Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 09:43 AM
Original message |
Poll question: Should woman be eligible for the draft? |
buddy22600
(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 |
dedhed
(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:
|
Misunderestimator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 09:46 AM
Response to Original message |
|
And when American parents see their daughters go to war, they might wake up. I pray that it doesn't come to that.
|
ihaveaquestion
(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.
|
JVS
(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.
|
daveskilt
(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.
|
TahitiNut
(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:
|
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
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.
|
TahitiNut
(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.
|
JVS
(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?
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
bhunt70
(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 |
TahitiNut
(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.
|
ejcastellanos
(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?
|
Bread and Circus
(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.
|
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:05 AM
Response to Original message |
7. no and neither should men. |
Misunderestimator
(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.
|
noonwitch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Put our equal rights in the constitution, and then yes. Until then, no.
|
Misunderestimator
(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 |
Vladimir
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
17. Good point well made n/t |
Solon
(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 |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |
|
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.
|
meow2u3
(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:
|
GoldenOldie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
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.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
But only if we have the ERA passed.
|
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
|
But I understand that enlisting is increasingly popular with women. It's one of the few places where they're guaranteed wage parity.
:nuke:
|
Lizz612
(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.
|
oldcoot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
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).
|
Lizz612
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-04-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
Then we would only be cogs in the war machine instead of actually killing people. Not sure I'd sleep any better though.
|
Fleshdancer
(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.
|
dbhond
(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!!
|
noiretextatique
(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.
|
dawn
(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.
|
goobergunch
(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.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 01:13 AM
Response to Original message |