NationStates Jolt Archive

* another reason why if Bush steals another election we all may be told we have to die for the greed of his rich friends

Gov't Proposes Extending Draft to Women
Hearst newspapers has obtained government documents that show the chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft, expanding the draft age from 25 to 35, as well as requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services. The proposal was made by the agency's acting director Lewis Brodsky prior to the invasion of Iraq. The paper obtained the previously secret proposal through the Freedom of Information Act.

I seriously doubt it

-if a general draft is called we'd probobly have more than enough men as it is

-they'd keep the eccomony afloat

-in terms of soldiering, they are inferior

-drafting them would open them up to sexual harsment, and what to you do if your at a besiged fire-base and it turns out on of you soldiers is pregnant?

How is it Bush's draft when most, if not all, of the people calling for a draft have been Democrats?

"Conscripting Liberalism" by Julian Sanchez
http://www.reason.com/links/links050304.shtml

Bush isn't going to (openly) go for a draft until after the elections are over and he is still in the oval office. To do otherwise is political suicide.

I seriously doubt it

-if a general draft is called we'd probobly have more than enough men as it is

-they'd keep the eccomony afloat

-in terms of soldiering, they are inferior

-drafting them would open them up to sexual harsment, and what to you do if your at a besiged fire-base and it turns out on of you soldiers is pregnant?

Actually, as much as it concerns me, I have to agree with TRA on this. Here's the link to TRA's article.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/20404.html

And just what is wrong with including women in the draft?

Haven't women's rights been denied for long enough?

Equal pay for equal work. Isn't that what the liberals call equal rights?

A woman has the right to abort a baby, and that is supposed to be a very hard choice for them to make. A man is forced into the draft, and isn't even given the choice.

Men and women should be treated equally.

If a woman has the right to allow the human child to be born, or to kill it beforehand, then the man, who is half responsible for the child should have the right to choose to stop the abortion from happening. Life threatening situations aside.

If a man can be called to serve be a draft so should a woman.

And just what is wrong with including women in the draft?

Haven't women's rights been denied for long enough?

Equal pay for equal work. Isn't that what the liberals call equal rights?

A woman has the right to abort a baby, and that is supposed to be a very hard choice for them to make. A man is forced into the draft, and isn't even given the choice.

Men and women should be treated equally.

If a woman has the right to allow the human child to be born, or to kill it beforehand, then the man, who is half responsible for the child should have the right to choose to stop the abortion from happening. Life threatening situations aside.

If a man can be called to serve be a draft so should a woman.

There shouldn't be a draft period. If you feel called to a life of military service or if you choose to enter that profession for reasons of your own, that's one thing, but conscription is barbaric and against the very essence of this country not to mention against conscience.

because she is physicaly inferior.

there.

I said it.

-in terms of soldiering, they are inferior

a woman can do just as good a job as a solider as a man can.

-drafting them would open them up to sexual harsment, and what to you do if your at a besiged fire-base and it turns out on of you soldiers is pregnant?

wait, so women shouldn't be allowed to be in the military at all then? simply because they will be harassed for their gender? why is that a reason to make sure that they should not be allowed in the military? also, if you think that a woman's stupid enough to get herself knocked up on a battlefield, you've really got problems.

not that i agree with drafting. i'm just pointing out that this guy's an ass.

because she is physicaly inferior.

there.

I said it.

Yeah, but woman make up for it by being smarter ;)

I seriously doubt it

-if a general draft is called we'd probobly have more than enough men as it is

-they'd keep the eccomony afloat

-in terms of soldiering, they are inferior

-drafting them would open them up to sexual harsment, and what to you do if your at a besiged fire-base and it turns out on of you soldiers is pregnant?Give her a dishonorable discharge, if she chooses not to get an abortion. Sounds liberally fair enough.

There shouldn't be a draft period. If you feel called to a life of military service or if you choose to enter that profession for reasons of your own, that's one thing, but conscription is barbaric and against the very essence of this country not to mention against conscience.

what if there is an unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?

because she is physicaly inferior.


am i allowed to kick his ass? please?

wait, so women shouldn't be allowed to be in the military at all then? simply because they will be harassed for their gender? why is that a reason to make sure that they should not be allowed in the military? also, if you think that a woman's stupid enough to get herself knocked up on a battlefield, you've really got problems.

if we have more than enough men why should we send out people who are just going to be targets?

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yeah, but woman make up for it by being smarter ;)

that'd make a good argument for women being military commanders but deffinatly not soldiers

To the author - If you knew politics - republicans like Bush were against the ERA - which democrats supported - part of that would have meant that if a draft was reinstated women would be drafted with men. The ERA luckily was defeated so that won't be a problem :D

Give her a dishonorable discharge, if she chooses not to get an abortion. Sounds liberally fair enough.

why even put her in a position to make that dispicable decision when we have enough draftable men as it is?

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

am i allowed to kick his ass? please?

if it'll make you feel better

what if there is an unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?

An interesting lifeboat situation, but just that. First of all, when has there been an "unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?" The only time drafting has become a real issue was during the Vietnam action which was unpopular for a myriad of reasons, but even then did not present the threat level you describe.

Second, as a conscientious (sp...blah, it's late and I don't want to bother looking it up) objector for both spritual and rational reasons, I would never support a draft because I firmly and simply believe that all war is wrong period. :D

Third, there's the argument that if we have to force our men and women to go and die for our country against their will, then isn't our country dead already? At least, metaphorically? How can a country that claims to stand for liberty and freedom then turn around and send it's children off to die far away from home for causes they had no hand in controlling and for reasons they don't understand?

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

combat is about more than pain

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

what if there is an unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?

Theoretically, Iraq was supposed to be just such an "unparalleled threat." It is becoming more and more apparent, however, that the only threat present was Bush not having a legacy to exploit in order to get reelected.

Sending people to die in a foreign land for political exploitation and oil is not what a free nation asks of its citizens.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

what if there is an unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?

An interesting lifeboat situation, but just that. First of all, when has there been an "unparalleled threat to national security and not enough people volunteered?" The only time drafting has become a real issue was during the Vietnam action which was unpopular for a myriad of reasons, but even then did not present the threat level you describe.

Second, as a conscientious (sp...blah, it's late and I don't want to bother looking it up) objector for both spritual and rational reasons, I would never support a draft because I firmly and simply believe that all war is wrong period. :D

Third, there's the argument that if we have to force our men and women to go and die for our country against their will, then isn't our country dead already? At least, metaphorically? How can a country that claims to stand for liberty and freedom then turn around and send it's children off to die far away from home for causes they had no hand in controlling and for reasons they don't understand?

yes, WW2

vietnam was part of the broader war on communism, we have the men who fought there to thank for the fact that we no longer live under the communist menace

I'm willing to let metaphors die, just not my family. there are people out there who would kill us for the color of our skin, the God we woship (or lack there of) and a myriad of other reasons. it's happened all over the world but never in America because of our ability to send forth such an overwhelming army it makes and has made most of our opponents give up before they tried, and it sent the ones with guts to try packing for home.

The funniest part of the dems logic is that Bush "stole" the election. If Gore was so confident he won he should have let the election become official, then contested it, then asked for a recount of all votes. But he didn't do that.

So Bush won fair and square. Then the courts upheld his argument that if you are going to recount votes, you must recount them all. But Bush didn't call for that because he already won. So when Gore FINALLY got around to calling for that he had a little problem with a thing we call the Constitution. Which states that all votes must be counted/elections certified by 18 Dec.

Bush won. Gore tried to bull sh** his way in but it didn't work. Get over it. All you Dems can do is try to change the rules because you can't win in a fair fight. (See 2002 New Jersey Senate Race)

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

Steph has a history of denial...just thought you should know :roll:


All in good humor Steph

Sending people to die in a foreign land for political exploitation and oil is not what a free nation asks of its citizens.

if Bush wanted oil he would have invaded Alaska, you can say this war was wrong, just don't say it was about oil

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

Steph has a history of denial...just thought you should know :roll:


All in good humor Steph

Ah, you're just upset because I called you on an incorrect statement you made.. I responded by the way in that thread.. and gave you a link.. ;)

Sending people to die in a foreign land for political exploitation and oil is not what a free nation asks of its citizens.

if Bush wanted oil he would have invaded Alaska, you can say this war was wrong, just don't say it was about oil

then why did Bush declare "victory" as soon as all the oilwells were secured? and why was Bush trying to overthrow Chavez in Venezuala if he didnt care about oil?

LETTING people die for oil is just as reprehesible as sending people to die for oil. But I don't see anyone bashing the French or the Russians when it has now been proven that they were doing just that: Letting people die so they could benefit from favorable oil contracts that Saddam was giving them.

So if you want to make it about oil, let the French bashing begin. Otherwise you are just proving that you are willing to put politics above priciple. Oh, wait! I forgot, we are talking about Liberals. Those are the ones who are willing to sell their country down the river as long as they get to be the river boat captains.

yes, WW2

I'll refer you to the myriad of threads on this board where it has been proven time and again that not only did the US come late to WW2, but it was already basically won by the time we got there with Hitler deciding to take on Russia and the pre-US Allies fighting him to a stand still. Suffice to say, we have never faced that kind of threat and, given the wholesale slaughter all major military powers are capable of inflicting at a distance today upon civilians, I seriously doubt we ever will. All a draft will serve, at this point, is to provide warm bodies for Bush's colonial aims and vanity wars.


vietnam was part of the broader war on communism, we have the men who fought there to thank for the fact that we no longer live under the communist menace

Well, again, I'll refer you to several threads on this board that have shown that what actually led to the fall of the U.S.S.R. was a disaterous war in Afghanistan and voodoo military spending. It can be argued that our actions in Vietnam did very little to halt the spread of communisim. I don't know if this is true or not and I suspect speculation is somehow inappropriate for the dead on both sides of that conflict.


I'm willing to let metaphors die, just not my family. there are people out there who would kill us for the color of our skin, the God we woship (or lack there of) and a myriad of other reasons. it's happened all over the world but never in America because of our ability to send forth such an overwhelming army it makes and has made most of our opponents give up before they tried, and it sent the ones with guts to try packing for home.

Well then, with such an effective fighting force, why do we need to force people to go and die? Life is metaphor, you understand. You can look around at the tangible things your family, your house, your job and realize that all that exists because of metaphor, because of the idea of the United States. To attack that idea is to not only show disrespect to those who have laid down their lives defending it (which I would never do) but to also attack all those things you hold dear. I'm not saying my decision is right for everyone, but it is right for me and I will speak out against the trampling of the ideals of the United States which I hold dear.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

If you read my answer entirely you would see that I said ON AVERAGE men have higher tolerances for pain than women - of course there are cases where this is not true, there are I'm sure women out there who have higher pain tolerances than men, and then there are also incidences when people who normally don't show that - like giving birth, never having been through it myself I don't know. But I do know that more and women in this country are scheduling c-sections instead of natural childbirth - hmm, I wonder why that is. I was also stating a scientific fact, I only mentioned that I am a actually graduating major to show why I would have seen the studies. Having said this I don't have a problem with women being in the military, just not on the front lines, I have the utmost respect for people in the military, if I physically could do it I would.

The funniest part of the dems logic is that Bush "stole" the election. If Gore was so confident he won he should have let the election become official, then contested it, then asked for a recount of all votes. But he didn't do that.

So Bush won fair and square. Then the courts upheld his argument that if you are going to recount votes, you must recount them all. But Bush didn't call for that because he already won. So when Gore FINALLY got around to calling for that he had a little problem with a thing we call the Constitution. Which states that all votes must be counted/elections certified by 18 Dec.

Bush won. Gore tried to bull sh** his way in but it didn't work. Get over it. All you Dems can do is try to change the rules because you can't win in a fair fight. (See 2002 New Jersey Senate Race)

Gore won and Greg Palast proves it in his documentary

I'm against a draft. Its not just bush and republicans a number of liberals support this in fact they brought the issue up largely I feel for political reasons. WOmen shouldn't be included I feel. Also I find a draft unconsitutional and also just wrong there is something wrong about forcing people to fight. Furthermore the military isn't fond of the draft either they would much rather have pros and willing people fight.

then why did Bush declare "victory" as soon as all the oilwells were secured? and why was Bush trying to overthrow Chavez in Venezuala if he didnt care about oil?

Bush declaired victory when the Iraqi army was crushed, the oil wells still arn't secure.

and if Bush cared about oil he'd work to keep Chavez in power, a power-hungary dictator trying to buy guns would give him way cheaper oil than the comming leftist government will invariably give us.

to settle the pain issue: men can take more pain at once, women can take pain longer.

also: men may be naturally stronger and faster, but women are naturally more agile, flexible and have better balance. i say naturally because either sex can develop the ability to be strong, fast, agile, flexible and balanced should they try.

*kicks schrandtopia's ass*

LETTING people die for oil is just as reprehesible as sending people to die for oil. But I don't see anyone bashing the French or the Russians when it has now been proven that they were doing just that: Letting people die so they could benefit from favorable oil contracts that Saddam was giving them.

So if you want to make it about oil, let the French bashing begin. Otherwise you are just proving that you are willing to put politics above priciple. Oh, wait! I forgot, we are talking about Liberals. Those are the ones who are willing to sell their country down the river as long as they get to be the river boat captains.

its neo cons like Bush who are selling us out to globalists not liberals who oppose wars for special interests

Sending people to die in a foreign land for political exploitation and oil is not what a free nation asks of its citizens.

if Bush wanted oil he would have invaded Alaska, you can say this war was wrong, just don't say it was about oil

Er, you're not serious, right? I mean, you do know that Alaska is a state of the United States, right? You also know that Bush is putting forth legislation to destroy woodland areas in Alaska for drilling, right? I mean, you do know this, right?

vietnam was part of the broader war on communism, we have the men who fought there to thank for the fact that we no longer live under the communist menace


I respect greatly those who fight for their nation, however, I cannot help but wonder how the Vietnam War helped to bring down Communism if the Communists won. If anyone is responsible for bringing down Communism, it is Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, whose reforms caused the USSR to finally collapse under its own weight.

If anything, the Cold War, and the hots wars fought within, only strenghtened Communism as they gave it a reason for existance. Ultimately, however, Communism was brought down from the inside.

I suppose Reagan deserves some credit also, however, his contribution consisted mostly of political pressure and fancy speeches, while those within the government of the USSR itself, like Gorbachev, did the real work.

then why did Bush declare "victory" as soon as all the oilwells were secured? and why was Bush trying to overthrow Chavez in Venezuala if he didnt care about oil?

Bush declaired victory when the Iraqi army was crushed, the oil wells still arn't secure.

and if Bush cared about oil he'd work to keep Chavez in power, a power-hungary dictator trying to buy guns would give him way cheaper oil than the comming leftist government will invariably give us.

well no one ever accused Bush of being intelligent :)

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

If you read my answer entirely you would see that I said ON AVERAGE

Ok, fair enough, I'll give you that.

But I do know that more and women in this country are scheduling c-sections instead of natural childbirth - hmm, I wonder why that is.

Good question given a c-section is far more painful after the fact and a much longer recovery.. I don't think a woman would prefer a c-section to natural childbirth.. My last child was a c-section.. it was horrible.. and much more painful.

if Bush wanted oil he would have invaded Alaska, you can say this war was wrong, just don't say it was about oil

Well, it was mostly about Bush needing a legacy, something to point at while saying "vote for me!" at the next election. The way things are going, however, it probably isn't going to work as planned.

Oil was just icing on the cake.

Was it scheduled or unplanned - because that makes a difference?

LETTING people die for oil is just as reprehesible as sending people to die for oil. But I don't see anyone bashing the French or the Russians when it has now been proven that they were doing just that: Letting people die so they could benefit from favorable oil contracts that Saddam was giving them.

So if you want to make it about oil, let the French bashing begin. Otherwise you are just proving that you are willing to put politics above priciple. Oh, wait! I forgot, we are talking about Liberals. Those are the ones who are willing to sell their country down the river as long as they get to be the river boat captains.

its neo cons like Bush who are selling us out to globalists not liberals who oppose wars for special interests

But the French are peace lovers who would never do anything wrong because they always oppose war. As far as they (and you apparently) are concerned, cheaper oil for France is ok even if it means humans will be tourtured and killed in order to drive the prices down.

Nice!

How can morons scream about "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and poor economic conditions without feeling like hypocrites? Everyone in the USA uses large amounts of energy, which is supplied most cheaply by using oil. The computer you're using to read this, the lights you have on, the car you drive, all took large amounts of energy to create and to use. When the government intervenes militarily to secure oil supplies, they are doing it because of demand YOU created. To do otherwise would lead to economic collapse, for which the anti-war idiots would of course blame the Evil Republican Party. The next time you want to bitch about war for oil, stop using any technology that takes energy to use or create, then maybe you won't be hypocritical morons. For that matter, stop eating, as the electrical energy used in mechanized agriculture is fed to a large degree by oil.

How can morons scream about "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and poor economic conditions without feeling like hypocrites? Everyone in the USA uses large amounts of energy, which is supplied most cheaply by using oil. The computer you're using to read this, the lights you have on, the car you drive, all took large amounts of energy to create and to use. When the government intervenes militarily to secure oil supplies, they are doing it because of demand YOU created. To do otherwise would lead to economic collapse, for which the anti-war idiots would of course blame the Evil Republican Party. The next time you want to bitch about war for oil, stop using any technology that takes energy to use or create, then maybe you won't be hypocritical morons. For that matter, stop eating, as the electrical energy used in mechanized agriculture is fed to a large degree by oil.

I just bitch about war, period, but whatever.

I'll refer you to the myriad of threads on this board where it has been proven time and again that not only did the US come late to WW2, but it was already basically won by the time we got there with Hitler deciding to take on Russia and the pre-US Allies fighting him to a stand still. Suffice to say, we have never faced that kind of threat and, given the wholesale slaughter all major military powers are capable of inflicting at a distance today upon civilians, I seriously doubt we ever will. All a draft will serve, at this point, is to provide warm bodies for Bush's colonial aims and vanity wars.

and what were the Russians going to shoot at the Germans? pride? what were British going to fule their airplanes with? courage? who was going to fill the gaps in the allied lines durring the African, Italian and Normandy campains? the spirits of the dead? what was the RAF going to drop of berlin? nationalism? what were the chinese going to cloth themselves with when the manchurian campain got cold? flags? what were the russians going to eat from 1941-45? determination? who was going to provide the allies with intelegence? manpower? resourses? innovation? the A-bomb? Iceland?


Well, again, I'll refer you to several threads on this board that have shown that what actually led to the fall of the U.S.S.R. was a disaterous war in Afghanistan and voodoo military spending. It can be argued that our actions in Vietnam did very little to halt the spread of communisim. I don't know if this is true or not and I suspect speculation is somehow inappropriate for the dead on both sides of that conflict.

the USSR spent how many hundreds of trillions in vietnam, they would have lasted till the late 90's if not longer without vietnam


Well then, with such an effective fighting force, why do we need to force people to go and die? Life is metaphor, you understand. You can look around at the tangible things your family, your house, your job and realize that all that exists because of metaphor, because of the idea of the United States. To attack that idea is to not only show disrespect to those who have laid down their lives defending it (which I would never do) but to also attack all those things you hold dear. I'm not saying my decision is right for everyone, but it is right for me and I will speak out against the trampling of the ideals of the United States which I hold dear.

I understand entirely

LETTING people die for oil is just as reprehesible as sending people to die for oil. But I don't see anyone bashing the French or the Russians when it has now been proven that they were doing just that: Letting people die so they could benefit from favorable oil contracts that Saddam was giving them.

So if you want to make it about oil, let the French bashing begin. Otherwise you are just proving that you are willing to put politics above priciple. Oh, wait! I forgot, we are talking about Liberals. Those are the ones who are willing to sell their country down the river as long as they get to be the river boat captains.

its neo cons like Bush who are selling us out to globalists not liberals who oppose wars for special interests

But the French are peace lovers who would never do anything wrong because they always oppose war. As far as they (and you apparently) are concerned, cheaper oil for France is ok even if it means humans will be tourtured and killed in order to drive the prices down.

Nice!

whats Bush doing anything different in Iraq then Saddam did?

This scares me. If the war on Iraq goes on, I'll be the one who's sent there.

The draft, if it happens would happen after the election. As for Bush drafting women, I wouldn't be surprised. The poor fight so the rich can have their comfortable lives...

How can morons scream about "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and poor economic conditions without feeling like hypocrites? Everyone in the USA uses large amounts of energy, which is supplied most cheaply by using oil. The computer you're using to read this, the lights you have on, the car you drive, all took large amounts of energy to create and to use. When the government intervenes militarily to secure oil supplies, they are doing it because of demand YOU created. To do otherwise would lead to economic collapse, for which the anti-war idiots would of course blame the Evil Republican Party. The next time you want to bitch about war for oil, stop using any technology that takes energy to use or create, then maybe you won't be hypocritical morons. For that matter, stop eating, as the electrical energy used in mechanized agriculture is fed to a large degree by oil.

then why doesnt Bush crawl to his saudi masters and beg for cheaper oil prices? Anyway we dont want oil--we want alternative energy NOW

*kicks schrandtopia's ass*

not nessecarialy (though you can spell better)

to settle the pain issue: men can take more pain at once, women can take pain longer.


also: men may be naturally stronger and faster, but women are naturally more agile, flexible and have better balance. i say naturally because either sex can develop the ability to be strong, fast, agile, flexible and balanced should they try.

you don't need agility, flexibility and balance to fight these days. and men have a far better mindset for war

How can morons scream about "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and poor economic conditions without feeling like hypocrites? Everyone in the USA uses large amounts of energy, which is supplied most cheaply by using oil. The computer you're using to read this, the lights you have on, the car you drive, all took large amounts of energy to create and to use. When the government intervenes militarily to secure oil supplies, they are doing it because of demand YOU created. To do otherwise would lead to economic collapse, for which the anti-war idiots would of course blame the Evil Republican Party. The next time you want to bitch about war for oil, stop using any technology that takes energy to use or create, then maybe you won't be hypocritical morons. For that matter, stop eating, as the electrical energy used in mechanized agriculture is fed to a large degree by oil.

Your argument assumes that warfare is the only way to secure new oil sources. Usually when I wish to acquire something new, I go down to the store and instead of shooting the clerk, I make a selection, pay for it and go about my business.

I do not support fighting war to secure supplies of anything, but I do support globalization and international free trade, both of which will allow nations to trade and secure supplies without having to resort to warfare. One could argue, I suppose, that guys like Saddam might refuse to trade, but, when the United States constantly threatens war and establishes economic embargos, what does one expect?

Globalization and free trade will make warfare unnecessary. Any "moron" could figure that out, I did! :wink:

Was it scheduled or unplanned - because that makes a difference?

It was scheduled because I had a very hard delivery with my first child. He was three weeks late. A c-section is usually easier on the baby.. not the mother. It's in fact much harder on the woman then natural childbirth.

The funniest part of the dems logic is that Bush "stole" the election. If Gore was so confident he won he should have let the election become official, then contested it, then asked for a recount of all votes. But he didn't do that.

So Bush won fair and square. Then the courts upheld his argument that if you are going to recount votes, you must recount them all. But Bush didn't call for that because he already won. So when Gore FINALLY got around to calling for that he had a little problem with a thing we call the Constitution. Which states that all votes must be counted/elections certified by 18 Dec.

Bush won. Gore tried to bull sh** his way in but it didn't work. Get over it. All you Dems can do is try to change the rules because you can't win in a fair fight. (See 2002 New Jersey Senate Race)

Gore won and Greg Palast proves it in his documentary


Seriously, was Gore ever the certified winner of the election in Florida? No. I am not saying he did or didn't get more votes. I am saying, if he played by the rules, he may in fact be President today. But he didn't. If he had let the election be certified and then contested it and called for a recount of all votes, things may have been different. Only one person to blame for the outcome: Gore.

Maybe Bush didn't get enough votes to win. But since the first count showed him as the winner there was no reason for him to call for a recount of all of the votes. In fact, he was very smart in dragging it all out. He played by the rules. And so did the Supreme Court (US - not Florida). Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean he didn't play by the rules. Greg Palast may have some good points in a hypothetical world. But thats not the one we live in. We are all responsible for our actions. Gore's actions probably cost him the presidency.

Good night everyone!

If Gore had done what he was supposed to do, he may have been the president. But he didn't so he lost and Bush won. Nothing stolen but opportunities squandered.

then why doesnt Bush crawl to his saudi masters and beg for cheaper oil prices? Anyway we dont want oil--we want alternative energy NOW

I'm sure that'll be ecconomicaly viable in the next few centuries

and what were the Russians going to shoot at the Germans? pride? what were British going to fule their airplanes with? courage? who was going to fill the gaps in the allied lines durring the African, Italian and Normandy campains? the spirits of the dead? what was the RAF going to drop of berlin? nationalism? what were the chinese going to cloth themselves with when the manchurian campain got cold? flags? what were the russians going to eat from 1941-45? determination? who was going to provide the allies with intelegence? manpower? resourses? innovation? the A-bomb? Iceland?

Okay, so this is an argument for materials drafting, perhaps, but I'm not sure what your point is.



the USSR spent how many hundreds of trillions in vietnam, they would have lasted till the late 90's if not longer without vietnam

Er, who knows how much they spent. The point is, the Afghanistan conflict drained what spending power they did have. Again, it's bad spending, not anything we specifically did. Also, it has been mentioned in this thread, Gorbachev pushed for reforms that led to the ultimate dissolution of the U.S.S.R.


Well then, with such an effective fighting force, why do we need to force people to go and die? Life is metaphor, you understand. You can look around at the tangible things your family, your house, your job and realize that all that exists because of metaphor, because of the idea of the United States. To attack that idea is to not only show disrespect to those who have laid down their lives defending it (which I would never do) but to also attack all those things you hold dear. I'm not saying my decision is right for everyone, but it is right for me and I will speak out against the trampling of the ideals of the United States which I hold dear.

I understand entirely

Well, at least we agree on that, then. :D

The draft, if it happens would happen after the election. As for Bush drafting women, I wouldn't be surprised. The poor fight so the rich can have their comfortable lives...

I'm sure that's it and GW has absolutly no honorable intentions

Lots of very good points made here. I may not agree with all of them but they do make me rethink the basic idea of the draft.

It seems that is discussion has two main directions, first is pros and cons of a draft in general and the second is the role of women. The remaining aspects are who to blame and when to blame him/them.

I believe that the draft or any form of conscription is a part of being a citizen of any nation. Call it duty if you will but I see it more as a moral obligation to your nation and all those who dwell there. Those with moral or religious convictions that oppose violence can be placed in support and non-combative duties to free up those without such beliefs to serve in other ways. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to fight, but there is a problem with not wanting to serve. Granted the level of trust in being properly placed is not as strong as it should be and that is something that the military has to strongly enforce (which they typically do not).

With regard to women in the draft... I have to believe that as with men, it is a personality issue of the individual. I do not believe that women should be judged against a different standard than men. If they can hump the gear they should be allowed to serve in that capacity. I will say that my experience is that in general women tend to be more emotional in their approach to a given situation than a man but that is just their way of dealing and it can often be as effective and even more so.

I have always favored junior ROTC programs for jr. and sr. high school students (male and female) followed by one year military service upon graduation (reserve type). I believe that this type of program would be infinitely more beneficial to young people than the current gamut of physical education classes and over funded sports programs. Of course this program would then provide each graduate with educational grants to college/university or trade school. That way it would not be a handout to a few. It could also be tied into a job placement service. Lots of ways to go. (putting on my flameproof long johns)

LETTING people die for oil is just as reprehesible as sending people to die for oil. But I don't see anyone bashing the French or the Russians when it has now been proven that they were doing just that: Letting people die so they could benefit from favorable oil contracts that Saddam was giving them.

So if you want to make it about oil, let the French bashing begin. Otherwise you are just proving that you are willing to put politics above priciple. Oh, wait! I forgot, we are talking about Liberals. Those are the ones who are willing to sell their country down the river as long as they get to be the river boat captains.

its neo cons like Bush who are selling us out to globalists not liberals who oppose wars for special interests

But the French are peace lovers who would never do anything wrong because they always oppose war. As far as they (and you apparently) are concerned, cheaper oil for France is ok even if it means humans will be tourtured and killed in order to drive the prices down.

Nice!

whats Bush doing anything different in Iraq then Saddam did?

I would say that he is doing a lot different. There are some butt wipes that should be court marshaled and sent to the Haig (or however you spell that) for war crimes for the stuff they did to the Iraqi prisoners lately but on the whole, the Iraqis are greatful that Saddam has gone. I understand that they want us out, but that is not because they fear for their lives. It is because they want to finish the job that Bush started for them. If you truely believe Bush is as bad as Saddam, you might want to get a reality check. I HATED Clinton and Gore but I never in my wildest dreams believed they were truely evil people. If you think that about Bush, you have truely had too much of the cool-aid. (And Liberals say Conservatives aren't tolerant. Sheesh!!)

Okay, so this is an argument for materials drafting, perhaps, but I'm not sure what your point is.

we needed a giant navy, core of engineers and army truckers to transport those things, and often American soldiers to use them


Er, who knows how much they spent. The point is, the Afghanistan conflict drained what spending power they did have. Again, it's bad spending, not anything we specifically did. Also, it has been mentioned in this thread, Gorbachev pushed for reforms that led to the ultimate dissolution of the U.S.S.R.

but they wouldn't have been in half as desperate a stituation politicaly or ecconomicaly if they didn't have to pump tens of trillions of dollars and a few thousand lives half way around the world.

and those reforms were only brough about because of the nessesity to legalize the HUGE underground capitalist market which was brought about by the government war overspending, which was all a CIA plot. (he shoots he scores) [but at least we still agree on something]

well...uh...from my personal point of view the draft is wrong. killing for your country is bad enough, but to force somebody to who isn't ready and willing is definitely wrong. something tells me that if the general draft is put into effect there will be many a concientious...canadians. but there is a war, and if it is instituted women need to be included, or else i mean...come on, there can't be equal rights without equal responsibility, right?

but i'm not sure if this is going to go through. i mean, its pretty obvious that the administration is willing to go to all costs to keep the popular suport for our war...or "occupation" as high as possible...and the draft was what turned an overwhelming portion of the general public off to vietnam right?

seeing as how i ended two paragraphs with "right?" i'm obviously a little hesitant...oh well. what'll happen will happen and if IT does, i hear ontario's nice...right?

but there is a war, and if it is instituted women need to be included, or else i mean...come on, there can't be equal rights without equal responsibility, right?

women are not suited for combat.

we have plenty of draftable men.

we will not send women off to die and risk loosing battles becasue some view this as an equal rights issue.

we will not send women off to die and risk loosing battles becasue some view this as an equal rights issue.

Change that "some" to many.

So why should we send men off to die and risk loosing battles? If throughout history, women had not been considered inferior for so long, do you think that perhaps men and women would have been in the draft from the start? I think that has something to do with equal rights, but then again that's just me. And I'm against the draft in general, so I dunno how much that does...

But going back to your quote...I just have to say it reminds me of Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice (Movie sucks, don't see it, read the book). Now, for a little explaination. Akasha, the mother of all vampires thought that to end all hunger, poverty, and war, she would have to destory the males of Earth, give a few for reproduction purposes. So she basically went around setting people on fire, having them explode from the inside, lovely, lovely stuff. Now, what does it have to do with your quote? Sending all the men off would be taking care of them for Akasha...Okay, rant done.

Regardless of all that vampire stuff, my point is is that it IS an equal right issue. Sure, men and women are better at different things, but that doesn't mean you should deny the chance for all women. There are a good number of them who would be drafted.

Being a female, one of the few on this website as I understand, I naturally have some things to say to this. First off, as many others have mentioned, this is not "Bush's Draft". I'm no great supporter of Bush, but it's wrong to make him look bad for something he didn't do.

Now, about the draft: I don't want there to be a draft of anyone ever again, but if in the EXTREMELY unlikely event there was, I would fully expect women to be involved. Why? Because of womens' rights. Women are now believed the equal of men by society, and thus, they should be expected to fight if men have to. Women have greatly benefited from gaining more rights, and we have to take the good with the bad. To have all the rights men do and then shy away from their duties is a double standard, exactly the thing we fought against for millennia. Again, I don't want a draft, and I personally don't want to have to fight in a war, but for the sake of all that women have gained in the last century, I hope I would be willing to. It's only fair.

I'm also not going to bore you with all the "women are just as good or better than men" stuff, though I personally believe it. :lol: I am glad to be living in this time, when women are looked upon with more approval and appreciation than ever before.

I think that war is horribly, terribly wrong, and I oppose compulsory military service.

Howeeeever.... as one libertarian pointed out, having a draft would make people more concerned about future wars. If they were not willing to go out and fight, themselves, they wouldn't support the war, and would probably make their views heard. If it were a war which was approved by the public, it would go unopposed. Not that that makes it sooo much better than any other war, but meh...

How can morons scream about "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and poor economic conditions without feeling like hypocrites? Everyone in the USA uses large amounts of energy, which is supplied most cheaply by using oil. The computer you're using to read this, the lights you have on, the car you drive, all took large amounts of energy to create and to use. When the government intervenes militarily to secure oil supplies, they are doing it because of demand YOU created. To do otherwise would lead to economic collapse, for which the anti-war idiots would of course blame the Evil Republican Party. The next time you want to bitch about war for oil, stop using any technology that takes energy to use or create, then maybe you won't be hypocritical morons. For that matter, stop eating, as the electrical energy used in mechanized agriculture is fed to a large degree by oil.

then why doesnt Bush crawl to his saudi masters and beg for cheaper oil prices? Anyway we dont want oil--we want alternative energy NOW
That doesn't make any sense, Red Arrow. Nice political cheap shot about Bush being a servant of the Saudis. You ought to just cut your BS, it's old. As for alternative energy, if you have some magical wand that can cheaply provide sources of energy on the scale needed to properly run an industrialized nation of 300 million, then I suggest you start your own company, you'll be the richest man in the world in a matter of years. As for 'alternative energy' NOW, it takes time to develop infrastructure and technology, it doesn't appear from the sands of the desert, like oil.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

If you read my answer entirely you would see that I said ON AVERAGE men have higher tolerances for pain than women - of course there are cases where this is not true, there are I'm sure women out there who have higher pain tolerances than men, and then there are also incidences when people who normally don't show that - like giving birth, never having been through it myself I don't know. But I do know that more and women in this country are scheduling c-sections instead of natural childbirth - hmm, I wonder why that is. I was also stating a scientific fact, I only mentioned that I am a actually graduating major to show why I would have seen the studies. Having said this I don't have a problem with women being in the military, just not on the front lines, I have the utmost respect for people in the military, if I physically could do it I would.

Quick experiment:

Get umbrella.
Insert anally.
Open.

Now understand why some women opt for C-sections.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

If you read my answer entirely you would see that I said ON AVERAGE

Ok, fair enough, I'll give you that.

But I do know that more and women in this country are scheduling c-sections instead of natural childbirth - hmm, I wonder why that is.

Good question given a c-section is far more painful after the fact and a much longer recovery.. I don't think a woman would prefer a c-section to natural childbirth.. My last child was a c-section.. it was horrible.. and much more painful.

From what I'm told, you don't just wake up with no bellybump and a baby in a cot. There's scarring both externally and internally, and the doctors have had to move a whole lot of stuff out of the way to actually get to the baby, so that's all bruised and battered... yeah. I agree. c.c

Your argument assumes that warfare is the only way to secure new oil sources. Usually when I wish to acquire something new, I go down to the store and instead of shooting the clerk, I make a selection, pay for it and go about my business.

No it doesn't assume at all assume that warfare is the only way to secure new oil sources. It's just the best way after other methods have been exhausted, or time is critical. As for your silly analogy, can it, small-scale situations such as you suggested cannot be applied to national-scale situations.

I do not support fighting war to secure supplies of anything, but I do support globalization and international free trade, both of which will allow nations to trade and secure supplies without having to resort to warfare.
How do globalization and free trade make warfare not attractive in the least?

One could argue, I suppose, that guys like Saddam might refuse to trade, but, when the United States constantly threatens war and establishes economic embargos, what does one expect?
Hah, Saddam had his own agenda. The USA had its own, primarily to keep oil flowing cheaply. America's methods are perfectly justified.

Globalization and free trade will make warfare unnecessary. Any "moron" could figure that out, I did! :wink:Exactly how does that work?

but there is a war, and if it is instituted women need to be included, or else i mean...come on, there can't be equal rights without equal responsibility, right?

women are not suited for combat.

we have plenty of draftable men.

we will not send women off to die and risk loosing battles becasue some view this as an equal rights issue.

You have this strange view that all women are dainty little things who would break like twigs against the breeze. You evidently don't know the Helga BallBreaker type characters that I've known.

Basing the combat effectiveness of someone solely on what does or does not dangle between their legs makes about as much sense as the Germanica Crew's continuing determination to decide the right for you to live in the Good Ol' US of A, based on the melanin content of your skin.

That said, I'm against any kind of compulsory service in any kind of combat role.

because she is physicaly inferior.

there.

I said it.

And you base this on what?

Has anyone... um... noticed that the US military does not want a draft?

Conscripts have limited will compared to volunteers. Volunteers made the choice and took the effort to be troopers, and thus are generally better fighters with superior morale and dedication.

If anything, that's why the draft will never be reinstated for anything short of general war (which would probably only last half an hour and end up with radioactive wastelands anyway): The last thing the military wants or needs are people who don't want to be in.

Has anyone... um... noticed that the US military does not want a draft?

Conscripts have limited will compared to volunteers. Volunteers made the choice and took the effort to be troopers, and thus are generally better fighters with superior morale and dedication.

If anything, that's why the draft will never be reinstated for anything short of general war (which would probably only last half an hour and end up with radioactive wastelands anyway): The last thing the military wants or needs are people who don't want to be in.
You needn't worry, the residents of this fair forum won't let a silly fact like that get in the way of their political agendas.

Has anyone... um... noticed that the US military does not want a draft?

Conscripts have limited will compared to volunteers. Volunteers made the choice and took the effort to be troopers, and thus are generally better fighters with superior morale and dedication.

If anything, that's why the draft will never be reinstated for anything short of general war (which would probably only last half an hour and end up with radioactive wastelands anyway): The last thing the military wants or needs are people who don't want to be in.
You needn't worry, the residents of this fair forum won't let a silly fact like that get in the way of their political agendas.

Who, ME? NEVAR!

Has anyone... um... noticed that the US military does not want a draft?

Conscripts have limited will compared to volunteers. Volunteers made the choice and took the effort to be troopers, and thus are generally better fighters with superior morale and dedication.

If anything, that's why the draft will never be reinstated for anything short of general war (which would probably only last half an hour and end up with radioactive wastelands anyway): The last thing the military wants or needs are people who don't want to be in.You're right, of course, that the professional military doesn't want a conscript army, and beyond the problem of will is the fact that it takes at least 6 months of training for a group of draftees to resemble anything like an effective fighting force. That doesn't change the fact that apparently the government is planning for a "what if" scenario.

To be quite honest, I'm glad that they're at least considering the possibility that one may be needed. It's a welcome change for these guys, considering that forward thinking hasn't exactly been their strong suit thus far.

That said--if there is a national service program implemented and it does include military service for some, then it won't happen before next year at the earliest, and it will likely include huge provisions for non-combatant options. And it will most certainly include females, although perhaps not in infantry units, although I feel that if they can handle the physical demands and they want to be a part, then let them.

From what I'm told, you don't just wake up with no bellybump and a baby in a cot. There's scarring both externally and internally, and the doctors have had to move a whole lot of stuff out of the way to actually get to the baby, so that's all bruised and battered... yeah. I agree. c.c

I'm not a physician, nor do I have any sort of professional medical training, but as far as I understand anatomy there shouldn't be "a whole lot of stuff" to push out of the way as said pushing has basically already occured as the child developed. In an anatomy class I took in high school, we watched a c-section on video and the surgeons had nothing but uterus when they entered the abdominal cavity. I'd guess that the mesentery holds the intestines together as a unit that can be easily pushed up and out of the way as the uterus expands.

Plenty of brusing and battering might occur as everything falls back into place once the child is born, but this would be no different than natural birth.

(EDIT: and if having major surgery is bad, imagine having to perform surgery on oneself... :shock: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/06/health.caesarean.reut/ )

And just what is wrong with including women in the draft?

Haven't women's rights been denied for long enough?

Equal pay for equal work. Isn't that what the liberals call equal rights?

A woman has the right to abort a baby, and that is supposed to be a very hard choice for them to make. A man is forced into the draft, and isn't even given the choice.

Men and women should be treated equally.

If a woman has the right to allow the human child to be born, or to kill it beforehand, then the man, who is half responsible for the child should have the right to choose to stop the abortion from happening. Life threatening situations aside.

If a man can be called to serve be a draft so should a woman.

There shouldn't be a draft period. If you feel called to a life of military service or if you choose to enter that profession for reasons of your own, that's one thing, but conscription is barbaric and against the very essence of this country not to mention against conscience.Don't recall saying there should be. The question wasn't whether there should be or not. It was if there was should women be called?

because she is physicaly inferior.

there.

I said it.

Eww I think there are a few Germans who might look at you funny.

Besides, they can do other things as well. There is one Russian Sniper chick(I can't recall her name) that had something like 80+ kills.

Women have died in Iraq so why not let them fight if they want to?

Besides as with WWII, they can replace certain jobs so the men can go hump a rifle....

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

Oh come on now. Just because we like to whine for the sympothy factor does not define our pain threash hold.

Consider the drugs available for child birth many men could handle it just fine.

Not me! Child Birth is icky! I have to problems with the thought of running through artillery fire, machine gun fire, etc. But birthing is icky! :lol:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1301400.html
Women are quite capable in a lot of things, this being one example.

I believe it has been established that their bodies are considered more capable of taking pain due to childbirth.

That being said, a draft would be reprehensible.

Yes, I've had two children and my husband is in awe of me.. no man could take child birth. Men are basically whimps compared to women on the whole. I'm sorry.. but it's true. You ever see a man get sick? LOL It's not pretty.. :lol:

Actually this actually suprisingly not true - there are a lot of psychological studies out there show that men actually do have higher tolerances for pain than women on the average. I'm a psych major so I would know.

...And I'm a political science Ph.D student, but you know what? I'm not always right. There are a lot of studies that aren't always right. If all you're going on is some study and based on you being a "psych major" I'll take that with a grain of salt. I think real life experience speaks volumes to your text book teachings..

If you read my answer entirely you would see that I said ON AVERAGE

Ok, fair enough, I'll give you that.

But I do know that more and women in this country are scheduling c-sections instead of natural childbirth - hmm, I wonder why that is.

Good question given a c-section is far more painful after the fact and a much longer recovery.. I don't think a woman would prefer a c-section to natural childbirth.. My last child was a c-section.. it was horrible.. and much more painful.

Eww! Can we see the scar! :twisted:

You make it sound like you did it without drugs! :shock:

My wife had an episiatomy(sp) and that sounded rather nasty.

One way to get back at women is to have a large head! :wink:

Carol Burnet one gave the best description of labor pains.

"grab ahold of your lower lip and then pull it over your skull!" :wink:

My views on women and combat:

I have no problem letting them fight if they want.

Todays weapons are rather accurate these days and a woman with a gun can kill you just as easily as a man.

As to can they fight? Well just threaten the lives of a womans children and see what kind of demon you have on your hands.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt! :shock: :wink:

Now having said that. I think the US has some cultural issues to resolve. Many like me were raised on the prinicple that you protect women. That is not something you want soldiers doing with fellow women soldiers. More guys could get killed. Now that is an opinion rather then siting facts. I don't think there has been a case of say a position being overrun with women on the line.....

So even if they are drafted, I think many of them would be put in the support jobs and then men that were there would go to the front.

Gee, you're such a charmer you The Black Forrest..lol :lol:

Now having said that. I think the US has some cultural issues to resolve. Many like me were raised on the prinicple that you protect women. That is not something you want soldiers doing with fellow women soldiers. More guys could get killed. Now that is an opinion rather then siting facts. I don't think there has been a case of say a position being overrun with women on the line.....

So even if they are drafted, I think many of them would be put in the support jobs and then men that were there would go to the front.
Good points, I agree with the cultural issue 100%. I would like to point out however that it is not just cultural but perhaps instinctive for the male to be protective of the female, Org the caveman sort of thing. I was also educated to be polite and perhaps defferential to women in certain instances. It should be obvious why a man lets the woman go first...nicer view!

The military is an entirely different ball game. There are several topics that exist in military circles against women in combat roles. The most regarded is that a man will take much greater risks to rescue a wounded female or expose themselves to greater danger in order to protect a female team member. (cultural issue?). A second is that it is easier to train a man to react instinctively in a combat situation than a woman. Men react while a woman will think (perhaps they are smarter).

Bottom line is that any man who believes a woman to be weaker (mentally or physically) or less capable has never been married!!

Women make better assassins. So why not have them join the military? I doubt that they would increase the draft age unless in an emergency situation. The economy might suffer if they did.

Men are naturally stronger then women, but women can be just as athletic and such. I've never met a women that could kick my ass, but I've met ones that could outrun me and outlast me.

-in terms of soldiering, they are inferior

a woman can do just as good a job as a solider as a man can.

-drafting them would open them up to sexual harsment, and what to you do if your at a besiged fire-base and it turns out on of you soldiers is pregnant?

wait, so women shouldn't be allowed to be in the military at all then? simply because they will be harassed for their gender? why is that a reason to make sure that they should not be allowed in the military? also, if you think that a woman's stupid enough to get herself knocked up on a battlefield, you've really got problems.

not that i agree with drafting. i'm just pointing out that this guy's an ass.

Heh, well, there all already women in the military and they seem to be doing fine to me. Acutally, there was photo in the paper, showing a women solider pointing at a Iraqi POW's gentials. So... if they can tourture Iraqis (which I'm appallued at) then can fight. Watch the movie G.I. Jane. She went through SEAL training (even though it wasn't real.) If she can do that, then women soliders can fight in the military.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt!

How is a large butt a bad thing?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

The training of Navy Seals in G.I. Jane was bullshit. Also, women are in the military, but are kept out of most ground combat units.

Also, women are in the military, but are kept out of most ground combat units.

Yeah, they need to stop reading gor novels and live up to the promise of equality.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I agree that women aren't as physically strong as men. This doesn't mean they are by any stretch of the imagination weak - just that men are generally (note that I said "generally") stronger. I know there are exceptions. Also there has been all this talk of "being able to take the pain" and who can do it better. But I think another question of equal importance - if not more - is not who can take the most but who can give the most? And generally speaking even if women can take more they can't return it when fighting against a man.
I do think as mentioned by many others that women would do excellently serving as commanders and snipers and things of that nature, just not on the front lines.

But I have a question:

Letila said:
"Yeah, they need to stop reading gor novels and live up to the promise of equality."

Do you say that because you are willing, ready, and/or have plans to serve your country on the front lines? or because you have gripes about men and issues of equality?

Do you say that because you are willing, ready, and/or have plans to serve your country on the front lines? or because you have gripes about men and issues of equality?

You mean rich people and government, not country, and no, I don't. I mean that the government says that we are equal but denies women equality.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Do you say that because you are willing, ready, and/or have plans to serve your country on the front lines? or because you have gripes about men and issues of equality?

You mean rich people and government, not country, and no, I don't. I mean that the government says that we are equal but denies women equality.


I think that Janacia assumed you are female too btw.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt!

How is a large butt a bad thing?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Only white chicks take offense. :) Personally, I (and probably every man on the planet) love a big ass.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt!

How is a large butt a bad thing?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Only white chicks take offense. :) Personally, I (and probably every man on the planet) love a big ass.

Well big how? I don't want too big of an ass. Like one where I'd have to upgrade from my queen-sized bed to a king-sized bed.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt!

How is a large butt a bad thing?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Only white chicks take offense. :) Personally, I (and probably every man on the planet) love a big ass.

Well big how? I don't want too big of an ass. Like one where I'd have to upgrade from my queen-sized bed to a king-sized bed.
Big as in bigger than the typical white girl ass (though I've seen some nice ones), but not grotesquely large. A fat butt on a skinny woman is hella sexy.

Take a simplier approach and just comment on that fact she has a large butt!

How is a large butt a bad thing?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
Only white chicks take offense. :) Personally, I (and probably every man on the planet) love a big ass.

Well big how? I don't want too big of an ass. Like one where I'd have to upgrade from my queen-sized bed to a king-sized bed.
Big as in bigger than the typical white girl ass (though I've seen some nice ones), but not grotesquely large. A fat butt on a skinny woman is hella sexy.

Heh. Typical white girls don't have asses.

Give her a dishonorable discharge, if she chooses not to get an abortion. Sounds liberally fair enough.

why even put her in a position to make that dispicable decision when we have enough draftable men as it is?
or hell, why not dishonorably discharge the man who got her pregnant? i mean, if we are throwing blame around, why pick the woman out of hand? she's not going to get pregnant again while she's knocked up, but he might go around making other babies, so get rid of him to stop the problem.

Men are naturally stronger then women, but women can be just as athletic and such. I've never met a women that could kick my ass, but I've met ones that could outrun me and outlast me.
interesting trivia fact: women also are better at withstanding pain than men, biologically speaking. this is most likely an adaptation to help them cope with child birth, and studies show that women can endure more pain for longer periods than men can, pretty much across the board. yet women are taught to be the "weaker sex." makes you kind of pissed at all those chicks who fall for social conditioning, don't it? they could be real badasses, but instead they turn into complete wussies.

The draft is a negation of the right to life. This is no more immoral whatever the gender. The strengths and weaknesses of the sexes are of no consideration, since neither man nor woman can hope to live without the right to life.

"If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those "liberals" who claim that man has the "right" to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life." – Ayn Rand

http://www.draftisslavery.com/

Big as in bigger than the typical white girl ass (though I've seen some nice ones), but not grotesquely large. A fat butt on a skinny woman is hella sexy.

Too true!

---------------------------
Free your mind!

why even put her in a position to make that dispicable decision when we have enough draftable men as it is?
or hell, why not dishonorably discharge the man who got her pregnant? i mean, if we are throwing blame around, why pick the woman out of hand? she's not going to get pregnant again while she's knocked up, but he might go around making other babies, so get rid of him to stop the problem.[/quote]

I'm sure that's not crazy.....somehow...

Good points, I agree with the cultural issue 100%. I would like to point out however that it is not just cultural but perhaps instinctive for the male to be protective of the female, Org the caveman sort of thing. I was also educated to be polite and perhaps defferential to women in certain instances. It should be obvious why a man lets the woman go first...nicer view!

The military is an entirely different ball game. There are several topics that exist in military circles against women in combat roles. The most regarded is that a man will take much greater risks to rescue a wounded female or expose themselves to greater danger in order to protect a female team member. (cultural issue?). A second is that it is easier to train a man to react instinctively in a combat situation than a woman. Men react while a woman will think (perhaps they are smarter).

Bottom line is that any man who believes a woman to be weaker (mentally or physically) or less capable has never been married!!

this is not cultural issue, this is a practical issue. women in the army are not practical. if this were something like a baseball team it wouldn't be that big a deal, but when mistakes are made in the army people die. the American government will not allow people to die over something this trivial.

[quote="The Black Forrest"]I don't think there has been a case of say a position being overrun with women on the line.....
quote]

that's cause women don't fight in our army

Women make better assassins. .

women make better assasins because no one suspects them, that's lost when they put on a uniform and step on a leval playing field

You mean rich people and government, not country, and no, I don't. I mean that the government says that we are equal but denies women equality.

by that measure I should demand to see the gynocologyst

[quote=The Black Forrest]I don't think there has been a case of say a position being overrun with women on the line.....
quote]

that's cause women don't fight in our army

gee better tell that to jessica lynch and lori piestwa
oh yeah you cant ask pfc piestwa, she was killed in enemy action

women are in the military, women are needed in the military and if we come to a situation where we need a draft, they will be drafted.

now just why we would go to a draft when we have a superb military full of volunteers i dont know. we have no trouble filling all military jobs at this time so it would make no sense to force unwilling, less-able draftees to take the spots from people who want them.

this is not cultural issue, this is a practical issue. women in the army are not practical. if this were something like a baseball team it wouldn't be that big a deal, but when mistakes are made in the army people die. the American government will not allow people to die over something this trivial.

It's funny when you replace "women" with "black people" when you read this quote. Why should I fight for a country that treats women as second class citizens?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg