|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These proposed alternatives to the all-male draft are also extremely discriminatory against men.
Paul Clements proposes that women be given positions in which they would (amongst other things) "be trained as medical and dental techs, become ferry pilots, learn to be air traffic controllers, work in Combat Information Centers, serve as flightline ground crew, become photographers, meteorologists, or electronics
technicians."
In every case, the women would be given jobs in which they learned and developed skills that they could later use to advance themselves in the private and public sectors. Meanwhile, men would be sent off to the meatgrinder. In other words, women would be given valuable educations at the government's expense, while men were forced to kill other men (mostly), and would be maimed, captured, often tortured and in many cases brutally killed. We would, of course, then be told that women were "sharing the burden."
Let's also not forget that that, with women allowed into the military, physical standards have been lowered. Women can opt out of combat (at least through pregnancy followed by an abortion after arriving safely back home) and those left behind will go into battle less prepared and with depleted numbers of combatants in their units. (Even returning the number of combatants to a pre-planned amount won’t recreate the team with which one trained.) So, under Clements’ proposed solution, women would claim that there are bearing equal responsibility and duty, while they are advanced at the government’s expense and men are slaughtered. Sounds like the radfem dream come true.
Don't forget, also, all the "good" jobs in the military that are given to drafted women would be unavailable to drafted men. A lower percentage of drafted men would get good positions and a higher percentage of drafted men would end up maimed or dead. Better to let men have all the good jobs, if they're the only ones forced off to the slaughter.
The only truly equitable way to solve the problems of the draft, albeit a way that society would probably never tolerate, would be to draft only men and also give men and boys tremendous, lifelong preferential treatment with regards to those things in society that people want.
Perhaps we should only draft men and have a tax on females, 20% to 40% might be appropriate, that would be turned over to men to use however they see fit. Men wouldn’t, as in the past, be effectively forced by social standards to marry and support women in order to have careers and not be viewed as misfits or perverts.
If any of this sounds outrageous, just imagine if we tried to draft only blacks or Jews for combat and at the same time gave “good” military positions to gentiles of western European descent and then claimed that the latter were carrying an equal burden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I maintain that ending the draft for good is the only solution, although I wouldn't mind it if women, for once, also had to truly bear the burden of forced military service in combat roles.
I heard a radio newscast today in which a teen-aged girl was asked about her feelings on going to war. Her response: "I wouldn't mind them making me go over there and be a cook or something, but I don't want to fight. If they made me fight, I'd get pregnant to get out of it."
Sure, lady. Would you hold your kid up to shield yourself from a mugger's fist as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 08, @01:09PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Punishing women for being born female, as if they had a choice in being born female, or in being born in the first place. Marrying is a choice. Breeding is a choice. Being born is not a choice, and suicide is illegal. A woman or girl child who decides she didn't want to be born cannot get a legal lethal injection to rectify the situation.
There should be no draft at all, period. The draft is murder.
I am curious if every man on this site hates females as much as this guy obviously does, and wishes all of them dead the way he obviously does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 08, @01:19PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
You act surprised that she's not happy at the idea of being forced into suicide. The survival instinct is our strongest, overcoming even the instinct to breed.
Why are you allowed to say you don't want to die, but females are supposed to say, hell yeah, I am looking so forward to dying that I've already selected the gun to blow my own brains out.
Drafting only women would accomplish one very good thing. Removing 95% or more of the female population from the breeding pool, making it so that there were 10,000 breeder males for every breeder cow, would mean a dramatic drop in the birth rate, and the population. It doesn't matter if all 10,000 tried to inseminate the cow, the cow could only be impregnated once every nine months.
That would be wonderful. There are too many people already, we don't need to protect breeders, especially since most breeders are no better than cows. At least cows care for their calves. Human breeders don't care if their young live or die, humans see their young as money sieves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You misunderstood my meaning. It's perfectly fine if she doens't want to fight. I just think she's devaluing human life by getting pregnant in order to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no hatred for women (you obviously don't watch this site often). I simply believe in equal treatment. If men must go off to war, so should women. That's all. Please read my words in context before you spout off like that and accuse me of feelings I 1) do not have and 2) you could not possibly know whether I have or not because you are not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, Thomas. You've tempered my enthusiasm about the proposed solution.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to join Nightmist in stressing that we in no way, shape or form condone or promote the hatred of women. There are many women who visit this site and support the men's movement. We need to work together, not create more divisiveness.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 08, @04:14PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
It is very, very, very rare that I ever see a rational discussion regarding the draft. This must be the most divisive topic in existence, easily trumping abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia.
Can we actually look at this rationally?
Let's first ask ourselves why, when the draft was first divised, only men were included. Is it really because young men are "expendable"? Before you answer that question, ask yourself this one. Why are criminals, inmates, exempt from the draft? If the only reasoning behind the draft is to kill the expendable, why isn't Mumia Abu-Jamal considered expendable? He must be one of the most expendable people on the planet. Why does he get to sit safely behind bars while war rages? Why not force HIM to go to the front lines? I'll tell you why. Because Mumia is nuts and we don't trust him with automatic weaponry. We don't draft inmates because we've determined that they pose serious security risks, NOT BECAUSE WE LOVE THEM AND WANT TO PROTECT THEM FROM HARM.
Like it or not, one big reason why women weren't included is because, in general, men didn't trust them with weapons. They didn't think women were capable of handling combat situations. They thought if they sent women to war, we'd lose. It doesn't matter if you think they were being stupid. This is what *they* thought, and what many men today still think. I don't know how many times I've seen men say, "A woman has no place in combat. She couldn't handle it. She'd crawl into a corner and cry."
Second is a reason another poster here touched on, and something Frank H said on another draft thread. It's called stocking rate. In the livestock industry, stocking rate is the ideal male:female ratio for maximum breeding of your animals. When you are breeding animals for money, you need to get the most out of your breeding stock. While this ratio differs by species, the general stocking rate is 1:8 male:female. One male for every eight females. This is because that one male can impregnate all eight females, therefore giving you eight offspring to sell. OTOH, if you had a reversed stocking rate, eight males could all have sex with one female, and breed only one offspring. Then you'd get paid only once instead of eight times, in the meantime continuing to feed, shelter, water and medicate all those male animals that are not producing. A similiar situation would develop if you had a 50:50 stocking rate. The males that are not producing still continue to eat and cost you money.
Eventually your sorely misplaced altruism would result in your bankruptcy, and subsequent auctioning off of your livestock to people who have better business sense, and who realizes that horses and humans are not the same thing.
Like it or not, the government has applied this same thinking to humans. The government has a stake in at least keeping the population stable, if not continually increasing it. When they know they will lose 100,000 lives in war, they want EVERY ONE of those lives, and then some, to be replaced by new births. So, women are "protected" from the draft in hopes that they'll be around to breed. Also keep in mind that for a female soldier to be drafted, she'd have to be surgically sterilized to prevent her from getting pregnant and thus avoiding the draft. Sometimes this surgery is reversible, sometimes not. The gov't is concerned about the "sometimes not." A female who survives the war will likely be unable to breed when she returns.
Again, it doesn't matter if YOU think this is stupid, or if you think a 10:1 or 100:1 or 50:50 male:female stocking rate is better. Your personal opinions don't change the FACT that this is what the government thinks.
Actually, if you're pro-war and you want to hit Afghanistan hard, the way to do it would be to kill all the women, removing the citizens' potential to propagate.
Yes, it can be argued that we are hardly underpopulated, and that there is no longer any reason to maintain a 1:8 human stocking rate. Yes, it can be argued that women are indeed pefectly fit for combat, that a woman can perform as well as any man at any task. I'll tell you what. Arguing those two things will get you a lot further than saying, "Men are drafted because women hate them and don't care if they die."
When a wife is presented with a body bag containing the remains of her husband, or a mother the remains of her son, do you think her first thought REALLY is, "Thank god it was him and not me"? Do you realize how disgusting it is to insinuate that this is how war widows and mothers think? Have any of you ever lost someone to murder? Are you giddy it was your loved one who was murdered, and not you? Have you simply gone on with your life as though nothing bad ever happened?
There is no way any rational discourse will ever take place regarding the draft unless reasonable arguments rooted in fact are presented, and the wild accusations and calls for revenge stop. Perhaps then the one good solution, eliminating the draft, can actually be put forth at that point.
In all honesty, my greatest concern regarding this war is whether America is united enough to fight it. Not only do the various races, religions and political sides hate each other, but American men and women see each other as separate species competing for resources. Sorry, but I blame both men and women for this state of affairs.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've done a nice job of illustrating EXACTLY why the draft needs to be abandoned.
1. The government has no business controlling the population of this country, especially through bigot nightclub ladies night means like male-to-female ratios. We're not stock.
2. You're exactly right that inmates would never be drafted into service because they are not trusted. I disagree that it's an issue of trust with women, however. I think it's an issue of people (both women and men) believing that all men are better fit for combat than all women. And it's just not true. Likewise, there are MANY men who do not want women drafted because they love them and want to protect them from harm. See the posts by Carl in previous Draft threads. That's EXACTLY the reason he wants a male-only draft. I disagree with him, of course.
3. There are PEOPLE who are fit and PEOPLE who are not, and whether one wants to fight for ones country should be one's own decision, not the government's.
4. Eliminating the Draft altogether brings this country a step closer to true individualist freedom, in which each individual maintains exclusive control over his or her own body.
Nice post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 08, @05:49PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Can't argue with any of that.
It greatly disturbs me that the gov't puts me on the same level as a horse. We're people, not breeding stock.
An all-volunteer military is better for many reasons, especially in this particular war. I don't want some draftee getting mad enough about being drafted that he decides to go work for Osama Bin Laden, and take revenge on the country that drafted him. That's all we'd need, Bin Laden with agents within our armed forces.
I think the government realizes this, and they are aware of a lot of other problems too. I don't think there is going to be a draft.
My biggest concerns revolve around biochemical warfare, especially biowarfare. Rather than using money to institute the draft, screen all the draftees, and put draft dodgers in prison, we should be using the money to manufacture vaccines against anthrax, smallpox and other agents, and innoculate the public. I am worried a lot more about death by anthrax than I am about death by draft. Personally, I'd rather be blown apart by a landmine, or sliced in half by automatic fire, than die of anthrax. The sad truth is that either of those deaths is better than dying of anthrax. A landmine kills you in seconds. That poor man in Florida suffered for days.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 08, @09:54PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I liked Thomas' comments about the anti-male discrimination of the proposed solution in which women are drafted but serve only in non-combat roles. He makes some good points. If the all-male draft is maintained, is it not reasonable that male conscripts should receive certain benefits in civilian life not available to those exempted from the draft?
Those who say they are opposed to conscription in principle or who say that the draft ought to be abandoned indefinitely, side step the question about what to do in the case of a major war or national emergency in which a large number of people are needed in a short period of time to deal with a crisis -- especially a crisis which carries great physical danger or threatens catastrophe.
The argument about protecting the female breeding stock while sacrificing the useless males is an interesting one, but may have some flaws. Just because males aren't siring children doesn't mean they're useless. Males are extremely productive in important ways, and, among other things, are the ones who build the infrastructure of society and protect the public. In Francis Baumli's book "Men Freeing Men" which is a collection of writings on men's issues by a variety of male authors, there is an essay in which the author counters the female breeding stock argument as it relates to the draft. I read it awhile back and don't have the book and don't remember the author's name or the details real clearly.
Imagine a society with a male-sacrifice policy in which the men are sent to battle and killed in large numbers so that the population is left with only 30% males. With a cultural practice of one man married to one woman, that means that many women will remain childless, husbandless, or the society will become overwhelmingly polygynous -- like the Mormons in Utah with each man having lots of wives. In other words, when you end up with a super majority of females, you've got some serious problems. It would be better to have equal proportions of males and females, even if that meant you sacrificed many females. I think this is the point the author was making, but I'm unclear on the details and may be off a bit. Did anyone read this essay and remember the author's argument precisely?
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The argument about breeding stock is a thin smoke screen that radfems hope will hide their conviction that it's fine to single out men for large-scale slaughter (through the all-male draft). If social control of breeding were necessary, we wouldn't have a situation in which only men are drafted and women are allowed to have abortions. The only reason that we have this situation is because society believes that women must be protected and succored, because they are women, and men are expendable.
Society could outlaw abortion, through a constitutional amendment, as easily as it disregards the 14th amendment (which ostensibly guarantees equal protection under the law) in order to maintain the all-male draft.
Also, Collins is right... Someday, the need for the draft will rise again. Unfortunately, our society will probably be sorely unprepared for it and will either draft only men or, worse, draft men for death and women for advancement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notion of "breeding stock" as it applies to humans came out of a nuclear war doomsday scenario published by the US Department of Defense in the late sixties. I do not have a copy of it in my hands, but I did read the very study, and it is for that reason that I brought it up. Given it's timing, I can say with confidence that there were likely no women involved in it's production. It was not meant for political correctness; it was meant for the survival of the nation.
frank h
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting to know its source, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of "breeding stock" is, today, used by feminists to advance their agenda.
Actually, breeding may soon become a significant social issue without any wide scale disaster. With the ever-growing division between men and women (divorce and refusal to marry) and the popularity of abortion, the population of advanced nations may soon collapse (except for immigration by relatively uneducated people who don't, during the first generation, contribute significantly to the wealth of society).
The last census shows that this is already happening. Japan is at about 50% of replacement rate. Whites in America are a little above that. In many industrialized nations, birth rates are well below replacement rates and safe, effective male-birth control that doesn't seriously reduce pleasure is only now about to appear on the scene.
We've been worried for so long about population explosion that we have given precious little thought to how to deal with population collapse. Singling out men for large scale slaughter is, of course, not a just solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @12:29PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree.
You rely heavily on the "stocking rate", as if the percentage of men killed would be large. Consider the Vietnam war. Between 5,000-10,000 young American men were killed per year. As a percentage, this is insignificant compared to the number of young men in the entire population. For example, the stocking rate might changed from 100:100 to 100:99.7. Only in places that have been decimated by war, such as the Soviet Union in World War II, would be impacted. I have no clue where you come up with a number that if women were drafted, 95% of the breeding pool would be removed from the population.
Interestingly enough, the death rate in the Vietnam War is approximately equivalent to the death rate of men from workplace accidents. However, as a government, we don't bar women from dangereous occupations in an effort to protect our stocking rate.
I don't believe your analogy with cows is accurate. Unlike the cow population, men are the primary producers in society. They have a vital role whether or not they have opportunity to produce. In human terms, our society allows one man to mate with one female. In fact, we outlaw the cow scenario. One man is not allowed to mate with eight females. For this reason, the after effects in the Soviet Union were essentially the same as if women had gone off to war and died. To a large degree, women without mates are not breeders.
I agree with your statement that few people if any *want* to see men die in war. However, I think it goes without question that the lives of women are valued more than the lives of men. The phrase "women and children" is used often. To quote Hillary Clinton, "Women are the primary victims of war because they are the ones left behind when their men are killed." This is such a bizarre statement as to be mind boggling. Are men the primary victims of breast cancer because they are the ones left behind when their women die?
Pregnancy doesn't have anything to do with it. Women would not need to be sterilized. Women solders who become pregnant could be forced to have abortions. For those who think this is immoral, it is no more immoral than the expectation that a man kill an enemy solder. For those who think this denies women the right to do what she wants with her own body, it is no more so than drafting a man and sending him off to die denies him the right to do what he wants with his body.
Women are not drafted for two reasons. 1) Men are considered more expendable from an ethical standpoint. It has nothing to do with stocking rate. We protect women. We don't send them in harms way. We don't send women beyond breeding age in harms way. The Titanic is a classic example. It had nothing to do with saving women so they could have more children. 2) Men are better fighters, at least in traditional warfare. In a group of 50 men and 50 women, the top 49 fighters will be men.
This is the 21st century. Times have changed. It's time we stop protecting women at the expense of men. You over estimate the value of women as breeders.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well put, Shawn.
As for dealing with pregnancies, there's a solution in addition to forced abortion. Any woman, who doesn't show an allergy to it, could be treated with a subdermal, birth control patch. Its presence could be checked daily. Removal would be a treasonable offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @01:14PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for demonstrating the tremendous hatred modern day feminism has for men. The expectation that men should provide, protect, and die for women is obscene. The lives of women are no more sacred than the lives of men, ethically or societally. Welcome to the 21st century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men as a group used to choose for whom to risk their lives; they didn't and still don't want anyone else doing it for them. In the day when men ran the governments and women ran the homes, men were deciding for themselves that it was they who should make the sacrifice or tatke the risk in warfare or in career. Now, with women so much involved in government, as elected or appointed officials or as activists or lawyers, men do not like women making those decisions for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @07:26PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Frank.
My comments regarding livestock stocking rate came out of an animal science textbook, written by a male professor. I haven't seen the gov't study, though I thought of it when I read about animal stocking rate in this textbook. I would not be surprised if the gov't based their study on observations in the livestock industry.
There's a bunch of messages here, but in one of them someone says something about males being "useless" when it comes to stocking rate. The writer sounded like he was very upset about stocking rate practices.
Well, first of all, male animals are not "useless." When you're breeding animals, the most *important* animals in a pedigree bracket are the sire and the maternal grandsire, not the dam or the granddams. This is because the males produce more offspring than the females, and therefore it's much easier to gauge the phenotypic potential of their offspring.
When you breed blood horses, you pay a huge sire fee. I don't think there is such a thing as a dam fee. Secretariat was very highly prized as a sire, though he produced no offspring that were as successful, or majestic, as he.
Now...Does it bother me as a human woman that stallions are more "important" than mares, and that stallions are the only ones who get "paid" in breeding? Uh...NO. I'm not a horse. It would be absurd if I were upset about this. There's a big difference between how we treat animals and how we treat people.
Now, the animal rights crazies might say that the horses are upset about all this, but that's why they're animal rights crazies. ;-)
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @07:34PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
>If the all-male draft is maintained, is it not reasonable that male conscripts
>should receive certain benefits in civilian life not available to those exempted from the draft?
They did that in Nazi Germany. Those men who were too sick, physically or mentally, to be soldiers were stripped of all human rights. Likewise with women who were unable to breed. There's an article in a 1942 issue of Reader's Digest about this, I think the February '42 issue.
It amounts to punishing people for their genetics and/or gender, over which we have no control.
>Those who say they are opposed to conscription in principle or who say that
>the draft ought to be abandoned indefinitely, side step the question about what to do in the case of a major war or national emergency
>in which a large number of people are needed in a short period of time to deal
>with a crisis -- especially a crisis which carries great physical danger
>or threatens catastrophe.
Quite frankly, a country that cannot garner up enough volunteers to defend it, is a country that deserves to be demolished by the enemy.
In fact, that's one of the reasons why we DON'T need a draft now. Recruitment offices are being flooded with voluntary enlistees. Most people love this country, and most people want to help defend it. There is no need to drag the unwilling into this.
BTW, I tried to sign up for military service. I was flatly turned down due to physical disabilities. Even if I'd been a man, I would not have made the cut. This greatly upsets me. I am one of those people who love America deeply, and who wants to defend this great nation.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite frankly, a country that cannot garner up enough volunteers to defend it, is a country that deserves to be demolished by the enemy.
Indeed. We have enough able-bodied and willing people who are voluntarily signing up to defend ths country. It's wrong for this government (or ANY government) to force anyone to die in war against his or her will.
If I were younger and in better health, I might volunteer as well, just to piss off Osama bin Laden that so many Americans are lining up against him. I feel that these days (after years of drinking, depression, and a too many fried foods) that I would be more of a detriment to our military than a service, so I'll cheer on the VOLUNTEER military from the sidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @07:48PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd really like to know who's going to pay for all these abortions. Also, I'd really like to know how we're going to make up for the loss of manpower while the soldier is out getting the abortion. Surgical sterilization is a more cost-effective, and yes, more humane, alternative. This is the UNITED STATES, not Nazi Germany.
However, first you say women must be sent into combat, then you say men are better fighters. So you're saying you want to send the females even though you feel they'll immediately be slaughtered, just because?
Then you claim that "men protect women" and "don't send them in harm's way"? Neither of those comments are in sync with anything else you said in this post.
Let me say something else. Some of these posts absolutely drip with hatred for our military. Others seem to suggest that it should be used for purposes of punishing the populace. Our armed forces are here to defend this country, not to act as a concentration camp where we send "undesirables" for execution. That's why Mumia Abu-Jamal and Susan Smith will never be drafted.
BTW, I am all for women in combat, and I love our armed forces. It is the draft I despise.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @07:53PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, you've mentioned before that you're being treated for depression. Due to that, you would be barred from service.
I've been doing a lot of reading of periodicals from the WWII era. I spent an hour and a half in the library today going through old Reader's Digests and Newsweeks. I was surprised to read, in a 1942 copy of Newsweek, that 6 out of every 10 possible recruits were turned down by the military for medical reasons. This even though we were engaged in a world war. My own grandfather was barred entrance due to (I think) a hernia and some sort of sinus problems (polyps?).
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Claire:
RE your comment that giving male conscripts certain benefits not available to those exempt from the draft amounts to punishing people for their genetics and/or gender over which they have no control.
Military vets receive benefits not available to non-vets, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be stripped of rights, just that male conscripts should be given additional benefits of some kind.
One could say that the all-male draft is a form of punishment for gender over which males have no control.
RE your insistence that if a country can't defend itself with an all-volunteer force it deserves to be demolished by the enemy...
Wow! Are you sure you want to stand by that? Why was the draft ever used by the U.S. in the Civil War and the two World Wars if an all-volunteer force was deemed sufficient to bring about victory? I wonder how many people worldwide would agree that defeat is preferable to the use of conscription. Would the people of Israel? Russia? France?
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why was the draft ever used by the U.S. in the Civil War and the two World Wars if an all-volunteer force was deemed sufficient to bring about victory?
I'd always heard that the selective service was created in WWII, and was at that time created only because the military had so many volunteers that they couldn't keep up with them, so they had to create the draft to have some sort of selective means of controlling the volunteers.
I've also always heard that the selective service wasn't used to draft men unwillingly until Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Nightmist:
This sounds suspicious. A draft was used to deal with an abundance of volunteers? Are you sure? You've heard of the draft riots in NYC during the Civil War? Initially volunteers may satisfy manpower requirements, but later, after battle casualties and disease, the need for draftees becomes evident. I don't know about the US in WWI but I believe the British began to run out of young male volunteers to feed into the meat grinder, and had to resort to conscription. Same with France in WWI, I think.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 09, @10:16PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Collins.
I should restate what I said earlier. I have no problem giving certain benefits to both war and military veterans, as they earned those benefits. However, we have to be careful that what they're getting is something "extra," not basic rights that should be extended to all.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like I'm partially right but mainly wrong on the history:
http://www.uncle-sam.com/sss.html
The above site also claims to have info on women and the draft. Haven't looked at it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I think about this, the more I agree with Claire about volunteerism overriding the Draft (a new post on this topic I've queued for tomorrow morning will provide some further insight).
Here's my late-night thought: The United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, correct? It is a Republic in which the people elect the government. We elect them to represent us and to do what we want them to do. SO, if America wants to go to war, then it must be its PEOPLE who want to go to war, and so volunteerism overrides the need for the draft, as is the case against Osama bin Laden.
Now, look at Vietnam. That was one historic instance in which America did NOT want to go to war, and it nearly tore this country apart in many ways. Veterans of that war still suffer from it. The country still bears the scars of those times.
So, if America is truly a free country, it should always be governed by the will of the people. And the will of the people being sound, no draft should ever be required for Americans to successfully go to war in great numbers. We'll do it on our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 10, @12:27PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the Vietnam vets suffered greatly, and still do. I don't blame the protestors of the time for protesting the WAR, but it incenses me that they spit on the soldiers when they returned, as if those soldiers had *anything* to do with the U.S. sending them to that war. They were victims, not perpetrators.
Black victicrats keep demanding that the U.S. apologize for slavery. I think an apology to Vietnam vets, both from their gov't and the citizens who bashed them, is sorely due more!
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Nightmist and Claire:
A democratic country can choose to have a military draft. The last time I checked the US is a democratic country in which the public chooses to have a selective service system which requires its young men to register for the draft at around age 18. Just because a country drafts its young men (or requires them to register so that they can be located quickly in the event of a reinstatement of the draft) does not mean that the country is non-democratic.
Also, those who say that a democratic country should be able to meet its obligations in the case of war or national emergency with an all-volunteer force, are really just saying that they hope an all-volunteer force will be sufficient. They are refusing to face the possibility that a draft might be necessary in certain situations.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, Collins, the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. And if the basis of our republic is that all people are entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," then it is not Constitutional for our republic to force us to put ourselves in harm's way against our will. Sorry, but the whole concept of the draft violates some of the ideas on which this country was founded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Nightmist:
You're making a moral argument, not a legal one. The US Constitution does not require the country to allow itself to be invaded or destroyed.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that it's a moral argument. We are legally guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The draft infringes on all three of those rights: life, because it is distinctly possible one will die as a consequence of participating in war; liberty, because under the draft one is not at liberty to choose one's own path. One could be forced to go into combat against one's will. There's no liberty there. Pursuit of happiness... is anyone able to pursue anything but his own survival and the mission of his company hunkered down in a foxhole or firing at the enemy?
The deprivation of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happines have been used in a great many legal arguments, and will continue to be used in that way as long as the guarantee of those rights under the Constitution remain the law of the land.
There's no moral argument to it. It's there in black and parchment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US Constitution does not require the country to allow itself to be invaded or destroyed.
I actually disagree with that statement, too. The framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Declaration of Independence called the notion of the U.S. "The Great Experiment." A great many of them expected it to fail. In fact, the authors of the Declaration of Independence understood better than anyone the need for the people to be able to dismantle their government should that government infringe upon their rights:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty adn the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I also have a copy of the Constitution in front of me. All I see about invasion and destruction in there is the Second Amendment, which guarantees every individual the right to bear arm and the Third Amendment, which protects Americans against the quartering of soldiers, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against illegal search and seizure. Nothing about conscription there.
Don't get me wrong, Collins. I love this country and I don't want it to be either invaded or destroyed, but I am also not going to allow my government to put the safety of unwilling soldiers in peril out of fear. I own my body, not the government. Therefore, it should be my decision whether to put myself in harm's way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Nightmist:
RE your argument that the draft is unconstititional and contradictory to the ideals of the American form of gov't.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled that the draft is unconstitutional. There is a federal draft registration requirement in place and the federal government(as far I know) has the option of reinstating the draft if circumstances should arise. Throughout American history the draft has been used during war time. The draft was also in place during years of peace in the 1948-73 period.
None of your statements about the draft being unconstitutional or antithetical to American political ideals are going to change those facts.
But going beyond that, what worries me about your point of view is that you (and like-minded folks) refuse to deal with the possibility that a situation could arise in which a draft is necessary to deal with an imminent threat. You have not presented me with any credible evidence to support the notion that a draft is not and never has been necessary.
Unfortunately, we've gotten away from the original topic which I think had to do with the unfairness of the All-Male draft.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of your statements about the draft being unconstitutional or antithetical to American political ideals are going to change those facts.
They may be facts that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled the draft unconstitutional. That doesn't mean I cannot hold the opinion that they are. The Supreme Court has changed its opinion on almost everything depending upon which party holds the majority there, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in history being a good indicator of what is or is not right. Just because something's been done a certain way for a long period of time doesn't make it correct (or good).
But going beyond that, what worries me about your point of view is that you (and like-minded folks) refuse to deal with the possibility that a situation could arise in which a draft is necessary to deal with an imminent threat. You have not presented me with any credible evidence to support the notion that a draft is not and never has been necessary.
On the contrary, I've posted a link to the Selective Service site, which directly contradicts the need for a draft itself when it mentions that it almost drafted women in World War II. Instead of that being necessary, word got out that the military needed nurses, and women volunteered, overriding the need to draft them into that work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 11, @04:31PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
>I've posted a link to the Selective Service site, which directly contradicts
>the need for a draft itself when it mentions that it almost drafted women
>in World War II. Instead of that being necessary, word got out that the military
>needed nurses, and women volunteered, overriding the need to draft them into that work.
I saw that, and the same thing occurred to me. This is of special importance because, at this time in history, only young, unmarried, childless women worked in any great numbers. There was a HUGE social stigma attached to a woman who worked. She was considered flat-out unfeminine, not a real woman. This stereotype was so ingrained in the American psyche as to be visceral.
Despite this, when the call came out for nurses, women signed up.
Being a military nurse or doctor was no posh country club job. Medical personnel worked under horrid, unsanitary conditions, perpetually lacking supplies and being forced to make do with whatever they had. Meanwhile, death and suffering was all around. Also, the enemy thought nothing of attacking military hospital stations when they figured out where they were located. For obvious reasons, hospitals were far easier to launch an attack on than an armed platoon, and you could be ensured of a high kill rate.
Despite knowing this, they still signed up.
Why? The same reason the men signed up for combat in huge numbers. Love of country overcame stereotypes and fear.
I urge everyone who would like to know more about the WWII era to go in your local library and read periodicals from that time. I've gotten hold of Readers Digests and Newsweeks. The articles, the op-ed columns, even the advertising give real insight into how the average American lived and thought at that time.
Patriotism in 2001 America is *starting* to resemble patriotism in 1942 America. We're not quite in full bloom yet, but we're getting there. I was taken aback when I picked up a copy of Newsweek from July 6, 1942 and saw the cover. It was very simple: Nothing but a picture of the American flag with the caption "United We Stand." WOW. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Nightmist:
Until the Supreme Court reverses its decison re the draft or until public pressure forces a change in the draft law, the law is the law. I think it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse its decision anytime soon, and I don't expect the public to pressure the government to abolish the draft anytime soon. Ignoring the practical and historical reasons for the draft, and just wishing that there is never any need for it doesn't make it so.
Again, you haven't presented me with any credible evidence to support the notion that a draft has never been necessary and that it never will be. The site you recommended states that men were drafted between '48-73 to fill the void in the armed services left by the volunteer forces. And with all due respect, it seems disingenuous to compare the volunteer nurses with the male combatants who were much more likely to be killed, injured, maimed or captured. I'd be far more impressed if women had successfully pressured the government to open dangerous combat jobs to females and then had volunteered in large numbers to fill those jobs -- and had gone on to serve honorably while suffering high casualties. That would convince me!
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Claire:
Like I told Nightmist, the volunteer nurses example just doesn't convince me. Male combatants in WWII were in far greater danger for death, injury, and capture than the female nurses. And I'll bet you the nurses who served in Europe in WWII would agree that the soldiers on or near the front were not only in greater danger, but generally had it tougher in terms of living conditions. As one nurse in Europe said in comparing herself to the GIs "we walk in mud, you sleep in it."
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, the human survival instinct will always prevail over "democracy" when the chips are down. When a serious foreign threat or attack effectively shatters the American people's sense of security, and the possibility of having our land invaded or destroyed will become as real as the possibility of a thunderstorm wrecking the Sunday cook-out, the majority of American citizens will realize that the only way they can rest easier is to know that their government is going to do all it can to defend against the enemy - even if it means a major war requiring the draft.
And once we've accepted this contingency, we will then say: "Okay, if we must fight, then at the very least, can we protect those people that we truly care about, and simply send in those people that we care about the least, and/or those who are the least important to our society, and cross our fingers that the enemy will exhaust itself on them before it reaches us?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Collins, at this point in the argument I would simply be repeating myself, so I'm just going to say I still disagree with you. :) Great debating you, though. Btw, I am going to be writing about The Draft for my next column on The Guy Code. It should appear there the week after next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to get back in here and get everyone back to he essence of why so many men are upset about the current state of affairs:
1) The draft, whether it is necessary or not, only applies to men.
2) Regardless of the draft, once a man enlists, the choice of whether or not to "accept" a combat assignment is not his; this is in contrast to women, who have a choice as to whether or not to accept a combat (or near-combat) assignment.
3) Training standards. and therefore combat readiness, has been reduced to accommodate women "careerists."
I would have no issue with a completely gender-blind military if training and readiness standards were sufficiently rigorous to assure an effective defense. But the system, as it is currently configured is completely disrespectful to men and the contribution they make as a matter of biology.
The debate about the draft is almost meaningless. When a nation perceives itself sufficiently at risk of defeat, it will institute a draft regardless of the preferences of it populace.
The arguments about breeding stock actually becomes more pervasive when you consider genetics. If you rank your population according to their ability to fight, then you take the top ten percent, male and female, then you have to allow evolution to recover that "talent." And that will take thousands of years. Whereas, if you preserve one half of that group, and preserve the most productive of them in terms of procreation (women), you maintain the quality of the stock. Its true that in terms of the fraction of the total population sacrificed in war, the numbers are small. However, when you go to war, you take the best and the brightest of warriors. If every nation sends their best to war, and one nation sacrifices their best gene pool in total, then eventually, maybe over a couple of generations, their stock becomes disadvantaged, and they stand a poorer chance of survival.
It is, indeed, very cold to regard your populace as "breeding stock," but in terms of governing nations, it is necessary. It's only in terms of ones community and ones family that it becomes possible to think of ourselves as individuals. Referring to an example I offered in another thread, if we take all of the Michael Jordans and Phil Simms AND the Mia Hamms and Michelle Akers and send them off to fight one war, then they may never bear children. The ones who were left to bear children are the second sting, or maybe the third. How will those children fight when their time comes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 12, @12:23PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
>once we've accepted this contingency, we will then say: "Okay, if we must fight, then
>at the very least, can we protect those people that we truly care about, and simply send
>in those people that we care about the least, and/or those who are the least important
>to our society, and cross our fingers that the enemy will exhaust itself on them before
>it reaches us?"
Then Hawth, why do we not draft inmates? If the idea is to kill those we care about the least, I say all death row inmates should go first. Timothy McVeigh shouldn't have been executed--he should have been kept alive for drafting in the current war. Right alongside him should have been Betty Lou Beets, Karla Faye Tucker, Charles Ng, Stephen Brian Pennell, Mumia Abu-Jamal...I don't know about you, but I don't care if any of these people get sliced apart by automatic weapons fire.
After the death row inmates are all gone, then we draft the life-without-parolers (murderers, pedophiles, etc), then we draft those who are serving 25 to life, and so on. When we finish cleaning out the prisons, we draft parolees, then probationees.
If the only reason why certain subsets of the population aren't drafted is because we love them too much to sacrifice them, I'm incensed that criminals are protected, kept safely behind bars while war rages. If anything, they'd make great soldiers. Think about it. Charles Ng and Andrea Yates ENJOY killing people. They'd love it if you gave them weapons and free reign to kill as many people as they can.
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 12, @12:28PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Jordan wouldn't be drafted, not because he's a celebrity, but because he's too tall. The military has maximum, as well as minimum, height requirements.
This MIGHT be due to the fact that unusually tall people often have health problems that, while not affecting the ability to play ball, do cause problems in combat situations. Our bodies simply aren't meant to grow to seven feet tall. That's why Shaquille O'Neal had surgery this summer. His ankles are deteriorating under his weight. This is a common problem in people affected with acromegaly (giantism).
Claire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire:
You know as well as I do why inmates are exempt from the draft. Aside from the obvious fact that most criminals are not trustworthy (in fact, a criminal is, by definition, a rebel to the country), it simply would not look decent, noble or respectable for a "noble" country such as the U.S. to use criminals as part of its "noble" war efforts. When was the last time you heard a U.S. President publicly characterize those in the U.S. military as "loving that we have given them weapons and free reign to kill as many people as they can?"
While I don't believe that the majority of those in our military right now could aptly be characterized as such, I suspect that any U.S. President who wages war would secretly hope that his military force is populated with at least as many natural born killers, amoral scumbags and highly brainwash-able post-adolescents as there are likely to be in the enemy forces - otherwise, we're in trouble.
But again, P.R. is very important. And you're not going to attract many volunteers by characterizing soldiers as "killers" or "sacrificial lambs", deployed to perform a task that Timothy McVeigh and Andrea Yates would also be perfect for; by that same token, if a nation were so brutally honest, then most draftees would either rebel, flee the country or commit suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was searching past articles and found yours on the draft. Overall, I liked it, but where do you get the idea that all Mormons live in Utah, and that they have several wives?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
