Actual war has not been declared since 1941. Everything since then has not "officially" been a declared war. So, nobody would have been affected by what you propose. Not saying it's not a good idea, just that the threshold hasn't been met in 75 years.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Women suffered injuries at twice the rate of men in one field exercise test:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html
There are questions about how it was carried out, but I don't think anyone is pretending that the female body, generally speaking, is equivalent to the male body in terms of strength and robustness. As long as the fitness bar is equal for a given task then the troops will fall into the positions which they are capable of, and we should see little issue. Some women will serve in particularly physically demanding roles, but I expect there will be a natural division based on actual ability which will result in some positions being held more by women than men, and others more by men than women.
It's the people who want to lower the standards in the name of "equality" that are going to whine that this doesn't go far enough, and at that point I can't help but wonder if they understand what the military does and is for?
Our own national statistics amply demonstrate that men are far more able and likely to commit violence and murder than women, and if the military isn't about violence and killing then we're not going to be able to defend ourselves from those who understand the purpose of a military.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html
There are questions about how it was carried out, but I don't think anyone is pretending that the female body, generally speaking, is equivalent to the male body in terms of strength and robustness. As long as the fitness bar is equal for a given task then the troops will fall into the positions which they are capable of, and we should see little issue. Some women will serve in particularly physically demanding roles, but I expect there will be a natural division based on actual ability which will result in some positions being held more by women than men, and others more by men than women.
It's the people who want to lower the standards in the name of "equality" that are going to whine that this doesn't go far enough, and at that point I can't help but wonder if they understand what the military does and is for?
Our own national statistics amply demonstrate that men are far more able and likely to commit violence and murder than women, and if the military isn't about violence and killing then we're not going to be able to defend ourselves from those who understand the purpose of a military.
Kill people! Burn shit!! Fuck school!!! I hate spam email!
GasBandit
Staff member
Stay in sleep, eat your school, don't do vegetables, and get 8 hours of drugs every night.
Ted Williams wasn't drafted to serve in Korea, but he was called up from the inactive reserves. For a LeBron, ARoid, or Brady to be drafted and actually serve would be unthinkable today.
Not sorry.
So did I, but only because it took me several moments to figure out what the fuck ARoid meant. My mind kept leaping between the Noid, and that joke Data told Guinen in 10 Forward.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what was proposed and I responded to.
And every post in this thread must, necessarily, follow logically from the previous one, either as an addendum or a counterpoint.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yikes.
GasBandit
Staff member
Fruit stripe gum?
It's where I was headed, but I couldn't think of a baseball-y enough way to continue the sequence.
--Patrick
So, do the over two million uncounted ballots in California matter or--no, still Trump vs Clinton? Okay, just making sure.
Do you have sources that refute the assertion you quoted?
Now I'm wondering if there has been any legitimate political movement from women to abolish the draft on behalf of men.
Why would we do that on behalf of men? If men wanted the draft abolished, they should have started their own "legitimate political movement" and then we would have helped them. But if most men wanted the draft (which we could easily assume from the lack of legitimate political movement), do women really have the right to demand its abolishment when it didn't directly affect us?
But now that it directly affects women, women have a right to demand it be abolished. If men want to be butthurt because they didn't think of doing that thirty years ago, that's their problem.
You assert that until now the draft has had no opposition?
The last time I saw people starting draft opposition, Bush's cronies was calling them traitors. I don't know how far that would've really gone; I was in college then and there was just a lot of talk. It seems likely that whichever political party issues a draft is going to be voted out in the next election, but they still want the option around. Getting rid of the draft as a whole is going to be difficult because the opinion of the U.S. government is that it is the sovereign right of any nation to forcibly conscript its citizens when it deems necessary. Immigrants can't even apply for asylum here if their country wishes to persecute draft dodgers who flee to the U.S.; we ship them right back based on the above principle.
I don't think blanket "no more draft" legislation will ever pass, but I think in particular instances a movement could succeed if it's "no draft for this particular issue." And maybe that could happen every time there's an international military conflict until it threatens Americans' way of life.
In a way, a draft isn't that necessary. Just cripple public education, keep the unemployment rate up, offer permanent residence as incentive to illegal immigrants. Leave few options for some besides military service. One way or another, they get recruits.
EDIT: I'm not sure this was a real response to anyone or me just saying stuff.
I don't think blanket "no more draft" legislation will ever pass, but I think in particular instances a movement could succeed if it's "no draft for this particular issue." And maybe that could happen every time there's an international military conflict until it threatens Americans' way of life.
In a way, a draft isn't that necessary. Just cripple public education, keep the unemployment rate up, offer permanent residence as incentive to illegal immigrants. Leave few options for some besides military service. One way or another, they get recruits.
EDIT: I'm not sure this was a real response to anyone or me just saying stuff.
Of course not, I'm just being an over-the-top ass in responding to women being expected to form "legitimate political movements" on behalf of men.
Because there has been a pretty constant effort to get the draft abolished, by both men and women (Google will give lots of organizations). But apparently, according to some people, some TwitFace posts are the very first indication ever that women are concerned about the draft.
Also, there was actually a bipartisan bill introduced in February to abolish it. Which makes me wonder if this is actually a two-part effort to get it abolished, because it's more likely to succeed if women are now included.
Imaginary News Photos Of The Past:
(Pile of burning bras, women coming up and throwing bras onto the pile)
"Whooo! Bra-less women runnin' around! Yeaaaahhh!"
(Pile of burning jock straps, men coming up and throwing more onto the pile)
"MAKE IT STOP! WE'LL DO ANYTHING! GAH THE SMELL PUT IT OUT...OMIGOD NO DON'T PEE ON IT <hurl>"
--Patrick
Last edited:
Plot twist - she's an ISIS agent provocateur sent over to instigate acts of terrorism through use of proxies, while simultaneously making them seem to be senseless and connected to ISIS only in the loosest manner.
Thanks Obama
Here's an interesting wrinkle, especially for all our Wisconsinite members.
Wisconsin Congresswoman says, "Let's drug-test the rich before approving their tax deductions."
--Patrick
Wisconsin Congresswoman says, "Let's drug-test the rich before approving their tax deductions."
Oh, it's on now. Or at least, it's out in the open, and therefore slightly more visible and subject to debate.
--Patrick
This was (strongly suggested to be) true in Scott Walker's case, but I assume the main goal of this sort of thing is to put yet another hurdle in place that, if not overcome, allows another excuse to weasel out of paying someone else their due benefits.
--Patrick