Why should or why shouldn't women have to register for the Draft?

[nbachris2788]

<p>

Yeah, that’s why most people in our all-volunteer military are Republican.

</p>

<p>Obama’s outraising McCain among troops.</p>

<p>[411mania.com:</a> Politics - Troops Giving More Money To Obama Than McCain](<a href=“http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/82783]411mania.com:”>411MANIA | 411mania’s Comment Policy)</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>They’re still largely Republican, and they have been for quite some time. CNN gave Bush a 16 percentage point lead over Kerry in 2004 among people who have served. </p>

<p>

[CNN.com</a> Election 2004](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html]CNN.com”>CNN.com Election 2004)

</p>

<p>Actually quite surprising to me, as I grew up a military brat and didn’t know any active-duty military families that supported Kerry at the time. Same with Bush/Gore in 2000. And Clinton didn’t do too well with the military either. </p>

<p>Also, in a 2004 poll only 13 percent of active-duty military members identified themselves as Democrats, while 57 percent identified themselves as Republicans. </p>

<p>[Military</a> vote softens but doesn’t shift - Politics - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/]Military”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/)</p>

[futurenyustudent]

<p>NOBODY should EVER be forced to register for ANY draft, civil or military. We pay taxes so that we don’t have to deal with crap like this, and if there aren’t enough people in the military that’s the government’s problem, not ours. With getting paid comes great responsibility.</p>

<p>As for getting paid regular military wages which makes it okay, no it DOESN’T make it okay. If Citibank put a gun to young men’s heads and forced them to work as tellers at their financial centers because they were in a “crisis” all while paying them quite substandard wages, we’d scream bloody murder and Citibank would have to shut its doors from the damages it would have to pay out.</p>

<p>As for “duty”, you cut a check to the IRS every year. Your duty ends there. As long as you’re paying taxes in one way or another, you’ve done your duty and no longer have ANY duty to do ANYTHING. You PAID for the functioning of the government. We BUY national defense from the government; it’s THEIR job to deal with staffing shortfalls, and NOT by forcing people to enter into an employment contract against their will. Such a contract never holds up in court anyway.</p>

[GeekNerd]

<p>

The man. Having a woman in say an infantry unit would break unit cohesion, stir up tension (guys competing over her) and could generally place her male colleagues in danger (ie they always feel the need to protect her). Also, if she doesn’t want to deploy she can just get pregnant and then the unit is facing a crucial loss. Also, it would raise a whole new series of social issues…ie if women were allowed to fill combat positions, would male vs female violence at home somehow become more acceptable?

</p>

<p>One word: ■■■■■.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

One word: ■■■■■.

</p>

<p>Riiiight…You don’t like my argument, so you resort to name calling. Well done. </p>

<p>Like it or not, I gave the exact same reasons that military leaders often cite as to why they don’t allow women to fill direct-combat positions.</p>

[GeekNerd]

<p>The problem is that the premise is false since ** women are not barred from direct combat <a href=“If%20you%20know%20of%20an%20exceptional%20country%20or%20autonomous%20governance,%20%5BB%5D%20Please,%20Name%20It%20In%20Your%20Context%20%5B/B%5D”>/B</a>. Please do not expect the line I quoted from you to survive beyond this; it relies on an extremely parochial theory that does not hold in practice - and then attributes your own statements to the reason the action is executed. These cited “Military commanders” apparently don’t exist in many countries.</p>

<p>I withdraw calling you a ■■■■■, as I do not actively deny that that was what was insinuated. Note that “■■■■■” is not nominal; I was implying that you are deliberately adding something that cannot be supported by reality for the sole purpose of generating emoted responses; this idea has not been confirmed as correct for the entirety of the post, so I amend.
Your answer was trollish, and ■■■■■ was thought to be a more informative word than “nonsense” in that case. Wanting every answer to be taken seriously is akin to wanting even lies to be taken seriously in a debate.</p>

<p>Remark: To quote a military officer, as I deal with a few on a regular basis,
<a href=“A”>quote</a> woman is (a) man with breasts. A man is (a) woman without (breasts).

[/quote]
</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>Uhh…you’re wrong.</p>

<p>[GoArmy.com[/url</a>]. Go to the career/MOS explorer. Click on infantry, armor, field artillery, etc. Note how there is a little * above each one saying “closed to women.”</p>

<p>That is the way it is in the United States, and that is the way it always has been. </p>

<p>Also, if you don’t believe the military about their own policies, check out NPR:</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14964676]Women”>Women in Combat : NPR]Women</a> in Combat : NPR](<a href=“http://www.goarmy.com%5DGoArmy.com%5B/url”>http://www.goarmy.com)</p>

<p>Quote: “Pentagon rules dictate that women may not be assigned to ground combat units.”</p>

<p>Sorry buddy, it doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>One more citation:</p>

<p>From the army website, re combat MOS’s (careers), of which there are 24:</p>

<p>“Involves Army reconnaissance, security, and other aspects of both offensive and defensive combat situations. Jobs include artillery specialists, infantry, special operations and tank crew. All combat MOSs are closed to women.”</p>

<p>[GoArmy.com</a> > Careers & Jobs > Browse Career & Job Categories](<a href=“Career Match: Find Your Career in the US Army | goarmy.com”>Career Match: Find Your Career in the US Army | goarmy.com)</p>

[GeekNerd]

<p>

That is the way it is in the United States

One government down. More than a hundred to go.</p>

<p>Please do not attempt to limit discussion to just the United States.</p>

<p>

That is the way it is in the United States, and that is the way it always has been.

The Pentagon’s enforced text on the matter was effected in 1994. It was just a long-standing practice being codified, but it did not have legal authority before that.</p>

<p>

… that is the way it always has been.

If true, this would be reasonable grounds to revise it or check whether it needs revision; modern war is highly dissimilar to that in the past.</p>

[GeekNerd]

<p>Afterthought: With due respect to steroids, the argument of weakness on average does not hold. Even if female Americans are really weak on average, the US army is ignoring the exceptional persons who may be strong females. Again, that arcane policy has just been brought up in one country, and it is an error in the measure of foresight on the part of the Pentagon. The point is not just what is; it is what should be (as a conservative pragmatist, I’m tempering that word “should” quite a bit, but what is practical is divorced from the arcane ideas currently in effect, and although those arcane ideas include both categorical female exemption from a hypothetical service draft and a bar of females in direct combat positions in the US Military, the latter is a miniscule subset to the topic of females barred from direct combat positions internationally, which is not the topic of this thread).</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>

The man. Having a woman in say an infantry unit would break unit cohesion, stir up tension (guys competing over her) and could generally place her male colleagues in danger (ie they always feel the need to protect her). Also, if she doesn’t want to deploy she can just get pregnant and then the unit is facing a crucial loss. Also, it would raise a whole new series of social issues…ie if women were allowed to fill combat positions, would male vs female violence at home somehow become more acceptable?

</p>

<p>This rationale is weak. So should we only allow anti-social criminals into the army, in case friendships form amongst men thus causing “unit disruption”? Friends want to protect each other too. If a man lost his good friend in a war, he’d probably go through some kind of shell shock. Rats, guess we better only draft misanthropes! And if you’re so worried pregnancies, just make them go on the pill, or are you religiously against such a policy?</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

One government down. More than a hundred to go.</p>

<p>Please do not attempt to limit discussion to just the United States.

</p>

<p>As I live in the United States as do most other users of this board, I’m not worried about the draft policies of other nations. They don’t affect me. The policies of the United States do, however, which is why I presented them to you.</p>

<p>

The Pentagon’s enforced text on the matter was effected in 1994. It was just a long-standing practice being codified, but it did not have legal authority before that.

</p>

<p>From the Revolutionary War through the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, men have always made up the infantry/combat forces in this country. There was no real need to codify it because any women in the armed forces until then were mainly nurses. It was after Gulf War I when larger numbers of women were in the military that they saw the need to create the current policy</p>

<p>

Afterthought: With due respect to steroids, the argument of weakness on average does not hold. Even if female Americans are really weak on average, the US army is ignoring the exceptional persons who may be strong females.

</p>

<p>The point of a draft is to fill combat boots quickly. They aren’t interested in finding the 1% of women who could potentially last in the infantry. There are a million more men who would do that they could find quickly and easily using the current system.</p>

<p>Regarding pregnancies, it really is a big problem today. My father was in command of a lot of women in a non-combat branch of the military and there was always a spike in pregnancies right before deployment time. And that was for non-combat positions. </p>

<p>Regarding weakness:</p>

<pre><code>

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.
</code></pre>

<p>Further:</p>

<pre><code>The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.
</code></pre>

<p>From the same report:</p>

<pre><code>Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men… Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

* (a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

* (c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

* (d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

* (e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

</code></pre>

<p>[Fred</a> Reed: Women in Combat](<a href=“The Heretical 404 Error Handler: Press Escape to Stop the Bad Trip”>Fred Reed: Women in Combat. Feminism’s Hopeless, Egalitarian Dream)</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>Weaker women will be weeded out from serving in the most physically-demanding situations. Stop trying to create a strawman argument where you misrepresent the other side as advocating turning a Nicole Ritchie into a Navy Seal.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

Weaker women will be weeded out from serving in the most physically-demanding situations. Stop trying to create a strawman argument where you misrepresent the other side as advocating turning a Nicole Ritchie into a Navy Seal.

</p>

<p>They won’t be weeded out because there is no need for them in the event of a draft. There are more than enough men in this nation to fill a draft without having to worry about picking the one percent of women who could fill an infantry slot. </p>

<p>Old saying, but if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.</p>

[the_prestige]

<p>but then who’s gonna change the diapers and make dinner?</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>

They won’t be weeded out because there is no need for them in the event of a draft. There are more than enough men in this nation to fill a draft without having to worry about picking the one percent of women who could fill an infantry slot.

</p>

<p>It’s not up to you to deny women the right to serve their country on the battlefield if they’re capable of doing so.</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

It’s not up to you to deny women the right to serve their country on the battlefield if they’re capable of doing so.

</p>

<p>You’re right. Its not my policy, its the Pentagon’s. And in most cases it makes sense.</p>

[GeekNerd]

<p>

Its not my policy, its the Pentagon’s. And in most cases it makes sense.

</p>

<p>Well the debate is hypothetical (it can’t refer to current reality because there isn’t a draft) so it is noted that the Pentagon’s policy might not be the same forever. I figure no-one’s denying this, so this statement isn’t FYI but rather for an arbitrary reader.</p>

<p>I still welcome the advent of steroids (although that would lead to a safety debate outside of the thread). If the weakness situation were lessened in apparent American extremity (say, any woman really wanting to register would get herself up to standard), I don’t think any arguments would remain against the female direct combat positions.</p>

<p>My closing clauses above are made since the esprit de corps (sp?) argument (which is completely ignored by many) remains as cultural as parochial homophobia.
(I’m not going to entertain debate on the validity of parochial homophobia, so I think this debate has closed.)</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>

You’re right. Its not my policy, its the Pentagon’s. And in most cases it makes sense.

</p>

<p>I don’t understand why you’re so insecure about having capable women serve in the military. If they’re not up to it, they won’t be placed in situations where they’d endanger the lives of themselves and others. But if they are, and I’m sure there’d be plenty, they should be able to serve in any branch of the military. The military can never have too many soldiers, officers, etc.</p>

<p>Your laughably flimsy doomsday scenario of male soldiers going AWOL due to female presence calls for the complete elimination of human emotion on the battlefield (i.e. robotic warfare). Are you saying that male soldiers feel nothing for each other? Nobody goes through PTSD because their friend was killed in combat?</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>

I don’t understand why you’re so insecure about having capable women serve in the military. If they’re not up to it, they won’t be placed in situations where they’d endanger the lives of themselves and others. But if they are, and I’m sure there’d be plenty, they should be able to serve in any branch of the military. The military can never have too many soldiers, officers, etc.

</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with me, it isn’t my policy. I’m just saying that I agree with it. </p>

<p>And my “doomsday scenario” isn’t mine, it is what has been brought up by military brass who want to keep things the way they are. I’m not saying that males soldiers don’t care about their colleagues (they obviously do). I’m just saying that they would have more confidence ordering a man to do a dangerous task than a woman, because naturally most men feel the need to protect women.</p>