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.

 

WW3 Draft will include women.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
See this Oct 12, 2015 article discussing the "hypothetical question" about drafting women.

www.military.com...

Now that all MOS's are available to women, be prepared for your 18+ yo daughters to be drafted.

WW3 has already started so it will not be long for them to start the draft again.

Alex Jones predicted this 2 years ago.



edit on 3-12-2015 by BIGPoJo because: added date of article for perspective

edit on 3-12-2015 by BIGPoJo because: added youtube vid




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Since we're being hypothetical, and disregarding the WW III reference, inevitable draft-resistance and, of course, "social justice" issues, why SHOULDN'T women be subject to the draft? Equality and all is supposed to mean equality in all things. Seems fair to me.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

I love how you just shrug off 18-year-old young men being drafted into the military, but when 18-year-old WOMEN are drafted it's a national tragedy.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Passerby1996

Women can bear children, men cannot. This is the beginning of the depopulation of the world down to what leaders call a manageable number.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I say good it's about time... equal rights baby.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

Women can bear children, men cannot. This is the beginning of the depopulation of the world down to what leaders call a manageable number.


Is that a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

But women need men to fertilize their eggs in the first place. Good lord, the logic of some people...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Better keep it wrapped up, boys.

We're about to be introduced to the "pregnancy exemption".




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

Women can bear children, men cannot. This is the beginning of the depopulation of the world down to what leaders call a manageable number.


Is that a bad thing?


You don't see the problem with a select few having the power to dictate what's best for 6+ billion people?


edit on 12/3/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Passerby1996

Women can bear children, men cannot. This is the beginning of the depopulation of the world down to what leaders call a manageable number.


Don't worry. Even if women were killed in warfare at the same level as men, there would be PLENTY left over to make babies. Drafting women is not even the same subject as depopulation and hardly at the same level.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, wars, depopulation, ect...

It all sets the human race back each time we engage in such matters. It will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't start working on a society that is multi-planetary. Currently war spending dwarfs space spending. But the plural world society is for another thread.

Depopulation lowers our collective IQ and de-diversifies the gene pool. Strong men and now strong women will go die off in war while the weak are left to repopulate.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
And why shouldn't we? Now that all positions are open to women, there's no reason that we shouldn't be drafted right along with the men. I don't like the prospect of being drafted, but fair is fair and I don't think anybody does.

My concern is much more practical in nature, though, in that I hope they're careful not to draft both parents.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Better keep it wrapped up, boys.

We're about to be introduced to the "pregnancy exemption".



Exactly, and people will be getting pregnant to draft dodge, if they even come up with an exemption. They would likely put pregnant females into light duty jobs like they currently do.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

You don't see the problem with a select few having the power to dictate what's best for 6+ billion people?



I meant reducing world population. BTW doesn't a select few in each country dictate for the masses already?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: BIGPoJo

But women need men to fertilize their eggs in the first place. Good lord, the logic of some people...



Sperm banks come to mind.

2nd.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: EternalSolace

You don't see the problem with a select few having the power to dictate what's best for 6+ billion people?



I meant reducing world population. BTW doesn't a select few in each country dictate for the masses already?


For the most part yes. With the consent of the governed by way of elections... Or so they say.

I guess I should clarify I'm looking at it from the standpoint of a select few behind the scenes having control over everything. I should've phrased my posts better.


edit on 12/3/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Really, he predicted it two years ago...

Yet where is it, if it is so imminent?

Not likely to happen. ...and since women aren't registered for it, it's going to be somewhat difficult to implement. Not impossible, I suppose, but rather difficult.

As for WWIII? By the time all those draftees are trained up, the war'll be over. One way or another.

So, I'm not really going to worry too much about it.

...and given the performance of women in battle throughout history? What's the worry? They'll kick ass and take names.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo


Depopulation lowers our collective IQ and de-diversifies the gene pool. Strong men and now strong women will go die off in war while the weak are left to repopulate.


Actually, it's the other way round. Our gene pool will become stronger, more robust and there will me offspring with higher IQ as all the dumbarses have gone to fight for the bankers and the politicians.
It takes a stronger person to resist the propaganda and slurs of those who would have us do their bidding.




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: BIGPoJo

But women need men to fertilize their eggs in the first place. Good lord, the logic of some people...



Females are limited by gestation which takes 9 months. How many females can one male impregnate and cause conception in 9 months?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

Depopulation lowers our collective IQ and de-diversifies the gene pool. Strong men and now strong women will go die off in war while the weak are left to repopulate.


I'm sure we would be all idiots at 2 billion. We know 7 billion is not good, so less is better. We are also reaching a point where a large portion of the population will have no ability to get a job. There just isn't 300 million jobs in America to get, so that means a large number will not live very well with no future at all. The facts is the world doesn't need 7 billion, or 10 billion or 15 billion. Chicken and cows are the only larger animals that have more than humans, and that is only because we eat them. Dogs 500 mil and Cat 1.2 bil, only because we 7 billion love them as pets. After that a million is a large number. What number do you think is good to keep diversify alive?




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join