Should females be part of the draft?

[dmosh42]

Since the country has greatly changed since the last time we had a legal draft for the military, I wonder what the attitude would be towards the female part of our population. The services now use women in all phases, except front line ground troops, and maybe other places. Maybe this should be part of the debate, so everyone has a stake in this.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Yes. n/t

[Mythsaje]

2. You should try this as a poll...

Just a suggestion.

I oppose the notion of a draft, so I'm not going to weigh in on the question at hand.

But a poll on the subject might be interesting.

[dmosh42]

18. OK, will post a poll on 'General discussion'

[The Count]

3. And babies too. Since we play poker with lives. get the pro-lifers involved.

And remember, this amazing poker bill will be reworked in both houses until it kills exactly the same people the volunteer army does. only in bigger numbers.

[BlueJazz]

4. Sure...A Rifle or a Cannon doesn't care who pulls the Trigger.

Women are quite capable of doing "War Tasks".

[MaryBear]

41. But would you want one

in your tent?

:sarcasm:

[USA_1]

5. All Male Draft?

It's a good way to really screw over the Democratic party's chances in 2008. I cannot believe that some of you want to destroy the chance to take back America from the neoconnivers.

[Skittles]

6. not until they are truly represented in our government

and I say that as a FEMALE VETERAN

[USA_1]

9. Minorities Are Not Properly Represented In Government

... that should be enough to excuse minority men from mandatory service as well.

[Skittles]

27. well they should be rightfully pissed too

I cannot fight everyone's battles

[rainy]

15. This I agree with this whole heartedly. When women are involved in

the decision to go to war then we can draft them. But, until they have an equal say, at lest 50% representing in office, we should not draft them.

[CTLawGuy]

25. how noble and principled of you

That makes your position that only males should be drafted sound slightly less hypocritical, as someone who is an advocate of gender equality.

Personally, I say when 19-26 year olds start making the decisions about war, then they can be subject to the draft. Same logic.

[Skittles]

28. you would feel differently if the government was 90+% women

yes indeed

[CTLawGuy]

35. well the government is 100% not me

so I guess I would feel the same as I do now.

Also the government is 0% 18-21 year olds, so, under your logic, why should we be able to draft them?

Under your logic, we'd only be able to draft elected officials.

[Skittles]

44. I don't expect you to understand

not at all

[rainy]

37. We should just let the old white men fight the wars they start. Or,

better yet let the corporations fight it out until there is one winner and then we can destroy it and live happily ever after. We'd give back all the natural resources belonging to the people to the people. They can decide how to use them to their own benefit. How about that?

[CTLawGuy]

40. that sounds good

or we can elect intelligent people to office and hold them accountable to do what is right.

[rainy]

46. We only get to choose to elect who the corporations send us.

They mostly are already bought by special interest before we ever get to choose.

Voting in the absence of Choice

By Charles Sullivan

11/08/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Too many Americans harbor the illusion that we live in a democracy simply because we have the right to vote. But let us be clear about something: voting matters only where real choices are allowed. It is universally understood that special interest money runs the American political system and thus defines what the choices will be. So we are left to choose between candidates who are financed by special interest money, which any one can see, is no choice at all.

The system is purposely designed to require enormous expense from its participants. According to the very mainstream USA Today, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics predicts that $2.6 billion will be spent on Congressional races this year alone, which thus precludes any third party candidate, as well as ordinary people, from all but token participation. It requires big money to win political office and big money comes from the deep pockets of corporate America. In effect, special interest money has rendered the political process as we know it null and void by restricting our choices to candidates that have been pre-chosen for us by corporate America.

The choice is more illusory than real. Plutocrats and workers have nothing in common. People of ordinary means can no longer ascend to the presidency or even Congress. The composition of both the state and federal governments are very different from the socio-economic demographics of the populations they are supposed to represent, and it is no accident. Regardless where you look the rich are represented and the great majority is excluded.

So if the Democrats wrest control of the government from the hands of the Republicans, it will be because conservative Democrats won some important races, precluding any progressive mandate from coming into play. On the whole the nation will remain well to the right of center, and certainly will not progress toward the left. The bulk of the corporate money will reverse direction and flow from the Republicans into the coffers of the Democrats. The corporations will retain control.

One can cast protest votes, as I often do, for candidates who do not accept special interest money, but they are rarely, if ever, contenders. It requires huge sums of money to get media exposure, and to get on state ballots, yet alone contend for the prize. The system is designed to preclude challenges to the status quo, which leaves us to choose between Republicrats fielded by corporate backers.

Corporate money so owns the political process that voters are left to choose only between the finer nuances of the capital system, and between degrees of corruption. Ultimately the choice is between lesser evils, which speak volumes about the state of decay of American politics. Good never springs from evil, so we witness the steady moral decline of a nation mired in corruption and confusion.

There is nothing benign about corporate financiers who hedge their bets by supporting candidates of the major parties. Corporate CEOs are not philanthropists interested in the well being of America. They are motivated by greed and profits, and when they finance political campaigns, make no mistake about it; they are renting or buying politicians who will help them achieve their objectives.

Special interest money is a malignancy that grows in the bowels of government, and it must be removed lest it kill the host.

A system in which the high rollers and fat cats feed upon the bloated corpses of the tax payers and is accountable to no one should be an affront to all decent people of every political stripe. Let us see the political system in America for what it is, and for the cruel hoax that it has always been.

The corporate financing of political campaigns is, in fact, a capital investment in the status quo that benefits the wealthy and marginalizes those with neither wealth nor property. That explains why substantive change is rarely accomplished through the vote in America. It also explains the remarkable consistency and homogeneity of governmental policy through the decades; domestic and foreign, regardless of which party is in power.

Those policies have consistently accrued wealth and influence to the rich by exploiting the working class, and with disastrous results for the world. It has resulted in war after war, occupation after occupation; and the systematic overthrow of democracies everywhere.

The corporations and their puppets in government are realizing enormous profits from the system, and they will not allow significant or radical change from within the existing order. The system cannot and will not be reformed; the money changers will not allow it.

Now the great majority of the population is disenfranchised and left out of the equation. Only those with wealth are allowed to play. Money talks and those who do not have an abundance of wealth are without voice in a political system awash in cash and corruption.

If working class people were running the government, rather than wealthy Plutocrats, we would not be in the current predicament that threatens to engulf us, and we would have avoided many of the pitfalls that have trapped us in the past. We would never have experienced a Viet Nam War, there would have been no invasion and occupation of Iraq; and we would have socialized health care and decent schools like other industrialized nations, rather than tax cuts for the rich and massive corporate welfare.

There is a huge difference between a government of the people and corporate ‘for profit’ governance. America would be a much better place without corporate rule, and unquestionably the world would be better off and much safer.

I am not sure what the solution is to the dilemma we have created for ourselves through detachment, indifference and apathy. I do know, however, that doing the same thing over and over will assure a similar result to what we have gotten in the past. At some point we must acknowledge the illegitimacy of the political process, and see it for the prostitution and the sham that it is. It is incapable of producing just results or the change we need in order to become a Democracy.

There are no easy ways out of the morass we have created. It may be that another tea party similar to the one enacted at Boston Harbor over two hundred years ago is the only cure for what ails us. I survive on the hope that eventually enough good people will arrive at a similar conclusion, and that we will effect change directly in the streets of America. That is what I would call participatory Democracy, and it would be a thing of beauty to behold.

Sources:

USA Today 10/29/2006

[hughee99]

50. So who is "involved" in the decision to go to war?

Just the President? Top cabinet officials? Congressional leaders or congresspersons in general?

[Hosnon]

30. If there is one argument that really bugs me it is this one. Why can a female

ONLY be represented by another female? Furthermore, why is "femaleness" the dominant characteristic?

Take two candidates, a man and a woman. A female voter agrees ideologically with the man 90% but with the woman only 40%. Who better represents the female voter?

Also, taken to its logical conclusions, your argument, it seems to me, reduces representative democracy into simple democracy. After all, no one but me can truly represent me.

Edit: Syntax. Also, "female" can be substituted for just about any human characteristic. And for the record, I don't feel that the only way I can be represented is by another 24 year old white male. And for that matter, how could anyone under 35 ever be represented by the President?

[PVnRT]

47. Wow. So being drafted is a reward now.

:eyes:

[cornermouse]

7. No draft. Period.

Unless you want the democrats to lose again. The sole exception being a serious threat to America on American soil. Iraq and even bin Laden, who got lucky, don't meet the criteria.

[onehandle]

11. Yes. A Draft would be a self-destructive folly.

The GOP would take it all back in 2008.

[Hosnon]

36. The question assumes there is one:

Given that a draft exists, should women be required as well as men?

Don't go changin' the hypothetical now. :dunce:

:hi:

[Kiouni]

8. It would never get

accepted. I mean no disrespect to women or imply any sexes dominance over the other but I don't think I could handle it if my wife got drafted. It's one thing for me to leave or serve if I had to but quite another for her. Maybe she would see it as a equally terrible offense but I don't know.
Is this a wrong thing to think?

[Barnaby]

10. Of course

[rosesaylavee]

12. Yes.

And, my two cents. The draft idea is daft. Just the idea that it is being considered makes me wonder what the hell 11/7 was about anyway.

[jody]

13. Yes n/t

[loyalsister]

14. Yes

n\t

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Yes.

If this is about everybody in the country having a personal stake in questions of war and peace, then no group should get any special privilages. I would want a draft that would affect Babs and Jenna.

[Waya]

17. Babs and Jenna.......

...wouldn't have to go.....I would bet you Dollars to Doughnuts. Them spoiled, rich kids never do....they'll find some way to get them out of it. Or any other privileged runt, for that matter. And unless EVERYONE has to go when they reinstitute the Draft, no matter the money or connections their Daddy has - I say no to a Draft, period!

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Their granddad had to go. He served in combat in WWII.

Even his rich senator father couldn't get him out of it. Roosevelts and Kennedys had to serve too. These examples show that it's at least theoretically possible to have a draft that targets even the most privileged.

At least bringing the subject up for public debate can put the fear of God in them. Even letting them think it could happen is healthy IMHO.

[No Exit]

45. Are you sure Poppy was drafted--or did he enlist?

A great many people enlisted then. I believe it was a very popular "war effort".

[Captain Hilts]

52. Yes, he enlisted. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Nobody should be part of the draft. nt.

[seabeyond]

20. yes

[Chimichurri]

21. No question they absolutely should. Imagine the Bush twins being called

to duty.

[blondeatlast]

22. Yes. nt

[CTyankee]

23. Pass the ERA and then we'll talk!!

No ERA, no draft for women. That's the deal, as far as I am concerned. If our country cannot see fit to put women in the Constitution then it should not clamor for "equality" in the draft.

I am not automatically for the draft. As a matter of fact, I think military conscription is a huge issue, deserving of LOTS of debate and consideration. It equates with the abortion issue in that conscription gives the government the right to your body when it sees fit. We should not acquiese to that quickly, if at all.

[elocs]

24. The question is posed that IF there is a draft should women be drafted?

IF there is a draft, then women should certainly be drafted. A Democrat proposing a draft now is a pretty retarded idea. Can you imagine what Bush would do and would have done if he had 400,000 troops at his disposal? How can it be guaranteed that there is not another Bush lurking in our future? A period of national service might be worth considering with each given the choice between military or nonmilitary and with the same benefits for either.

[YOY]

26. No and neither should be males, hermaphrodites, or eunochs...

Because a draft is the stupidest political maneuvering I've ever seen.

[Bjornsdotter]

29. Yes

...because I have heard from more than one mother of only girls..."I think it's only right that the boys should spend at least 2 years in the military."

However when I have mentioned that girls will be drafted the next time around they very quickly change their tune.

Cheers

[Libby2]

31. yes

[ButterflyBlood]

32. No, and neither should anyone else n/t

[leftofthedial]

33. yes

I'm not happy about saying that. I have two teenaged daughters.

[Kber]

34. Yes

I say as a woman under 42 and a mother of a daughter.

(and a son).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. No.

The only people who should be subject to the draft are white men, 30-75, registered republicans.

[Catchawave]

55. LOL ....

:hug:

[proud patriot]

42. yes

I'm a woman BTW

[MaryBear]

43. Between 18 and 21 every person

should serve in a national service corps, with participation in various areas by lottery.

[Withywindle]

48. Theoretically, yes.

I'm firmly opposed to a draft for anyone. But if there is one, I see no justification for excluding anyone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. No. God. Damn. Draft.

Not males
Not females
Not white
Not minorities
Not poor
Not rich

Women serve with honor in the all-volunteer service. This is as it should be.

[Captain Hilts]

51. You mean 'women'? 'Females' includes dogs, cats, etc. Yes, women should be included.

Especially if they're drafting for specific skills.

[LWolf]

53. No. NOBODY should be part of "the draft." n/t

[Catchawave]

54. I think so ....

..afterall, didn't they want admission to the (FREE) public/state military academies/colleges since it was safe after the last DRAFT round'o'rama !?

[savemefromdumbya]

56. There is NOT going to be a draft - everyone seems to be war happy?

[USA_1]

57. Looks Like All Talk of a Draft Is Over ...

Good! How anyone can be loony enough to do as Rangel did is beyond all reason.

Now there is hope of winning 2008 again.

Hooray!

[mtnsnake]

58. Without the females we have in there now, maybe 1/2 the men wouldnt have signed up

to begin with.

Sorry, I guess I didn't really answer your question.

[Joey Liberal]

59. No,

I love women. But they are not suitable for the infantry, rangers, and special forces. And that's what we need the most if a draft is instituted. I'll be the first to admit that I served with some females that were better Soldiers than me. In fact, I recently met a female Major at Ft. Sill that is one of the best Soldiers that I have ever met. I respect her and I hope she makes general. But, she's not a combat arms officer. When it gets down to living like an animal with zero privacy for days, weeks and months, I just don't see women as being able to deal with that. What if an infantry unit needs to go through a Chemical Decon station? That requires stripping off your gear and uniform. What if an infantry squad or a Special Forces team has to live together in a fox hole for many days?

Currently, women don't have to meet the same physical training test standards as the men. They don't have to cut there hair as short as the men.

The Army needs to get back to tough, realistic training. If the basic trainees can't handle being screamed at by the Drill Sergeants, how can they handle combat?

[mc jazz]

61. reality check

What if the women are pregnant or have children,
will there be draft dodging babies?

Who wants to see girls they want to date drafted out to take on Jihadists who would rape and kill them?

society would be torn apart so this is the lamest idea ever
I would fight any government that decided to do this disservice to my love for women

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. will they pass ERA?

[Telly Savalas]

62. No and neither should males.