consequences.

The fact that they even got to a point where they drafted people is representative of that . . . a waste of life.
 
Oh. Lookit this. Women don't want to be drafted.



Too bad, too ****ing sad, sister. You wanted equality, you got it.


That is unfortunately how it is, There was a time when firemen were just men and women wanted in. Then they could pass the physical test requirements so they made them easier. This happened in the US and the UK.
Same thing happened for police, and of course military. and now we are looking at the draft.

Some women can do jobs like that, most cant. I support women in any role like that if they can do the job. but the same rules need to apply for all.
 
I think it was a classic example of all the many things that can go wrong in our country's military complex if all the wrong people are making serious decisions without understanding or eating the consequences.

The fact that they even got to a point where they drafted people is representative of that . . . a waste of life.

you're entitled to your opinion...

they didn't "get to the point where they drafted people"... the draft was ongoing from 1940 until after Vietnam
there was on 1 year, from 1940 until 1973, where no one was drafted into service.. that was 1948

here's the stats on how many were drafted in each year
https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/Induction-Statistics
 
Equal rights are either equal or they aren't. I didn't vote for the guy that pushed the "equal" in combat MOSs thing but since it is going to be "equal" it should be "equal". I don't think it is fair or equal that women should be in combat jobs but have a tool at their disposal to use whenever they want to avoid deploying with no consequence. They can use birth control, condom, IUD, pull out or don't have sex. That isn't the government's problem. When someone leaves the unit in a war zone someone has to pick up their slack. If a woman were to get pregnant after being notified that she was being drafted someone else would have to go in her place.

Not all women can be in combat though. Most will not qualify for combat, whether they want to or not. No matter whether women could be in combat or not, doesn't change the demographics that would happen with a draft all that much. The military would be lucky if 1 in a hundred women qualified for a combat MOS (might be closer to 1 in a thousand) so most women are going to be in support roles and most men drafted are getting sent to combat.
 
So it ISN'T about equality. It is about fairness but only for females. If a person is being deployed and gets pregnant you think it is fair to let them stay stateside and send another person into a war in their place so the female can have a baby because she got pregnant. What about that other person? What is fair for them?

Is it fair that the guy with a rich daddy can get strings pulled to get them into college but the poor kid can't afford it". Is it fair the person with a high IQ or above the norm talent for some sport can get a free ride to college, avoiding the draft whole the average person can't do that? How about disabilities that keep people out? Or someone who was raised in a religion that is against violence, it violates their beliefs, so they get an exemption?
 
the draft has never meant that an individual is heading for combat.... plenty of supply clerks, cooks, and medics were drafted.
I balk at the notion that draftees are somehow a lesser soldier... I served alongside draftees in Vietnam... believe me, they didn't want to be there, but they did their job just as well as us volunteers, sometimes better.

the fact of hte matter is, we've always had enlistments available for volunteers... and in ww1, ww2, Korea, and Vietnam, there simply weren't enough volunteers to fill the roles that needed ot be filled.
think about that.. even when patriotism was very high and serving your country was something that was looked fondly upon, there still weren't enough volunteers.
I don't think anyone would believe that would magically change, especially when patriotism is so much lower now than then.. as is the idea of serving the country in a military capacity ( I enlisted when it was unpopular to serve)

as for pregnancies and children, it can be handled the same way it's handled now for enlistments...there's no need to change the rules for a draft.
enlistees , depending on a few things, are limited in the amount of dependents ( the amount changes from time to time) they can have at the time the contract is signed... and pregnancies are disqualifications for enlistment ( gotta be in solid health to join up, pregnant women have to wait)
on that same token, what if a man has children at home... should that disqualify him for the draft?... it never has, but should that be changed as well or are women special in that regards?

at the end of the day, you're proposing we discriminate based on gender... and last I checked, that's pretty much a no-no.

If a man is a single parent or has to care for someone else then that should disqualify him too. Why shouldn't it?
 
So it ISN'T about equality. It is about fairness but only for females. If a person is being deployed and gets pregnant you think it is fair to let them stay stateside and send another person into a war in their place so the female can have a baby because she got pregnant. What about that other person? What is fair for them?

Actually I said the opposite. It's not fair and cannot be fair. It comes down to biology, that cannot be changed.

And the rest is stuff you are writing for yourself, not me. I never implied as much.

But if it does come down to 'cheating' to get out of the draft...any other woman can get pregnant (of go to Canada or go to college) and any other man can 'dodge' the way they always have. That doesnt seem gender-specific at all...so your focus on just how unfair 'women' are seems a bit out of place.

Both genders are equally capable of 'cheating' to dodge the draft.
 
forbidding pregnancy is not the same thing as forbidding sex... that's silly.

Except that there is no 100% perfect method of birth control outside of surgery. So if there is punishment for sex, then every woman would be at risk.


(And contracting an STD "right before deployment" does not keep you out of the military. It's treated and back you go.)
 
Except that there is no 100% perfect method of birth control outside of surgery. So if there is punishment for sex, then every woman would be at risk.
there is no punishment for having sex ( except for rape, or fraternization)... you are equating pregnancy to sex, falsely saying a punishment for one is a punishment for the other ... it's simply not true.


(And contracting an STD "right before deployment" does not keep you out of the military. It's treated and back you go.)[/QUOTE] what?... if you are being deployed, you're already in the military.. so of course it doesn't keep you out of the military.
and I'm well aware of what the military does in regards to ..well, everything.
there was a sgt that get a particularly nasty does of the clap once... he actually had to be hospitalized and missed his deployment to Nam.... when he finally showed up about 6 months later, he was a Lcpl.
he was charged with art. 87 under the UCMJ ( missing movement) and found guilty...
that article reads
"Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
getting pregnant and missing a deployment can put you in violation of this article....the only defense, if so charged, is in proving, during a court martial, neglect or design were not a cause of your missing the movement.

.
that Sgt. wasn't forbidden from having sex.. he wasn't even forbidden from catching the clap.... both of those directly caused his "crime" though...

same with pregnancies... no one is forbidden from having sex... not one single person.
your point about forbidding women having sex is wholly without merit.
 
If a man is a single parent or has to care for someone else then that should disqualify him too. Why shouldn't it?

personally, i'd be fine with a hardship exemption for men and women based on them being single parents, provided there are no other caretakers available.

should single parents also be disqualified from enlisting?

I'm not a huge fan of the draft myself.... i see it as a necessary evil , only to be used in dire circumstances when the country doesn't have enough volunteers to fill the roles that need filling.
in such circumstances, i don't find it wise to discriminate based on gender.... there's nothign inherent in gender that should disqualify them from service.

if anyone has an argument as to why females are inherently inferior for military service and should not be susceptible to the same draft men are.. based entirely on their gender.....I'm all ears.
 
I don't want to see women have to register for a potential draft. There is a reason we got the broad shoulders and the height, weight, muscles, and aggression. There is a reason women give birth, and we don't. No one can guarantee that war will always involve just pushing buttons, and I don't like even the remote possibility of an American woman being in up-close combat with some bloodthirsty savage.

I don't mind defending and protecting women. I sort of look at it as something I ought to do, just like defending and protecting children, old people, and anyone else who is relatively weak. I really like women who show us guys respect and appreciation for taking on much of the dirty, dangerous stuff in life. If most women were like some of the spoiled princesses I have run across--which thank God they are not--I would feel like letting them shift for themselves in a tight spot. Men don't owe women any more, or less, than they owe us.
 
I think it's important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, there's no specific hypocrisy. For example, the women who want equality in the military are not necessarily reflective of all women, nor is there any indication they are the ones voting against women signing up with selective service.

In other words, Kate could be for equality in the military, Amanda against women having to register with selective service, but there's no indication of which I'm aware that says Kate is against women registering or Amanda for equality in the military.

If that makes sense.
I agree. There has never been a vote on even IF women should be in combat roles and if one were to occur, most people would vote based on concept and idea and not reality. Sure...it SOUNDS good...until you have bullets flying overhead and bombs dropping and your battle buddy is sitting on the ground crying and blowing snot bubbles because she cant carry her pack and hack. (that's not a knock on all women in the military...but that is personal experience in real world conditions).

I would bet that a vote on whether women should be drafted AND serve in combat roles would reflect a distinct minority.

And for the record...if you ask MILITARY personnel, I don't believe you would find a majority that actually believe the draft is a good idea at all. We don't men OR women that aren't engaged and capable. I cant even imagine what boot camp would look like with todays draftees.

That being said...drafting women (or men) for stateside non-combatant roles would be alright. But I'd hate to be their drill sergeant.
 
Is it fair that the guy with a rich daddy can get strings pulled to get them into college but the poor kid can't afford it". Is it fair the person with a high IQ or above the norm talent for some sport can get a free ride to college, avoiding the draft whole the average person can't do that? How about disabilities that keep people out? Or someone who was raised in a religion that is against violence, it violates their beliefs, so they get an exemption?

We were talking pregnancy and you head in every direction but pregnancy. Equal doesn't always mean fair. If a soldier gets pregnant while preparing to deploy they won't deploy. Is it fair to call a person in that is on inactive reserve to replace the pregnant soldier? That is what happens. Someone has to fill that slot. That reservist has already done his three or four years. Their civilian life stops and they get sucked back in the military. There is no fairness in or equality for that reservist in that situation. How do we determine who we are going to be fair to? Is that a gender based decision?

Apply the same situation to the draft. Yeah, there are deferments and they are unfair. Women still have the same chance at deferments as men do. A poor woman or a poor man have the same chance of being drafted. That isn't a gender issue until you apply pregnancy. That gives a woman an advantage to legally avoid the draft that a man doesn't have. That isn't equality.
 
Last edited:
Actually I said the opposite. It's not fair and cannot be fair. It comes down to biology, that cannot be changed.

And the rest is stuff you are writing for yourself, not me. I never implied as much.

But if it does come down to 'cheating' to get out of the draft...any other woman can get pregnant (of go to Canada or go to college) and any other man can 'dodge' the way they always have. That doesnt seem gender-specific at all...so your focus on just how unfair 'women' are seems a bit out of place.

Both genders are equally capable of 'cheating' to dodge the draft.


Sorry, I didn't get your point then about how biology changes anything that I said then.
 
personally, i'd be fine with a hardship exemption for men and women based on them being single parents, provided there are no other caretakers available.

should single parents also be disqualified from enlisting?

I'm not a huge fan of the draft myself.... i see it as a necessary evil , only to be used in dire circumstances when the country doesn't have enough volunteers to fill the roles that need filling.
in such circumstances, i don't find it wise to discriminate based on gender.... there's nothign inherent in gender that should disqualify them from service.

if anyone has an argument as to why females are inherently inferior for military service and should not be susceptible to the same draft men are.. based entirely on their gender.....I'm all ears.

There is a difference between volunteering to take a risk regarding your children (and providing the government with proof that someone else is willing to take your children during deployments or if something should happen to you/both parents, rather than leaving them to society to raise) and the government forcing you to do this.

You (and perhaps some other men with a different intent) are the one claiming some sort of inferiority is involved for being different biologically. A few women can work in military combat fields, do what is required of them and actually be an asset to the units (if allowed to be one), but most can't due to how we conduct military operations at the moment. It isn't saying women are inferior, but in general we are different. Different does not mean inferior. Those women who can hack it should be allowed to voluntarily do so, just as men currently are.

A draft however cannot be fair with how we conduct warfare when it involves both men and women, some people, generally men (but some women as well) are going to get the short end of the stick there.

Oh, and technically, some women at least, are already signed up for a potential draft, whether they realize it or not, signed paperwork or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

"As of May 2003, the Defense Department has said the most likely form of draft is a special skills draft, probably of health care workers."

This tells me that it isn't even necessary because any future draft is going to be trade or skill specific and the government is going to know where the hell you are, and who they need, and those people will be drafted, whether signed up for it or not. They may have lists of possibilities but they will go down those lists and "draft" those people if it is needed.
 
We were talking pregnancy and you head in every direction but pregnancy. Equal doesn't always mean fair. If a soldier gets pregnant while preparing to deploy they won't deploy. Is it fair to call a person in that is on inactive reserve to replace the pregnant soldier? That is what happens. Someone has to fill that slot. That reservist has already done his three or four years. Their civilian life stops and they get sucked back in the military. There is no fairness in or equality for that reservist in that situation. How do we determine who we are going to be fair to? Is that a gender based decision?

Apply the same situation to the draft. Yeah, there are deferments and they are unfair. Women still have the same chance at deferments as men do. A poor woman or a poor man have the same chance of being drafted. That isn't a gender issue until you apply pregnancy. That gives a woman an advantage to legally avoid the draft that a man doesn't have. That isn't equality.

You don't know much about the reserves, do you? Not everyone has done active duty time (many of the guys I work with on drill weekends have never been active duty). And they aren't likely to call up an inactive reservist (or even an active drilling reservist in most cases) just because someone got pregnant. I've seen several women get pregnant while assigned to a ship, and none of them were replaced by a reservist. We dealt with it, the same as when we lost people for breaking bones (not all, they have to be pretty severe to get you off the ship), getting shot, falling off the ship, going to Mexico, losing a loved one, having a wife who ended up an invalid, and many other reasons I've seen men leave the ship.

And that poor man could be a Quaker or Mennonite and get exempted from duty or be the only parent to a child, while the woman could be a married woman, with no children and no religious affiliation. He could become in a minister (they actually have an exemption or sort of exemption for this). Over half of the men who were eligible to be drafted for Vietnam, were exempt for various reasons.
 
there is no punishment for having sex ( except for rape, or fraternization)... you are equating pregnancy to sex, falsely saying a punishment for one is a punishment for the other ... it's simply not true.


(And contracting an STD "right before deployment" does not keep you out of the military. It's treated and back you go.) what?... if you are being deployed, you're already in the military.. so of course it doesn't keep you out of the military.
and I'm well aware of what the military does in regards to ..well, everything.
there was a sgt that get a particularly nasty does of the clap once... he actually had to be hospitalized and missed his deployment to Nam.... when he finally showed up about 6 months later, he was a Lcpl.
he was charged with art. 87 under the UCMJ ( missing movement) and found guilty...
that article reads
"Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
getting pregnant and missing a deployment can put you in violation of this article....the only defense, if so charged, is in proving, during a court martial, neglect or design were not a cause of your missing the movement.

.
that Sgt. wasn't forbidden from having sex.. he wasn't even forbidden from catching the clap.... both of those directly caused his "crime" though...

same with pregnancies... no one is forbidden from having sex... not one single person.
your point about forbidding women having sex is wholly without merit.

This doesn't happen anymore. People who get STDs are not punished for them. The same thing goes for pregnancies (even those they probably should be punished for since it would in fact prove they violated another, much more reasonable restriction on sex, such as having it on a ship or in a combat zone). Pregnancies that occur at home though or because they woman was having sex with someone who there is no restriction against having sex with and in a place with no restriction on sex should not be punished.
 
Oh. Lookit this. Women don't want to be drafted.



Too bad, too ****ing sad, sister. You wanted equality, you got it.

I'll let you in on a little secret... men don't want to be drafted either.
 
Well, frankly, I don't support the draft for women any more than I support women in combat arms positions. It's just not necessary, and it's going to get a lot of people needlessly killed.

However, if alleged "equality" is the goal here, it's hard to argue that "fair's not fair." You don't get to pick and choose only the good parts while discarding the inconvenient.

I don't support the draft period. It is unconstitutional and wrong. If the citizenry of a nation does not want to fight to defend it that is their choice and the government can **** off...
 
there is no punishment for having sex ( except for rape, or fraternization)... you are equating pregnancy to sex, falsely saying a punishment for one is a punishment for the other ... it's simply not true.


(And contracting an STD "right before deployment" does not keep you out of the military. It's treated and back you go.) what?... if you are being deployed, you're already in the military.. so of course it doesn't keep you out of the military.
and I'm well aware of what the military does in regards to ..well, everything.
there was a sgt that get a particularly nasty does of the clap once... he actually had to be hospitalized and missed his deployment to Nam.... when he finally showed up about 6 months later, he was a Lcpl.
he was charged with art. 87 under the UCMJ ( missing movement) and found guilty...
that article reads
"Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
getting pregnant and missing a deployment can put you in violation of this article....the only defense, if so charged, is in proving, during a court martial, neglect or design were not a cause of your missing the movement.

.
that Sgt. wasn't forbidden from having sex.. he wasn't even forbidden from catching the clap.... both of those directly caused his "crime" though...

same with pregnancies... no one is forbidden from having sex... not one single person.
your point about forbidding women having sex is wholly without merit.

Well we're talking about the draft and cheating to get out of it.

But you have not demonstrated if women being punished for having sex if they get pregnant (of which there is no guarantee) should occur. SHould they be punished for getting pregnant while having normal sexual relations? (boyfriend, fiance, husband, etc.)
 
Okay, lets discuss your points in your post.

You don't know much about the reserves, do you? Not everyone has done active duty time (many of the guys I work with on drill weekends have never been active duty).
This is the second time you have told me what I know or don't know. You base your knowledge on the Navy. I will readily admit I don't know how the Navy does things. You have a propensity to transfer your knowledge of the Navy to all the other services. It don't work that way. How many people have been drafted into the Navy?

I retired with 28 years in the Army. The last time I deployed we had 37 IRR folks in our unit to backfill slots that were not filled because of soldiers with medical problems. I had about 15 in my platoon.

And they aren't likely to call up an inactive reservist (or even an active drilling reservist in most cases) just because someone got pregnant. I've seen several women get pregnant while assigned to a ship, and none of them were replaced by a reservist. We dealt with it, the same as when we lost people for breaking bones (not all, they have to be pretty severe to get you off the ship), getting shot, falling off the ship, going to Mexico, losing a loved one, having a wife who ended up an invalid, and many other reasons I've seen men leave the ship.
I have seen people get article 15s for severe sun burn and I supported the punishment. We had three females get pregnant while deployed. They received Article 15s Navy calls it Mast) and were sent home. There was no way to backfill since we were in theater. Other people had to assume their responsibilities and duties in addition to their normal duties. Not equal nor fair.
And that poor man could be a Quaker or Mennonite and get exempted from duty or be the only parent to a child, while the woman could be a married woman, with no children and no religious affiliation. He could become in a minister (they actually have an exemption or sort of exemption for this). Over half of the men who were eligible to be drafted for Vietnam, were exempt for various reasons.
This garbage is just more of that blah blah diversion crap that you added for bulk I guess.

To recap, you don't know squat about the Army and you don't know what I know or don't know. That was a fail. You don't know squat about how the IRR works in the Army. The Army and Navy are different.

This is the end of this conversation.
 
Okay, lets discuss your points in your post.


This is the second time you have told me what I know or don't know. You base your knowledge on the Navy. I will readily admit I don't know how the Navy does things. You have a propensity to transfer your knowledge of the Navy to all the other services. It don't work that way. How many people have been drafted into the Navy?

I retired with 28 years in the Army. The last time I deployed we had 37 IRR folks in our unit to backfill slots that were not filled because of soldiers with medical problems. I had about 15 in my platoon.


I have seen people get article 15s for severe sun burn and I supported the punishment. We had three females get pregnant while deployed. They received Article 15s Navy calls it Mast) and were sent home. There was no way to backfill since we were in theater. Other people had to assume their responsibilities and duties in addition to their normal duties. Not equal nor fair.

This garbage is just more of that blah blah diversion crap that you added for bulk I guess.

To recap, you don't know squat about the Army and you don't know what I know or don't know. That was a fail. You don't know squat about how the IRR works in the Army. The Army and Navy are different.

This is the end of this conversation.

You said "that reservist has already done his three or four years", yet that isn't true for all reservists. Also, most of those were called up to fill specific ratings, jobs, MOSs, not because someone got pregnant, as you are claiming. Even if a few had to fill those positions, the likelihood of that actually being truly the reason they were activated in itself is very, very small but rather put there because of opportunity after they were already activated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Ready_Reserve

They are/were activated for their specialties, not because someone got pregnant, as your one post suggested. That isn't how it works.

And a sunburn is still different than pregnancy. You can easily do things that will keep you from getting sunburned, especially seriously sunburned, every time. That is not true for pregnancy. Plus, punishing just for getting pregnant (as I've said, in appropriate time and place) would be sexist in itself because men are not punished for getting their wives pregnant, but swap sexes, and it would be a punishment for simply doing the same thing a man can do.

We are discussing ways people can get out of the draft. You keep insisting that a woman being able to get out of the draft for getting pregnant is somehow unequal, yet there are plenty of things that get men out of the draft as well, just based on their circumstances.

Hell, my concern has nothing to do with the military, since I feel that we should have some sort of volunteer draft list (sort of like opening up IRR to everyone and offering additional incentives to sign up for it). I have an issue with the fact that it would have some unintended consequences of more women getting pregnant, and/or staying pregnant to avoid the draft. You cannot determine when a woman got pregnant just from a single pregnancy test (she could have had sex the day before she took the test). There is also the fact that women have different religious rules placed upon them than men (in fact, many women in Israel claim a religious exemption to their conscription there). One of those is to be fruitful and multiply and requires that they don't take any precautions against pregnancy and still have sex with their husband.

I also do research and come from a family full of soldiers, not sailors. I know quite a bit about the Army as well. Even know about the Marines and how anal they can be about the rules. They are the ones who I could see punishing a woman for getting pregnant at home (again, I'm fine with women getting in trouble for getting pregnant in a place where no one is supposed to be having sex to begin with, like at sea or in theater, and even said that already).
 
Last edited:
your political opinions aside, a provision for a draft is quite necessary for a country ( especially when your the top superpower, or among the top powers)... the utilization of a draft, however, is something that must come under vigorous debate.

and no, Americans have never came out by the millions to enlist...they, however, were drafted by the millions....about 10 million in WW2 alone.
(the draft, in 940, was supported by over 70% of the nation at that time.. registration for hte draft was mandatory still)
it's a simple fact that the draft was necessary then because there was not enough volunteers to fill the roles the military needed filled... the same was true for Korea and Vietnam.

in short, when the **** hits the fan in a big way, relying on volunteers is ultimately insane.... especially now that so many Americans are opposed to serving their country in a military capacity.

According to what? The people who want cannon fodder? Why should anyone care what they need?

They did, actually, for WWII. At least 3 million of those enlistees were not drafted. So, no, you're incorrect.

Perhaps if we had fewer people in wars, the body count would be lower. Remind me, what exactly is the problem with that again? Especially since none of the wars we've been in for the last 70 years have been in any way necessary?
 
Back
Top Bottom