DRAFT? Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by sarmajor

LN ... you have made it abundantly clear, over a number of threads, that this is your take on 'principles'.

You have regularly advocated that the end justifies the means and that you do not care what happens to other people just as long as you are OK

This is one of the prime factors of why America is the deep shit that it is today.

If you are indicative of the younger generation of America it behoves ill for your country when you finally get to run things.

Yup.

[Ian Bradford, UK]

The sons, daughters and grandchildren of politicians should be drafted to fight in front line units, this may curb politicians readiness to go to war.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Ian Bradford, UK

The sons, daughters and grandchildren of politicians should be drafted to fight in front line units, this may curb politicians readiness to go to war.

Hmmm, that same suggestion was made during WWII, Korean War and Vietnam. Sounds good on the face of it, but, besides the NIMBY factor there are good reasons for this not to happen. Simplest of which, you'd be offerring the enemy we are fighting thousands of potential high-value hostages. each would be a media spectacle. I would kiss my ass goodbye in preparation if I had to serve in the same squad as some drafted senator's son/daughter. The job is hard enough, no need to make it impossible.

[Ian Bradford, UK]

Doesn't convince me, I'd love to see Euan Blair facing roadside bombs. Playing world strategy is easy when its with other peoples lives.

[Xentil]

Regardless. The fact IS the american public are not ready to see their daughters come home in body bags. End of story. Yes there are female deaths in combat and there was hell to pay. Like LN said there are rules in the US military about women not serving in front line positions. Unfortunatly in places like iraq there is no clear distinction of what the 'front line' is. Most of the female deaths have been from bombs and stuff attacking units that were supposed to be secure.

But with the IRAQ and afganistan type wars, where the army is sitting in a sea of civilians, with poor rules of engagement and no way to tell whos the enemy until they are shooting you, its hard to keep women out of harms way.

All that said, ill repeat, the US public isnt ready to see its women come home in body bags.

This is a clear case of the differences between SHOULD happen, WILL happen, and what the military and the public WANTS to happen

[Sir Digalot]

this is the whole hypocrasy of the equal rights movement, women are perfectly capable of serving on the front lines often in a better capacity then most men, but when it comes down to it, they are happy to blast through any glass ceiling, they want total equality, excpet when it comes to soemthing they do not want to do, then it becomes a "weaker sex" issue...

as far as i am concerned either women are treated equally as the bill allows and they get put anywhere on the battlefield or they can simply STFU and take their lumps as the weaker sex which includes lesser pay and unequal opportunity in all areas......you cannot have your cake and eat it, the door swings both ways, yadda yadda etc etc...

[LiberalNation]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

you cannot have your cake and eat it, the door swings both ways, yadda yadda etc etc...

Yes you can.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

this is the whole hypocrasy of the equal rights movement, women are perfectly capable of serving on the front lines often in a better capacity then most men, but when it comes down to it, they are happy to blast through any glass ceiling, they want total equality, excpet when it comes to soemthing they do not want to do, then it becomes a "weaker sex" issue...

as far as i am concerned either women are treated equally as the bill allows and they get put anywhere on the battlefield or they can simply STFU and take their lumps as the weaker sex which includes lesser pay and unequal opportunity in all areas......you cannot have your cake and eat it, the door swings both ways, yadda yadda etc etc...

Well said Sir.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Xentil

Regardless. The fact IS the american public are not ready to see their daughters come home in body bags.

How fucking crass. But it's OK to see our sons, heirs to our family lines come home in body bags though...right?

Sorry princess, I don't buy it.

[LiberalNation]

Yes, and you don't have to buy it potter. if there is a draft in the next ten years you'll see it become reality.

[Mr. Amphibian]

Originally Posted by Ian Bradford, UK

The sons, daughters and grandchildren of politicians should be drafted to fight in front line units, this may curb politicians readiness to go to war.

You're way too soft. The politicians themselves should be spearheading any war they start, from the ground, at the front.

[potter]

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

Yes, and you don't have to buy it potter. if there is a draft in the next ten years you'll see it become reality.

Then we'll mourn our sons and daughters.

[LiberalNation]

Originally Posted by potter

Then we'll mourn our sons and daughters.

They don't even allow volunteer woman in combat brigades, you think they're going to draft them to such units. Infantry units, tanks, whatever, they are kept out of harms way as much as possible.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

They don't even allow volunteer woman in combat brigades, you think they're going to draft them to such units. Infantry units, tanks, whatever, they are kept out of harms way as much as possible.

What were you saying about Jessica Lynch?

[LiberalNation]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

What were you saying about Jessica Lynch?

Her supply convey got lost, if they hadn't she would have been in very little danger. She was not supposed to have seen combat the military would not have allowed it if it could have been prevented.

[Xentil]

Originally Posted by potter

How fucking crass. But it's OK to see our sons, heirs to our family lines come home in body bags though...right?

Sorry princess, I don't buy it.

Lol? Wake up and smell reality, crying about it wont change it

[Don Barzini]

I can't believe this thread has even gone on this long over a political stunt. Yes, this bill is a political stunt.

Charles Rangel doesn't even want to re-instate the draft. This is just a replay of the same stunt he has tried before. It's a shame that he uses the legislative process for propaganda purposes.

The Pentagon is against a military draft. They don't want a bunch of people in their ranks who don't want to be there.

Rangel introduced his last military draft bill in January 2003.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

When the bill came up for a vote in the House, Rangel voted against his own draft bill. So much for Charles Rangel being anything other than a dishonest, partisan hack.

This is nothing but another Rangel political stunt. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. It's purpose is to scare people and drum up anti-war sentiment. Not just anti-Iraq war sentiment, but anti-war sentiment for any war.

The Democrat leadership doesn't even support a military draft. They won't allow this bill to do anything but collect dust in the hopper.

The chances of this bill passing through Congress is about the same as Dawildman becoming a Republican.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

this is the whole hypocrasy of the equal rights movement, women are perfectly capable of serving on the front lines often in a better capacity then most men, but when it comes down to it, they are happy to blast through any glass ceiling, they want total equality, excpet when it comes to soemthing they do not want to do, then it becomes a "weaker sex" issue...

And this is the dishonesty of sexist scum, seizing no LN's personal selfishness and amorality as representative of "women".

Potter wrote:

Well said Sir.

I think you meant to say "bullshit, scumbag".

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by contracycle

And this is the dishonesty of sexist scum, seizing no LN's personal selfishness and amorality as representative of "women".

You're half right.

[sarmajor]

Speaking from practical experience I would like to have my two cents worth.

When women were first placed in infantry units in the Australian army (over a generation ago) the move was very unpopular amongst the rank and file.

Previously (as in WW11) they were enlisted in non combat units and served far from the sharp end.

Circumstances then changed as in guerilla style warfare there were few well defined front lines and everyone serving in a combat zone was at risk.

My comments, however, are about women serving in combat style units who were located in Australia. It was then policy (and probably still is: as I retired from the Australian Army some 22 years ago and have not kept up with current attitudes) that women did not actually get in harms way.

One reason why they were unpopular with the troops was that, because the majority of women assigned to a unit were physically weaker than the men, - the latter not only had their own work to do but were lumbered with the heavy work that the women could not do.

They were also unpopular because the men had (to a certain extent) to mind their language when the women were about.

Most NCOs (non commissioned officers) also had the problem in that many young men in the unit tended to be preoccupied with devising ways of engaging in horizontal exercises with them rather than to keep their mind on military pursuits.

As a Regimental Sargeant Major I found it often disconcerting, when balling out a female soldier on the parade ground for some transgression, to have her break into tears. I found that I then tended to treated women differently than men - which had its own disciplinary problems.

In actual combat I would assume that some soldiers would endeavour to protect their female squad member at the expense of the other members of the squad. This would be likely if there was a 'thing' going on between them.

A soldier's role is to do his job and not to be diverted by extraneous matters.

I do not know whether thoughts have changed since women became more assimulated in combat style units.

Then it was purely a practical approach and had nothing to do with sexism.

A very common job was for soldiers to routinely load trucks with relatively heavy objects.

It was a fact that very few women were physically able to do this despite the fact that they tried their best.

For 8 men to engage in such routine activities was one thing but you can imagine the extra strain on 4 men if the team consisted of 4 men and 4 women. Perhaps 2 of the women may be physically able but this meant that the rest of the team had to do the work of those incapable - on top of their own share.

I could give numerous similar examples.

Women in such units were bad news. Initially the novelty was good but that soon wore off as the men started to realise that they were working harder, the women were getting a better deal, they had to be more circumspect in their off duty moments (language, dressing, toilets etc) and a certain amount of jealousy causing divisions amongst mates over the favours of a desirable female in the unit.

I have never had any dealings with women in a combat situation but would consider that would have similar problems.