|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 06, @05:26PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm neither for nor against women in combat. I'm still waffling. I *am* rabidly against the draft, but for me these are two separate issues.
However, a lot of other folks tie the two together. A lot of men say that they feel the draft discriminates against men, and that the only reason why women are not drafted is because of some sort of altruism towards females. BUT...And here's where the devil's advocate part comes in...When you have studies like this saying that women make poor soldiers and can't handle combat, do you really think the draft is all-male completely, or even mostly, out of altruism? Or is it simply that the military doesn't think women can handle combat?
I'm not defending the draft. I think it's slavery and therefore unconstitutional. On a moral level, I think it's murder. One of the reasons why I've chosen not to have children is out of protest of the draft. I refuse to manufacture human cogs so they can be fed into a gov't war machine. I am being completely serious, not one iota of facetiousness. I also think draft victims and their survivors should be paid reparations by the gov't.
But, as rabidly anti-draft as I am (and I know I'm on the lunatic fringe, you don't have to tell me that, heh), I do not think altruism or chivalry has very much to do with why the draft is all-male. Okay, I admit those things might be 1% of the reason, but 95% the reasoning revolves around (possibly valid) concerns of military officials that women cannot handle combat. (Where's the other 4%, you ask? IMHO, these are more practical concerns revolving around what to do with minors who have lost both parents in war, what to do when both members of a household are gone to war and the bank wants to reposess and auction off their home because there's no one to send in the mortgage checks, and other such things that may seem trivial but need to be addressed in an unlimited draft.)
Bottom line: If you are pro-draft, and if you want women drafted, you'll have to prove to a skeptical military that doing so won't mean putting the entire nation at risk. "Equality" isn't a good argument in the eyes of the military. They don't give a rat's behind about equality, they want to win wars. Show them that using women will help win wars, or at least not hurt the chances, and then you'll win them over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
devil's advocate part comes in...When you have studies like this saying that women make poor soldiers and can't handle combat, do you really think the draft is all-male completely, or even mostly, out of altruism? Or is it simply that the military doesn't think women can handle combat?
The military is most definitely cowed these days as a result of women. When a woman complains that a routine training hike is demeaning, the military immediately suspends the hike and conducts an inquiry. If a male soldier complained, he'd be shouted down by his commander, I would think.
The military isn't supposed to be an easy life. People who volunteer to put their lives on the line have my utmost respect, be they male or female. (I personally think women should be allowed into combat IF... IF... IF... they can do the job the same as a man can.) A government that forces men to give up their lives for causes in which they do not believe has my utmost disdain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 06, @06:45PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been in the military, and I'm curious about something.
From what I've seen on the Discovery Channel and other documentaries, all branches of the U.S. military require recruits to undergo basic training, even in times of war, even if they are involuntary draftees. I know that at the end of basic training, the recruits have to take some sort of test to prove they've mastered the basic skills. For example, they have to run a mile in x amount of time, lift x number of pounds on their backs, things like that.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about the above. I admit I might be.
My question is, what happens if a man is unable to pass the test at the end of basic training? If there's a war going on, does he get sent to the front line anyway? Is the test just a formality, with no impact on whether he's forced into combat?
I've been told different things by different people. I've been told that such a man does not get sent into battle, and I've also been told that the test means nothing, he goes even if he doesn't come anywhere near passing. I have no clue which is true.
I know that my grandfather voluntarily tried to sign up in WWII, but was rejected by the military because of medical problems. However, this was during WWII. If there were a war today and he were young, maybe they'd draft him anyway. I have no idea, and I'd really like to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 06, @06:47PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
You won't get an argument from me about any of that, especially your last sentence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no knowledgable answer for you, but I would imagine it would depend upon how desperate the combined military is for manpower.
As for testing... I'm sure that passing the test has its "rewards," if you can call it that. That's another thing, about women in the U.S. military, though. They've lowered the standards on such tests so women can compete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 07, @12:58PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
>I'm sure that passing the test has its "rewards," if you can call it that.
I guess the "reward" would be that you actually have a chance to live through combat. Maybe a small chance, but more chance than someone who can't run 1/4 mile without getting winded, or someone who can't even carry all his gear (leaving him unarmed and defenseless).
Of course, the best reward would be no draft at all. So if you believe in the war and want to participate, you're free to sign up. You're also free not to. People would still be killed, and that is most certainly not good, but at least they'd be going to their deaths voluntarily. The Constitution is supposed to allow every individual to self-destruct if that's what that person wants...
>They've lowered the standards on such tests so women can compete.
Yes, and that's wrong for quite a few reasons. They are unprepared soldiers, which makes them liabilities during real emergencies. Then again, if the military doesn't even care about the men passing these tests, I guess it doesn't matter if the women can pass them either.
It chills my blood to think that our military is willing to send physically unfit (and maybe even disabled or sick) "soldiers" into battle, where they will last about 10 seconds before being mowed down. Sometimes I seriously wonder if the only reason why children are not drafted is because the gov't doesn't think the public would let them get away with it. And I seriously wonder if children will be drafted sometime in the future, especially if there's a situation where all their parents have already been killed in war. This is what Hitler did near the end of WWII; the History Channel recently re-aired a very disturbing documentary miniseries on the Hitler Youth. The most disturbing thing about the series is that, while watching it, the thought of "That COULD happen here" crossed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
