Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should woman be eligible for the draft?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:43 AM
Original message
Poll question: Should woman be eligible for the draft?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
buddy22600 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think only women should be drafted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dedhed Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. ... but only the ugly ones.
AAHHHHH! JUST KIDDING!!! Pretty ones, too!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Of course we should
And when American parents see their daughters go to war, they might wake up. I pray that it doesn't come to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihaveaquestion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. It already has come to that.
Edited on Tue May-04-04 10:23 AM by smjoyner
American daughters are already "at war" and getting killed. It hasn't changed anything as far as I can see. The warmongers are still at it.

(edit) BTW, I voted yes. I don't like the idea of a draft, but if there is one, it shouldn't be limited to men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. There should not be a draft
They should raise soldier pay until there is no need. If they were to offer yearly pay of $500,000 there would be plenty of people more than happy to become a soldier. It seems that the Capitalist filth running our country only believe in letting the market decide prices when it benefits their plutocratic interests. When the wage demanded by soldiers goes up because of the increased risk then the capitalist dogs resort to coercion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. interesting thought - very capitalist
In a pure Adam Smith kind of way. free market pricing dictates wages. I almost object to calling republicans capitalists - I mean in a strict definition they are not any more than stalin was a socialist...just different ways to exploit the worker, when both ways should result in a much more fair situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Gee, what an interesting notion!
We can keep the price low by making absolutely sure that there are plenty of people in such desperate need that they'll do damned near anything, right?

It's like keeping the wages low in the coal mines. As long as there're people who're kept impoverished and ready to do anything to survive, then we'll NEVER have to pay people according to the actual VALUE of the service/labor! Great idea!

Of course we won't do that for the really wealthy, will we? After all, they just keep getting a bigger and bigger share of the national pie, right?

Yeah ... that's a great recipe for keeping the socioeconomic system tilted in favor of the wealthy. The wealthy will keep getting even wealthier from the labors and deaths of others. Great system. It worked on the antebellum plantations, right?

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Ummm, no.
The reason that they need to contemplate a draft is that poor as people are in this country, they still would rather not volunteer to join the military that is engaged in multiple wars. The risk is too high and the reward is too low. Our society doesn't draft people to work numerous shitty jobs in other fields, why should this be different. If you raise the wages to the point where people are saying "why risk flunking out of college or medical school and go deep in debt to pay tuition when I can make enough money to set myself up nicely by joining the military?" then there would be no shortage of troops. The answer is simple: not enough troops, pay them more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Just how much would it cost to attract Jenna or Barbara Bush??
How much would the pay have to be to get them to serve in the armed forces? Let's ask another question: Who benefits more from having a large military force - the Bush twins, the Olsen twins, or the welfare twins?

The fact of the matter is that dollars are not worth the same to different people. Indeed, the degree to which they're worth less is a fairly decent approximation of those who've benefited the most from the socioeconomic system being "defended" by military service.

There's almost no greater recipe for the amplification of inequality of opportunity than a military service based on socioeconomic coercion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. How does increasing the wage increase coercion, yet a draft doesn't?
Under a draft everyone goes except for the rich and well connected

If you raise the wages then the military will no longer be exclusively drawn from the poorest members of society. Of course there would always be some who would never go. Some because they are so rich that they'd see no incentive in joining even if it paid a lot, and some because even though the money would be nice they'd really rather not go.

Suppose the Army paid incoming recruits $150,000 per year. Wouldn't this provide an incentive for some of the children of comfortable families who are currently working on law degrees and MBA's to join the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. See ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
26. we'd eventually outsource to keep costs low
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. We already do, in a couple of ways.
We're attracting Hispanic immigrants in droves ... a variation on "off-shoring" ... and paying ('privatized') mercs far more with far fewer penalties for malfeasance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejcastellanos Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Start with the first daugthers
I'm sure Jenna and Barbara would love to serve their country in the mess that daddy made.

Would Barbara, granny, worry about the 'beautiful minds' of her grandchildren?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yeah, that would be good....start with the "first children" of all those..
that started the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. no and neither should men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Since that wasn't one of the choices...
I voted Yes, but I agree with you that no one should ever be drafted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. Not without ERA
Put our equal rights in the constitution, and then yes. Until then, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Good point... Change my vote to NO :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Good point well made n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. I agree with you, didn't occur to me, would vote no in that case n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. Voted yes...
For fairness, however, I believe that at this time that the draft is a HORRIBLE idea. I also do believe that a PEACETIME draft for National Service, let's say for two years, optional from ages 18-30, with the benefit of the government paying for 4 years of college would be good for the country. NOT NOW though, and of course not all of the draftees would be in the military, civilian services should be an option as well. That's my 2 cents, and would actually make politicians wake up and not put us in useless wars that simply suck up lives and money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Voted yes because equal rights should mean equal responsibilities
OTOH, the daughters of the rich, right-wing neocons should be drafted first.....:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldenOldie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Why Not
Besides the Bush girls to include Jeb's daughter, how about Paris Hilton, Monica Lewinsky, and all the other young ladies that have a little to much time on their hands and can't seem to find something useful to do with their lives. Hey if my grandson's have to go why not my granddaughter's, I love them all equally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Yes, it should
But only if we have the ERA passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
16. No
But I understand that enlisting is increasingly popular with women. It's one of the few places where they're guaranteed wage parity.

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lizz612 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
20. They can try to draft me but....
I was talking about this with a friend and we came to a conclusion. The military wouldn't be able to draft pregnant women; women with small children maybe, but women who are still pregnant and/or nursing couldn't really be put into combat. The next logical step ala Phil Ochs "The draft board is debating if they’d like to take my life/I’d sooner take a wife and have raise a child or two/Wouldn’t you?" Can you say population boom? I know I would rather bring lives into this world than take lives out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. What they could do
Not everyone who is drafted would have to see combat. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be assigned safe jobs on the home front (for example: they could work as clerks).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lizz612 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Thats true
Then we would only be cogs in the war machine instead of actually killing people. Not sure I'd sleep any better though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
25. Only children of the President, Senate, and House should be drafted
It's the fastest way to promote peaceful resolutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbhond Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. Looks like Lynndie enjoyed military life
Watching male prisoners get "hard" was a bit distastful, but she seemed to enjoy it or was it her male counterparts that got their jollys seeing her smoke and grin!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
32. against the draft...for men and women
Edited on Tue May-04-04 07:06 PM by noiretblu
especially against it because of the corrupt, illegal regime now wasting lives in pursuit of profits for oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dawn Donating Member (876 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. I'm against the draft, for men and women.
Unless we are invaded by a huge foreign army, and then pretty much everyone will have to take up arms, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. I'm the one "other" vote
Nobody should be eligible for the draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC