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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.