Will daughters be drafted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the idea of a two year service for all young people (age 18).

Great. Then we'll all be in our 30s getting out of school and people will wonder why we don't have children sooner or are financially independent sooner than our parents were.

Clearly math is not your strength. Most people get out of college at 21 -22, a two year delay would mean you get out at 23-24. Also, unless there is a war there is no reason why a young person doing military service cannot also take college courses or earn college credit. As to the issue of financial independence I don't see how a two year delay in entering the civilian workforce will have that much impact. Also, i think that military service will instill much needed discipline and work ethic which our young people really need - IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woman of two daughters here and I say yes as well. i think that bootcamp and some military service will do our daughters a lot of good.

Does this good include hand to hand combat with ISIS or similar Neanderthal minded enemies in a urban or jungle setting? Crawling in the mud in fox holes alongside men with incoming mortar fire? With the new rules, combat is not an option but an obligation just like for the men, especially in the event of a draft. Careful what you wish for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's about time too. In fact, I believe in universal mandatory service. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military. I don't think that it would make sense to draft equally into combat roles and I doubt that would ever happen.

Pardon - why non combat? Carter has said every qualified woman can serve in any combat position. Why would you not draft and then direct physically and mentally qualified young women into combat? I'm sure that could be scary for some, but also for some young men. What's the difference? Is there something special about men and combat? This executive directive to the armed forces would say not.

My point was only that there are far fewer qualified women for such roles, not that qualified women don't exist. The goal should not be a 50:50 split along gender lines in combat positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they would change the policy. We're a huge country and we have more than enough men on the draft rolls currently to field a very large force. They'd also have to think about what happens if they draft both the mom and dad to young children? Previously just the dad got drafted.

My grandfather was a single parent and fought in WWII. There are single moms right now that deploy. Kids are usually left with relatives, though perhaps kids under a certain age would qualify for a draft deferral for at least one parent. These are all manageable details no different than medical or educational issues already part of selective service and draft policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they would change the policy. We're a huge country and we have more than enough men on the draft rolls currently to field a very large force. They'd also have to think about what happens if they draft both the mom and dad to young children? Previously just the dad got drafted.

I think all it would take is a lawsuit from some young man to make this happen.
If all positions are open to females, why not have them register.
It’s only fair.

And we as a citizenry need to "have more skin in the game," so women should register and both men and women should be subject to the draft. It will be harder to go to war if everyone's children have to go. I'm sick and tired of all these "chicken hawks" who are so in favor of war but never had to serve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the idea of a two year service for all young people (age 18).

Great. Then we'll all be in our 30s getting out of school and people will wonder why we don't have children sooner or are financially independent sooner than our parents were.

If you start college at age 20 you'll be done around age 24. Not everyone goes for a PHD you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.

Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.

One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

True. My brother-in-law tried to do this and largely succeeded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's about time too. In fact, I believe in universal mandatory service. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military. I don't think that it would make sense to draft equally into combat roles and I doubt that would ever happen.

Pardon - why non combat? Carter has said every qualified woman can serve in any combat position. Why would you not draft and then direct physically and mentally qualified young women into combat? I'm sure that could be scary for some, but also for some young men. What's the difference? Is there something special about men and combat? This executive directive to the armed forces would say not.

A woman's body can stop a bullet almost as effectively as a man's. Send 'em in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.


Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.


One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

Women have to have some skin in the game. Why should women be allowed to vote on sending just the men to fight and die?

A majority of women almost always oppose military intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.

Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.

One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

True. My brother-in-law tried to do this and largely succeeded.

My brother too. He only needed 4 women for 12 children and he is not even 30 so the sky is the limit.

[Anonymous]

There's already been a lawsuit filed for women to register for selective service.

Its about time, all that whinging about equality, time to be equal in this area too.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/22/teen-girl-files-law-suit-for-women-to-enlist-in-us-army-draft-at/21212563/

Kudos to this teen girl for having some skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman of two daughters here and I say yes as well. i think that bootcamp and some military service will do our daughters a lot of good.

Does this good include hand to hand combat with ISIS or similar Neanderthal minded enemies in a urban or jungle setting? Crawling in the mud in fox holes alongside men with incoming mortar fire? With the new rules, combat is not an option but an obligation just like for the men, especially in the event of a draft. Careful what you wish for.

Any woman who can get through basis training can engage in combat. So to answer your question, yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.


Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.


One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

Women have to have some skin in the game. Why should women be allowed to vote on sending just the men to fight and die?

Men should have some skin in the game related to childbirth. Why should only women have to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.


Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.


One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

Women have to have some skin in the game. Why should women be allowed to vote on sending just the men to fight and die?

Men should have some skin in the game related to childbirth. Why should only women have to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth?

yeah, and how come women can't pee standing up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Since we haven't had a draft in 40 years - doubt we'd start now. But, yes, theoretically, there is no reason why girls shouldn't sign up for selective service. Although perhaps the child-bearing aspect of sending young girls off to fight and then not having anyone home to continue the species - but then I read WAY to many dystopic/sci-fi books.


Don’t quite understand your thinking. It takes two to continue the species - female AND male.


One man can impregnate hundreds. One woman can only have a small number of children.

Women have to have some skin in the game. Why should women be allowed to vote on sending just the men to fight and die?

Men should have some skin in the game related to childbirth. Why should only women have to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth?

I can answer this very succinctly -- because Eve disobeyed God's order not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
That's why.