Draft???? - Page 2

Rudey · #16 09-14-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KappaKittyCat
Israel has three years of mandatory military service for all 18-year-olds, men and women.

Wrong. Men serve longer than women in the IDF first of all. And all divisions within the IDF are very different and do not follow the PC trend going on in other military units in other countries. If you do not pass the test, you do not get in. This is the reason why you will rarely see a girl within the Air Force or the Paratroopers.

Dionysus, this is all part of the same war first of all. Second of all, our military is designed to handle more than one front at a time.

Arya, I'm sorry but you are very one sided in your thought on Iraq as well as the Kurds.

-Rudey
--Off to run

justamom · #17 09-14-2002, 04:02 PM

cash78mere-i don't think we'll have a draft any time soon. but i do think that many students join ROTC and the army to help pay for college...NOT with the intentions that they will ever become real soldiers. many will be in for a rude awakening unfortunately.

I have to agree with you on this! Also, a young man I know got in trouble for drugs about 2 years ago. It wasn't his first offense and it was more than grass. Rather than go to jail (he had just graduated HS and this would mean, NO EDUCATION) he chose to go ARMY. I am glad this option was open so he could have a clean record and still earn a degree, but I wonder how he feels NOW, knowing the gravity of the choice he made.

James · #18 09-14-2002, 04:22 PM

Drafting women is not a bad idea at this point.

There are many support capacities they could fill thus freeing more men for combat roles. *shrug*

Rudey's point: The military was configured under Reagan to be able to fight a two front war and a third more minor action.

However, I don't believe we are up to that manpower ability anymore. The military took a lot of cuts in the past 10 years. Although, our manpower committment in Afghanistan is not really huge.

I don't really have any sympathy for National Guard or ROTC people that are suddenly faced with real service. They signed up.

Munchkin03's point: I understand what you are saying .. but think for a second! Men can be raped also.

An electric shock stick in the anus may be more painful than even straight rape on a girl.

Also, I'll step out on a limb and assume that being tortured to death is NOT fun regardless of the methodology or your plumbing!

The sanctity of your sexual apparatus may not be a good reason to keep women out of the military . . .

justamom · #19 09-14-2002, 05:08 PM

The sanctity of your sexual apparatus may not be a good reason to keep women out of the military . . .

No, but the children that could be born and the motherless children at home are. Won't argue against office duties, only being in a position to be captured. That's just one person's opinion though.

Rudey · #20 09-14-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by justamom
The sanctity of your sexual apparatus may not be a good reason to keep women out of the military . . .

No, but the children that could be born and the motherless children at home are. That's just one person's opinion though.

Yeah fathers are completely unnecessary in modern day America anyway so mothers should remain safe at home while fathers are put at risk.

-Rudey
--Take away all fathers and you have a society of mothers who dress boys in pink tutus and make them take dancing lessons...scary world.

Thrillhouse · #21 09-14-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KappaKittyCat
Israel has three years of mandatory military service for all 18-year-olds, men and women.

Thats a good rule

justamom · #22 09-14-2002, 05:48 PM

Rudy, you over simplified my statement. That point could fill a whole other thread on GC. Of course fathers aren't unimportant and I did not SAY they were. When you consider the age of most draftees, I think it is fair to say the children would be very young.

Can you imagin a 8 month pregnant woman in a fox hole?
...and when the babies come, and there would be babies, are you or any man equiped to nurse them?
This is silly.

Beside, the REST of my post stated-Won't argue against office duties, only being in a position to be captured. That's just one person's opinion though.

I had double posted and the original one did not clarify, you simply copied it within a matter of seconds prior to the deletion.

Rudey · #23 09-14-2002, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by justamom
Rudy, you over simplified my statement. That point could fill a whole other thread on GC. Of course fathers aren't unimportant and I did not SAY they were. When you consider the age of most draftees, I think it is fair to say the children would be very young.

Can you imagin a 8 month pregnant woman in a fox hole?
...and when the babies come, and there would be babies, are you or any man equiped to nurse them?
This is silly.

Beside, the REST of my post stated-Won't argue against office duties, only being in a position to be captured. That's just one person's opinion though.

I had double posted and the original one did not clarify, you simply copied it within a matter of seconds prior to the deletion.

Now now, I don't think they're sending pregnant mothers into fox holes. I did not say that and if your original point was that you were worried that pregnant women would be forced to serve in a physical role should the draft include women, then I totally missed that; I apologize. However, you should know that as applied to males and their families there are a great deal of exemptions. Were the draft applied to the female population, I am positive that they'd allow exemptions and priviledges to women as well.

-Rudey
--We can always take over Canada and make them fight for us.

RACooper · #24 09-15-2002, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey

-Rudey
--We can always take over Canada and make them fight for us.

Your welcome to try

justamom · #25 09-15-2002, 07:42 AM

EXEMPTIONS- Is there a list of what the old ones were, or does anyone remember? I do recall hearing 4-F. I always thought there was an "only son" clause or something about the end of a famly name?

Women-I wonder if they DID include women in the draft, if we would see a slew of pregnacies- the draft dogers of the 2000's?

Tom Earp · #26 09-15-2002, 11:09 AM

Wars Suck! Wars are a Reallity!

Why?

For Economics and self presavation!

I did not Go To Nam! I have never been in the Military! Green Was Not My Color!

I wore Blue as a Police Officer instead!

War is not a glorious thing of who is right or wrong, it is about killing pure and simple!
Have you seen anyone shot, Cut, Having a baby, drug overdosed, burned in an accident or in a tramtic car accident where there was not a solid bone in the whole body? It is not pretty or glorious is is heart rendering!

It tore me up many times and still think about 2 of the situations where I could do nothing about it! This is after almost 30 years.

DeltAlum · #27 09-15-2002, 11:45 AM

A couple of thoughts -- just to keep the pot stirred...

Women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses.

I think it would be possible to "protect" women to a large extent by keeping then in non-conbatant roles. Of course, nothing is perfect, and some certainly could be killed or captured.

There could be regulations put in place to not send a father and mother into a combat zone at the same time. There was a rule about sole surviving sons during Vietnam.

If women were drafted, it could leave more men on the homefront to keep running the country. The idea is not to increase the size of the military -- just make things more "equitable."

There are lots of jobs in the Armed Forces that do not require physical strength and agility. Women could fill them well.

As for the former draft, 4-F was unfit for service for physical reasons (a lot of hugh football player types, etc. got off for "injuries" like bad knees, etc.) , 1-S and 2-S were student deferments. There were others.

I need to confess now. I have two daughters in their twenties. I'm not really in favor of drafting women on the face of it. However, there are some very good reasons for thinking about it.

texas*princess · #28 09-16-2002, 07:29 PM

woohoo Saddam is letting U.N inspectors to check out his country... he must have hid his stuff already

Kitty_Kat · #29 09-16-2002, 09:25 PM

- Women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses.

Many women are still serving. I am most definantely not a nurse yet serve in the Army.

-There could be regulations put in place to not send a father and mother into a combat zone at the same time. There was a rule about sole surviving sons during Vietnam.

Currently there is nothing in place for this. My husband and I are both serving in the same unit. If we deploy we both go. The children will be taken care of by family members. That was an arangement we had to make when we made the decision to have children. Why would they change it???

AS for women being drafted. It won't happen. Imagine the uproar when they require women to register for selective service and until that happens how can they draft them???

DeltAlum · #30 09-16-2002, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty_Kat
- Women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses.

Many women are still serving. I am most definantely not a nurse yet serve in the Army.

Kitty,

You are so right. I stated that very poorly. I should have said, "In past conflicts, women have served with distinction -- mostly as nurses." That was the intent.

I know that during the Gulf War there were many stories of both parents being sent. Why would they change it? Public opinion, I suppose, would be the only reason.

JAM, the rule during Vietnam, as I recall it, didn't have anything to do with the "last of a line," but rather the "sole surviving son" of a family that had lost other sons. (Kind of like the "reason" for the plot in "Saving Private Ryan") I suppose it had the effect of saving the family "name" in some cases, except that if the son were an only child -- or an only son in a family with daughters, the rule did not apply to him. I am an only child, for instance, and the rule did not apply to me.

As for the comment about joining ROTC to pay for college -- I think you're exactly right. That wasn't the case for us in 1965. War wasn't a possibility -- it was happening. I very vividly remember some grizzled old sergeant telling us that if we joined ROTC, we would be officers and give him orders, but if we didn't, we would get drafted anyway and he would be bossing us around -- and he hadn't finished high school. It was an effective recruitment technique. Of course we were too dumb to realize that the professional sergeants (or Chiefs in the Navy) were really the people who make the services run on the day to day level. They had the experience, the newly minted ROTC Second Johns only had a new degree and a shiny gold bar.

I'm editing here because it just occurred to me that one reason for a deferment in the early Vietnam era was being married and having a family. That was changed before the end of the "conflict." You could "play" the system if you got married during your Junior and had a child sometime during your Senior year and go directly from a student deferment to a married with a child deferment.