Forcing Women to Register for Draft

[User]

The Democrats keep trying to sneak this garbage in...

"Amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service."

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy25_ndaa_executive_summary.pdf

For as long as there are able-bodied men to send to war, I staunchly oppose any mandatory registration of women to be drafted. 

 

[robosmith]

Military service is ALL VOLUNTARY. There is no draft.

No one cares what you "staunchly oppose."

[herbie]

He is free to staunchly oppose entirely imaginary allegations. Like exemptions for Democrats on the Alien Lizard Overlord's food menu.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Military service is ALL VOLUNTARY. There is no draft.

No one cares what you "staunchly oppose."

If the draft is imposed in the future.

If you post a bunch of threads daily on a similar topic (Trump) it's not unreasonable to listen to the opinions of others.

Edited June 16, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Nationalist]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/27/ukraine-requires-women-register-military-conscription-russia-threat-looms.html

Hmmm...

[Guest]

Who will cook me breakfast? Thats a ridiculous idea!

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Who will cook me breakfast? Thats a ridiculous idea!

They can do it in the military when you get drafted. Just because they might be drafted doesn’t mean it would be for a combat role. That could be voluntary but there are a lot of other jobs they could do which would free up men for other tasks. I see no real reason to exempt women other than men’s egos.

[User]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

Military service is ALL VOLUNTARY. There is no draft.

No one cares what you "staunchly oppose."

Are you this ignorant about what the selective service is for?

20 hours ago, herbie said:

He is free to staunchly oppose entirely imaginary allegations. Like exemptions for Democrats on the Alien Lizard Overlord's food menu.

There is nothing imaginary here. I provided you with a source. 

Are you and some other liberals on here really this adamantly opposed to engaging honestly on this forum?

[herbie]

1 hour ago, User said:

Are you this ignorant about what the selective service is for?
There is nothing imaginary here. I provided you with a source.

Are you ignorant that it's 2024 and expecting women to be exempted is as abhorrent as segregated units used to be?

You provided a source that imagined the scenario, one who also thinks like it's 1953. You fell for the BS, not me. And even posted it with an inflammatory headline as if it was news.

[Rebound]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:19 PM, User said:

The Democrats keep trying to sneak this garbage in...

"Amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service."

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy25_ndaa_executive_summary.pdf

For as long as there are able-bodied men to send to war, I staunchly oppose any mandatory registration of women to be drafted. 

 

29 pages and that’s all you have to say.  
 

We’ve had draft registration since 1978.  Why is it a problem to register women as well as men, when the likelihood of a draft is nearly zero? 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

I see no real reason to exempt women other than men’s egos.

Or the fact that most military combat personnel happen to be men.

[User]

33 minutes ago, Rebound said:

29 pages and that’s all you have to say.  
 

We’ve had draft registration since 1978.  Why is it a problem to register women as well as men, when the likelihood of a draft is nearly zero? 

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 29 pages. 

If the likelihood of a draft is nearly zero, why do we need to register women?

 

[User]

57 minutes ago, herbie said:

Are you ignorant that it's 2024 and expecting women to be exempted is as abhorrent as segregated units used to be?

Are you saying you are now aware of what we are talking about?

58 minutes ago, herbie said:

You provided a source that imagined the scenario, one who also thinks like it's 1953. You fell for the BS, not me. And even posted it with an inflammatory headline as if it was news.

I provided a link to the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act Executive Summary. It was not imagining any scenario. 

What is wrong with you?

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If the draft is imposed in the future.

If you post a bunch of threads daily on a similar topic (Trump) it's not unreasonable to listen to the opinions of others.

Stating mere opposition is NOT an OPINION, because it lacks REASON.

I staunchly oppose posts which contain NO REASON. LMAO

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Or the fact that most military combat personnel happen to be men.

They don't have to be combat personnel although there is no reason not to if they want to volunteer for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

During WW2, millions of women served in the military doing vital jobs. As a matter of fact, their ability to multitask, organize and attention to detail made them superior to men in many jobs. 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Aristides said:

As a matter of fact, their ability to multitask, organize and attention to detail made them superior to men in many jobs. 

Like sewing?

[herbie]

You just volunteered for permanent Latrine Squad.
   - Col. Sally Forth

[Aristides]

48 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Like sewing?

Like code breaking, analyzing aerial photographs, delivering new aircraft from the factory to squadrons. Some female British pilots were checked out on dozens of types from fighters to heavy bombers. All kinds of jobs if you bother to look it up instead of making stupid sexist comments

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

instead of making stupid sexist comments

Maybe I wasn't being serious. 

[Aristides]

23 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Maybe I wasn't being serious. 

Glad to hear it.

[Moonlight Graham]

There's lots of things women can do in the military besides fighting on the front lines.

[Hodad]

It's 2024. We can wage war by wire--partially if not wholly--in most scenarios. Most service personnel are not assigned to combat roles anyway. 

No reason not to do this.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

Glad to hear it.

I tested the wife with a sexist joke early in our relationship. 

She noted it was hard to get me mad, so I told her it was because she had never made a sandwich incorrectly for me.

She laughed, but because she knew I wasn't a huge fan of sandwiches, as well as the fact that I always make her breakfast and lunches and don't believe in gender roles.

It was a d*mb joke, but to get offended when it clearly has no basis, is reaching and seeking to get offended at everything.

It tells me right away, one has a high IQ and doesn't take life too seriously.

Its also the lack of entitlement that tells one they are entitled never to get offended. 

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There's lots of things women can do in the military besides fighting on the front lines.

I agree,  if they choose to do so.

[User]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's 2024. We can wage war by wire--partially if not wholly--in most scenarios. Most service personnel are not assigned to combat roles anyway. 

No reason not to do this.

No reason to do this. 

 

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There's lots of things women can do in the military besides fighting on the front lines.

Sure... why do we need to draft them to do them though?

 

[Hodad]

30 minutes ago, User said:

No reason to do this. 

 

Unless one is interested in basic equity, fairness, and doubling a potential draft pool.