So you're saying that if you were British and had to be drafted for Margaret Thatcher's adventures in the Falklands, you'd go because it's a "woman's war"?

Don't kid yourself, women throughout history (when in power) are just as war like as men.

I said "perhaps." We can't know until it actually happens.

It's not about being a woman's war or a man's war...
When kids grow up, they get an image of guys as soldiers...GI Joes, war movies that almost never contain women...women are rarely "conditioned" to think "someday I might have to go to war." And I'm not saying it's right, but many women just aren't ready for it.

I don't really have a highly supported reason for thinking this, but I think that if the government seriously considers drafting women then they should do it under a woman president. The reason I say that is because I believe we still won't see a woman for maybe a decade. It offers a period of "adjustment" to the change.

they won't bring back the draft. congress doesn't reverse itself too much.

The United States possesses the most powerful military on earth, one that has proved its potency in ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Yet, even as the military was gearing up to perform so well, some people were calling for a return to conscription or, more dramatically, for institution of mandatory national service for all young people.

A draft would make no sense militarily: U.S. soldiers are the best trained and educated ever. Operations like that against the Taliban—and potential future anti-terrorist initiatives elsewhere, such as in Yemen and Somalia—require elite special forces, not mass conscript armies. Indeed, a draft would degrade the military's performance, requiring induction of less-qualified personnel, who are rejected today, and raising the rate of "indiscipline" by filling the armed services with people who don't want to serve. It comes as no surprise that the military leadership opposes conscription.

A broader national service draft would be even less justifiable. Conscripting 18-year-olds would do nothing to protect America from terrorism; a few skilled personnel can do far more to make us safe than can masses of untrained young people.

Turning over to Washington the lives of the 4 million men and women who turn 18 every year would guarantee the grossest misuse of enormous human potential. If opportunity cost is not considered, perceived "needs" will be infinite. Control by a federal government engaged in the usual pursuit of political pork would guarantee that national service would become a monumental boondoggle.

Most important, turning over control of young people's destinies to government would be a massive transfer of power from civil society to the state. Conscription would undermine the very individual liberty that makes our nation worth defending.

(not my work)

I agree that conscription will probably not be used in the forseeable future... However, I as a male had to sign up for selective services.

Why then do women not have to do this? What's equal about that?

Taking the words out of my mouth :D

I find it offensive that people say that they wouldn't go if drafted. That's extremely selfish. You're asking someone else to go put their life on the line in your place.

Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you!

This is arguably the best country in the world. Sometimes we're called upon to protect those freedoms. Sometimes we're asked to give our lives so that future generations can enjoy those freedoms. It's selfless sacrifice like this that lets you own a computer with unfettered access to the internet today!

It's the reason we don't have slavery in the South... It's the reason we don't speak German right now.

I have a very low opinion on draft dodgers. If I were called on I'd sure as hell show up.

You're right. But, think of it this way, who would want someone out there defending our country if they don't want to? Their motivation will be way down and will do less, decreasing the effectiveness of the troops.

Originally posted by ktsnake:
'It's the reason we don't have slavery in the South... It's the reason we don't speak German right now.'

to go out on a (unrelated) limb...Im pretty sure there wouldnt still be slavery today either way :)

My thoughts
 

I just got off a plane a couple hours ago after a very long work week but this is what I think:

1. There is a need to establish the ability to call up large numbers of troops, male and female to allow the military to function properly. Anyone that thinks special forces (delta, seal, etc.) are the ones that will carry the military into the future are simply wrong. It is large ground support that is in Afghanistan as of this moment - mostly not special forces. It is large ground support that will be required to go into Iraq. The special forces are just that - used in unique and special cases...not a substitute for an army.

2. I fully support the requirement that women be drafted as required by military needs (during a demanding war). However, I am FULLY against women in combat in most conditions unless the physical requirements are the exact same for both sexes (they are not currently as the bar is lowered for women right now). This is just like the case where feminazi's sued the FDNY on the grounds that their exams were too hard because not enough women were fire fighters in NY.

-Rudey
--I like Feminists. They cook and clean real nice.

I agree with valkyrie, the best situation is not to have a draft at all.

Selective Service was established so that, if there were a need for a draft, they have a list at hand of young men to call up. There hasn't been a draft since Vietnam, but the list is there in the event that there is a need.

I believe that women should be required to register for Selective Service. However, a woman who is drafted should not be required to serve in active combat. She should have the option to do so, with appropriate training. If she doesn't want to, she can work in a support capacity.

I'm too old for the draft, but if I were called up, I would be proud to serve.

There aren't many people that are actually excited and happy to go to war. It's an obligation.

There are who people who don't feel it is an obligation and will not treat it that way.

IMO it's better to have people fighting for our country who WANTS to fight for it.

Well those people can go to jail then. That's absolutely where they deserve to be. You don't deserve the freedoms that our society allows unless you are willing to defend them.

The entire reason you have a draft is because people don't volunteer to go to war. It's mandatory. Now if you're called up I could care less if you wanted to go or not. If you let people out of the draft simply because they say they "don't want to go" then you won't have a draft.

Believe this: If the draft was ever instituted again it would most certainly be required due to a real danger to our country. If not the people that instituted it in the first place would soon find themselves out of a job.