Top US generals: Women should have to register for the draft, too

originally posted by: Foderalover
Its called equal rights.

Who will make me a sammich doe

originally posted by: JDmOKI

We haven't had a draft since Vietnam.... nor will we have a draft anytime soon

no army ever wanted conscripts

The affluent used to be able to buy their way out of the draft. I can see that happening again. And you'll make more money if the affected population of extortion victims is double what it would be if only one sex is targeted.

a reply to: starviego

Still avoiding the main topic that if women wanna be apart of the military as equals to men they should have to register for the draft like every male at the age of 16

The rich with resources and connections will find and easy way out regardless

a reply to: Lysergic

this is next,



want to know more?

......... so the generals know the draft is going to be re-instituted again a ??????????????.

a reply to: VoidHawk

No,,,, learning to defend you, your country and lifestyle. Killing is a matter for the enemy or invading force to decide upon. Tragically you need to learn to kill to defend yourself, family and country. It's a skill not given to the greens or romantics until death and destruction comes their way.

Then they complain, "where is the army." Sadly the armed forces are destroyed because there was no support for enlistment and equal rights for men and women to combat insugents. Accept death, albeit beheading, shooting, raping and piliging if you are not trained and depended upon to fight back.

If you get killed because you are a pacifist I say, "bad luck". Me, I'll go down fighting to protect my family first, my local lifestyle then country. Luckilly I have had military training to enable me to do such.

I won't hide behind a military apron and later complain that not enough was done or complain about colateral damage.

Kind regards,

Bally

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

No they want women in COMBAT roles...

Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. Men are physically superior to women and that is what is needed in combat.

Flame me. I don't care. Its true.

originally posted by: Annee
I also think everyone should require physical, intelligence, and psychological testing.

The military already does this prior to (and probably during) basic training.

Hell, you have to take (and pass) the ASVAB test prior to going to MEPS so that they know which Military Occupational Skills (aka...jobs) that you qualify for in the branch in which you are enlisting. The physical standards are definitely already there, as you can't even start basic training if you can't do a specified amount of physical activities in a specified amount of time.

As for the psychological testing, I assume that it's thrown in there without it necessarily being blatantly obvious that they are doing it, but I know it's done. At the very least, any evidence of psychological issues while in basic training will get you a mental evaluation.

a reply to: Restricted
It's not about male physical superiority, it's about SOME (maybe not many) woman meeting the physical standards, so allowing them to enter combat roles. And also ensuring woman get adequate opportunity in other roles. I think is also making sure they're not harassed or similar while in their roles by other military. Many other first world nations have woman in ALL roles, so the US is only paying catch up right now.

a reply to: Restricted

So do I, if there IS a war it could DECIMATE a generation or 2.
Not to mention I thought it was wiser to let the realm of close combat fall only to those who can stand up to it.Second place is dead.
I don't doubt women in support roles but NOT kicking in doors or on LLRPs.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Restricted

So do I, if there IS a war it could DECIMATE a generation or 2.
Not to mention I thought it was wiser to let the realm of close combat fall only to those who can stand up to it.Second place is dead.
I don't doubt women in support roles but NOT kicking in doors or on LLRPs.

Well even in those industrialized nations which allow woman to fight in combat roles, men still are the majority of those roles.

Here's a poster on ATS who said she was a woman and wnated to be a part of the fighting forces but couldn't because it wasn't available:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I made a post on Dec 3 2015:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some information here:
www.cnn.com - Women in combat: More than a dozen nations already doing it...

Some research says woman are equal to men in physically demanding combat roles, but I have to wonder if that's only for a minority of woman who actually pass the physical tests and other demands on them.

An a article about woman in infrantry:
www.breachbangclear.com - Females in the Infantry? Er…Yes, actually....

At this point, I’m sure some readers are walking away in disgust at the very idea that a woman could be infantry. See you guys later, hope you open your mind someday. On the other side of the debate, “social justice warriors” who know nothing at all about the military won’t read past the last paragraph before proclaiming, “See? Women are the same as men! Open the infantry to all women, you cismale gendernormative fascists!” Well, screw you simpleminded “I put lofty ideals over reality” idiots.

Further down in the article:

In Iraq at least one Marine base had a “convoy rest stop”, a big open bay full of beds where units passing through stopped for rest. There were no separate areas for females. Nobody went insane with lust. In Afghanistan I saw Civil Affairs teams, MP platoons and an engineer detachment house males and females together. Nobody went insane with lust. When our replacements arrived in Afghanistan, they had one female soldier. She slept in the same tent with all the males, with only a couple of ponchos hung for privacy. Nobody went insane with lust. I was on a French firebase in Afghanistan, and for a time males and females shared a shower tent partitioned into individual cubicles. We used the same latrines. And nobody went insane with lust.

Differences do exist:
www.livescience.com - Women in Combat: Physical Differences May Mean Uphill Battle...

However.......

However, women may have an edge in some physical tasks. Because women usually have more body fat and may be better at burning fat as energy early on in exertion, they could have better endurance than men, according to a 2001 study in the American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism. Men have more muscle mass and greater levels of circulating testosterone, on average, which also means they use more energy than women do. And men's muscles tend to fatigue more easily than women's, possibly because women recruit muscle groups to share the load more efficiently, according to a 2003 study in the Journal of Applied Physiology.

originally posted by: bally001
a reply to: VoidHawk

No,,,, learning to defend you, your country and lifestyle. Killing is a matter for the enemy or invading force to decide upon. Tragically you need to learn to kill to defend yourself, family and country. It's a skill not given to the greens or romantics until death and destruction comes their way.

Then they complain, "where is the army." Sadly the armed forces are destroyed because there was no support for enlistment and equal rights for men and women to combat insugents. Accept death, albeit beheading, shooting, raping and piliging if you are not trained and depended upon to fight back.

If you get killed because you are a pacifist I say, "bad luck". Me, I'll go down fighting to protect my family first, my local lifestyle then country. Luckilly I have had military training to enable me to do such.

I won't hide behind a military apron and later complain that not enough was done or complain about colateral damage.

Kind regards,

Bally

Did you see the ad that I mentioned? It was clearly saying that military life makes us better people, thats bunkem! Nobody needs to be a trained killer to be a better person.

If our borders were being invaded I'd be right along side you! However, invasion is not what this is about.

I don't think ANYBODY should be made to register for the draft, especially having had my eyes opened to the truth about the majority of wars.

But on a practical note, what would happen if both parents in a family were called up, or similarly, the sole parent (male or female)? Would there be concessions for this I wonder?

The absolute last thing the US military wants is a draft.

A bunch of people who have no interest in being there...hate the idea of being there...and might do anything to not be there. Recipe for disaster.

Vietnam comes quickly to mind for some odd reason...

originally posted by: seagull
The absolute last thing the US military wants is a draft.

A bunch of people who have no interest in being there...hate the idea of being there...and might do anything to not be there. Recipe for disaster.

Vietnam comes quickly to mind for some odd reason...

UK had that problem in the 50's and 60's.

We ditched national service as it ended up more expensive than a volunteer army and the draftees just got in the way. Especially when a lot of the operations were peace keeping during decolonisation, bunch of pissed off young adults who dont want to be there and have only a few months of training were never going to help matters.

Really only use is if your in a large scale war and fighting for survival.

End of the day if you cant find volunteers for you current wars you probably shouldn't be in them/starting them.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Bulls***.

There ain't a woman on the planet who has the strength and stamina of a military man.

a reply to: Scouse100

OF course then your children will be raised by the state.
Pretty NEAT way to have a disposable populace to experiment on.

a reply to: crazyewok

They need a more effective way to kill off more people...evidently the vaccine thing isn't paying off.
I 'm sure Monsanto can whip up a batch of adjuvants that can perform better...made from Roundup...