It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SEE? TOLJA they wanted women in a war draft.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
This recent push that isn't functional in our armed forces is an effort to get women into the draft.NOW they too will share the nightmare with men.
They tried to play it off as getting better rank but with the staged Ranger effort recently,it LOOKS like the are getting nervous.
www.military.com...




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This concerns me to no end! and not even on the part of what a female is or is not capable of.

My concern is: How are men going to react to women being shot vs their brother being shot?

I'm afraid that women on the battlefield are going to add a dynamic to the psychological state of "grunts" which will lead to miscalculations based merely on instinctual reflexes.

Wha'ts so wrong with admitting men are physically stronger and more suited for battle than women? It's physiology, biology, chemistry, and history.
edit on 12-10-2015 by payuporgtfo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: payuporgtfo

Not to mention, why now? Are they expecting something big in the near future? Or is this just a push for gender equality?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: payuporgtfo

Not to mention, why now? Are they expecting something big in the near future? Or is this just a push for gender equality?


It's.. well frankly the left agenda. "everyone is equal!!" "Yay"

Actually no! Being a man I am stronger than say 95% of females. Its true, Its the chemistry of being male, the biology, the physiology, etc.

If humans could realize their strengths and weaknesses, and admit the strengths and weaknesses of others.... put the right people in the right place... imagine how far we could go!?

But no.. We need care an nurturing on the battleield



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: payuporgtfo
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This concerns me to no end! and not even on the part of what a female is or is not capable of.

My concern is: How are men going to react to women being shot vs their brother being shot?

I'm afraid that women on the battlefield are going to add a dynamic to the psychological state of "grunts" which will lead to miscalculations based merely on instinctual reflexes.

Wha'ts so wrong with admitting men are physically stronger and more suited for battle than women? It's physiology, biology, chemistry, and history.


Women serve in combat roles for the Israeli defense forces and do just fine.

Women are some of the fiercest fighters in the Kurdish militia fighting in the front lines against ISIS.

Already history has proven you wrong..
edit on 10/12/2015 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

Funny you mention that. I met quite a few female Israeli veterans in my day... You cannot even compare them to western females or even males.. different culture, different military, nothing alike.

My point being American males may very well have poorer combat performance when women are involved.

Furthermore, do you have any statistics for the Israeli Army? or do you have any statistics for the Kurdish women fighting in a non religious war?

Frankly you argument at this point only (sort of) holds water IF we are fighting an Islamic enemy. (ISIS is scraed #less of loosing their 72 virgins by being killed by a woman)
edit on 12-10-2015 by payuporgtfo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

NOT by AMERICAN doctrine they havent.
Can any woman pull a standard combat patrol like a man with 50 lbs of armor and carry gear NOT including her weapon?
Can she load an M1 tank reliably?
NO they can't,NOT in a sustained fight door to door or an Armor gunnery for that matter...not by American doctrine ,the way WE fight,and win.
This rediculous social experiment must END...www.npr.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
It's 2015 and women are equal to men!

Not!

Feminism in a nut shell.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: payuporgtfo
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This concerns me to no end! and not even on the part of what a female is or is not capable of.

My concern is: How are men going to react to women being shot vs their brother being shot?

I'm afraid that women on the battlefield are going to add a dynamic to the psychological state of "grunts" which will lead to miscalculations based merely on instinctual reflexes.

Wha'ts so wrong with admitting men are physically stronger and more suited for battle than women? It's physiology, biology, chemistry, and history.


Given the amount of violence committed against women in the ranks by their bretheren, honestly, I don't see why it would bother them any more than one of the males getting shot. Hell, the amount of violence accepted and glorified against females in this country alone, on a culturally accepted basis, makes me wonder why anyone even brings up this argument against women in combat. Women are far more likely to get brutalized and murdered here at home than in any foreign battlefield.

And men are only more suitable for certain types of combat and warfare. Bigger is not always better. Some tasks in warfare are better suited to other types. Women have been fighting in war since war began, and have served in various capacities, from supportive to full on combat. (Viking spear maidens did in fact exist, amongst other female warriors through many civilizations). There are certain skills that women possess in superiority over men that are invaluable in a combat situation. There are many jobs and niches in the military, many that overlap with one another often resulting in cross-training. Not all require massive muscles.

I personally think females should be permitted into combat positions PROVIDED they can meet the standards in place for those positions. When I was in, I felt the female physical fitness test standards were insultingly low,and should be raised in their own rights. But combat professions by their very nature require a high degree of physical fitness, higher than the Army standard was, and in those cases, I believe those standards should be left alone. There are some females who could successfully pass the physical and mental requirements. Not many, but some. If they can do it, let them.

I am personally against the draft. I served in the army 4 years of my own volition. I was in with a few real old timers who had been in the army when the draft was active, and every one of them told me that the army got so much better once the draft was gone and the unwilling draftees had gotten out. They said the draft really lowered the quality of people in, and you had a LOT more behavioral and discipline problems with draftees than voluntary. I tend to agree. I mean, think about it. The draft is not only un-American, it is unnecessary. When America has truly needed people to fight for her in cases of wars where were were attacked (ww II, 9/11, good examples) there has never been any shortage of people scrambling to volunteer. The draft was really only a formaility in the case of WWII. The draft was only necessary to keep unwilling bodies fighting in Vietnam, and we see how well that went. I sure as hell wouldn't want to work beside, sleep beside, or fight beside someone who didn't want to be there in the first place.

But if we are going to keep the draft, stupid as it is, then I believe it should equally apply to ALL citizens regardless of what parts they were born with, 18 and over. It only makes sense. Fair is fair.

Hell, who knows. If all these wonderful "chivilarists" are so horrified by the idea of delicate little ladies getting blown away in combat, maybe they will be a lot slower at beating the war drum for every stupid and picayune overseas problem. Probably not, since it is all hypocritical laughable B.S. anyway.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: payuporgtfo
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This concerns me to no end! and not even on the part of what a female is or is not capable of.

My concern is: How are men going to react to women being shot vs their brother being shot?

I'm afraid that women on the battlefield are going to add a dynamic to the psychological state of "grunts" which will lead to miscalculations based merely on instinctual reflexes.

Wha'ts so wrong with admitting men are physically stronger and more suited for battle than women? It's physiology, biology, chemistry, and history.


Women serve in combat roles for the Israeli defense forces and do just fine.

Women are some of the fiercest fighters in the Kurdish militia fighting in the front lines against ISIS.

Already history has proven you wrong..

Completely different militaries with completely different standards, training, and rules of engagement.

Horrible comparison imo.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm thirty one years old. If what I've read is accurate, I'm still eligible for the draft until I'm 38. That's fine with me. If a draft were deemed necessary, I would proudly perform my duty as a U.S. citizen. That said, regardless of gender equality movements, I don't agree with the premise of requiring women to enroll in the draft. It's one thing if the service is voluntary, I'd be glad to serve with women.

At the same time, and this is based entirely upon gender roles, men are the protector gender. If women were to serve in the military, I believe a supportive role would be best.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
This is pretty much a shot a getting rid of selective service again. The military hates the draft and would like to see it dead. They are likely hoping this will put the final nail in the coffin of a system that is on life support as it is.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: payuporgtfo
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This concerns me to no end! and not even on the part of what a female is or is not capable of.

My concern is: How are men going to react to women being shot vs their brother being shot?

I'm afraid that women on the battlefield are going to add a dynamic to the psychological state of "grunts" which will lead to miscalculations based merely on instinctual reflexes.

Wha'ts so wrong with admitting men are physically stronger and more suited for battle than women? It's physiology, biology, chemistry, and history.


Women serve in combat roles for the Israeli defense forces and do just fine.

Women are some of the fiercest fighters in the Kurdish militia fighting in the front lines against ISIS.

Already history has proven you wrong..


Women make up about 3% of the IDF combat forces. Women account for about one-third of total IDF strength. And only about 90% of IDF roles are open to women.

So no, despite the spin people like to put on IDF as being some super gender neutral bastion of women in combat, the reality is the numbers don't really back it up.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
There are some real penalties that occur when a man between the ages of 18-26 does not register. Like being unable to obtain a drivers license or work for government agencies in some states. People whom failed to register are also not able to take out student loans or get a federal job. If this ever becomes a real law, I can guarantee that half the women in the country, between the ages of 18-26, at the time the law changes, will be rendered ineligible for the above noted items and benefits in short order, due to ignorance of the totality of situation and/or bad advice from parents that won't know or understand the current status of the law.

Here is an old topic posted on MetaFilter about the consequences of not applying for Selective Service Registration:

I worked as a non-trad's advocate in a case similar to yours--graduated from high school early, poor home life, and in addition to this, he was in the foster care system. I believe, and still believe it was a very typical case of a boy who was falling through the cracks, and would in no way have known where to look for his registration forms or that he had to, or what the consequences were. At the time I worked with him, he was an awesome 30-year-old guy with a family and a great job looking to go back to school to go into a different field and discovered this the way you did--applying for aid. He provided documentation of his foster care status, letters from his former high school documenting his at-risk status at the time including statements from his former principal that as a boy he wasn't getting proper school or mentorship support and that she believed he could have easily not been told about registration, documentation of his early high school graduation, and notarized statements from his grandmother who was a care provider from time to time that she knew that neither she nor his parents nor the system never talked to him about it. He followed the financial aid procedure to the letter, turned in the documentation, and was asked, at his meeting with the FA officer, "have you ever been to the post office to mail a letter?" Of course, he said yes, and then she said "well, then I have to deny you as there are plenty of hanging notices in the post office that you have to register." And that was that, I talked with her at length on his behalf, and she said that the risks, from her perspective as an agent of the federal government, were too high to accept, probably, ANY ONE's case, regardless of the individual's case.
edit on 13-10-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm thirty one years old. If what I've read is accurate, I'm still eligible for the draft until I'm 38. That's fine with me. If a draft were deemed necessary, I would proudly perform my duty as a U.S. citizen. That said, regardless of gender equality movements, I don't agree with the premise of requiring women to enroll in the draft. It's one thing if the service is voluntary, I'd be glad to serve with women.

At the same time, and this is based entirely upon gender roles, men are the protector gender. If women were to serve in the military, I believe a supportive role would be best.



Maybe if people were less willing to fight and throw there lives away for the idiots in charge over wars that have nothing to do with protecting ones country there would be less wars?

But cool be a Slave to TPTB, jump when they tell you to jump and die when they tell you to die.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Maybe if people were less willing to fight and throw there lives away for the idiots in charge over wars that have nothing to do with protecting ones country there would be less wars?

But cool be a Slave to TPTB, jump when they tell you to jump and die when they tell you to die.


Did you read what I posted above, you have to register in order to get a Drivers license in some states. As I said, since women have never needed to register and there is over 100 years worth of "word of mouth" supporting that idea, MANY women will be blindsided years later, after they realize that they needed to register but did not, after the law changes.

men who fail to register with Selective Service are not eligible for programs and benefits that Congress, 41 states and territories, and the District of Columbia have linked to registration for the draft. That would include student loans and grants for college, most government jobs, and job training. Also, immigrants who fail to register when they are at least 18 but not yet 26, may be denied citizenship.

Following is a list of the 40 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia that have such legislation in effect, as of Oct. 25, 2013, according to the SSS website: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, District of Columbia.


edit on 13-10-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So? I think they should be in the draft.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

It is likely that certain women would be grandfathered into a law like this. For instance, they may make it so that only women who turn 18 after the law goes into effect have to register.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So? I think they should be in the draft.


Well I dont think there ever should be a draft for anyone, male, female or Cis whatever as its morally wrong and goes against the idea of freedom.
If a war is "right" then there should be plenty if volunteers.

Unless a country is ever directly attacked it should be a no no.

edit on 13-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: clay2 baraka

NOT by AMERICAN doctrine they havent.
Can any woman pull a standard combat patrol like a man with 50 lbs of armor and carry gear NOT including her weapon?
Can she load an M1 tank reliably?
NO they can't,NOT in a sustained fight door to door or an Armor gunnery for that matter...not by American doctrine ,the way WE fight,and win.
This rediculous social experiment must END...www.npr.org...


Get up in Rhonda Rousey's face and say that.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join