Forcing Women to Register for Draft

[Rebound]

15 hours ago, User said:

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?

 

Exactly, you pinhead. 
YOU started this thread by linking to a 29-page DoD document, which you obviously didn’t read… or else you’d know it’s 29 pages long. 
 

Which means you’re just a bot who gets his talking points from somebody else… you’re too dum to think for yourself. You didn’t find this document and read it, you just re-posted somebody else’s drivel. 
 

The DoD document you linked is an overview of the DoD’s proposals for the entire upcoming year.  Not “the Democrats” proposals, the DoD’s.  And in all of that, expanding selective service to include women is inconsequential. It doesn’t actually draft women, it doesn’t do anything. It’s probably the most insignificant line item in the document. But you’re a nitwit, you can’t come up with any independent thoughts of your own, so you just repost this fake outrage nonsense you’ve been fed by someone.  

Edited June 17, 2024 by Rebound

[User]

29 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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

You were not interested in that, as you were excluding combat roles...

We don't need to double the draft pool. 

 

[User]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Exactly, you pinhead. 
YOU started this thread by linking to a 29-page DoD document, which you obviously didn’t read… or else you’d know it’s 29 pages long. 

No, I have no idea what you saying 29 pages has to do with anything or why that has any relevance. 

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Which means you’re just a bot who gets his talking points from somebody else… you’re too dum to think for yourself. You didn’t find this document and read it, you just re-posted somebody else’s drivel. 

Did I urinate in your cheerios today or something?

You are all sorts of riled up. 

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The DoD document you linked is an overview of the DoD’s proposals for the entire upcoming year.  Not “the Democrats” proposals, the DoD’s.

No, this is from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is literally in the title:

"United States Senate Committee on Armed Services"

And yes, the Democrats currently control the Senate and thus have controlling leadership over the committees. This is not the first year they keep putting this language into it and not the first time those on the right have fought to oppose it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829
 

24 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It’s probably the most insignificant line item in the document.

Which is why you and others are on here making such a big stink over it. 

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, User said:

No, I have no idea what you saying 29 pages has to do with anything or why that has any relevance. 

Did I urinate in your cheerios today or something?

You are all sorts of riled up. 

No, this is from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is literally in the title:

"United States Senate Committee on Armed Services"

And yes, the Democrats currently control the Senate and thus have controlling leadership over the committees. This is not the first year they keep putting this language into it and not the first time those on the right have fought to oppose it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829
 

Which is why you and others are on here making such a big stink over it. 

Once again, you don’t know why I mention 29 pages when that’s the page count of the document you linked.  
 

Since women are now eligible to serve in combat, why should they be ineligible for the Selective Service? Are women inferior to men? Are they not equal citizens under the law? Does it offend your fragile ego? 
 

This policy has no effect on anyone’s life. We are very unlikely to institute a draft ever again. But you never know.  

[User]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Once again, you don’t know why I mention 29 pages when that’s the page count of the document you linked.  

How would I know? I am not a mind reader, so I asked. Instead of explaining yourself...

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Since women are now eligible to serve in combat, why should they be ineligible for the Selective Service? Are women inferior to men? Are they not equal citizens under the law? Does it offend your fragile ego? 

Ineligable? 

This is about forcing them to do it. You frame it as if they are being denied some equal choice. 

Yes, women are, in fact, inferior to men when it comes to physical strength.  

Has nothing to do with my ego. It has everything to do with respecting women and their special role in society. It is the same reason why I let women go first, why if a ship was sinking I am letting them board the life-rafts first, why I would save them from the burning building first... 

I am sure you don't believe in any of those things though... 

 

[impartialobserver]

While I do not support such policy.. I do realize that there is a pretty small chance that we institute a draft ever again. I do know that enlistment rates are down. We have a military base in Fallon, NV and they have been impacted by this. They have empty housing units that have sat vacant for 6+ years. 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, User said:

You were not interested in that, as you were excluding combat roles...

We don't need to double the draft pool. 

 

A. I did not exclude combat roles for women? WTF do you get that? 

B. Thank goodness you're here to armchair quarterback the DoD. You should send them a letter with your counterpoints: "Nuh-uh!"

[User]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

A. I did not exclude combat roles for women? WTF do you get that? 

B. Thank goodness you're here to armchair quarterback the DoD. You should send them a letter with your counterpoints: "Nuh-uh!"

You 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. " What was the point in saying this?

How am I armchair quarterbacking the DOD? This was from a Senate Committee. 

Even then... OMG, this is an online forum where we all debate and discuss any number of things, including government policies. 

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

You 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. " What was the point in saying this?

How am I armchair quarterbacking the DOD? This was from a Senate Committee. 

Even then... OMG, this is an online forum where we all debate and discuss any number of things, including government policies. 

 

The point of saying it is to snuff out the objection that women shouldn't register because "certain people" don't believe them capable, the same way they try to exclude women from first responder work. -- It simply doesn't matter for selective service registration. It's not relevant. 

You haven't presented any cogent argument for your "nuh-uh" opposition, but you kind of tipped your hand when you brought up physical strength. The DoD approved women for combat roles a decade ago, but here you are on an internet forum telling us--by all implications--that women aren't strong enough. What do you know that they don't?

I don't see any reason not to do this. Perhaps that's why you haven't presented one?

[User]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You haven't presented any cogent argument for your "nuh-uh" opposition, but you kind of tipped your hand when you brought up physical strength. The DoD approved women for combat roles a decade ago, but here you are on an internet forum telling us--by all implications--that women aren't strong enough. What do you know that they don't?

Well, for starters, I served with Women in the Marine Corps. I know the physical standards and they are modified for women. 

I also know the Sgt Major who conducted testing at Quantico...

Other than that... it is just plain common sense for anyone who has a shred of honesty to look at the obvious. There is a reason why we have women sports... and why women's times / records in physical sports are no where near men's. 

Beyond that, I don't think I characterized it as not strong enough, what I said was:

"Yes, women are, in fact, inferior to men when it comes to physical strength.  "
 

There was nothing "gender biased" about the results that showed men outperforming women in nearly all of the tasks, he wrote. And despite the data showing that the best women in the task force performed at or below the levels of the lowest 5 percent of male volunteers in the experiment, according to LeHew, LeHew wrote that Mabus has said stated that his mind was made up before those results were even released, he wrote.

Mabus said his mind was made up even before the results of the experiment were released, LeHew noted. But the data shows that the best women in the task force performed at or below the levels of the lowest 5 percent of male volunteers in the experiment, according to LeHew."
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/09/14/marine-war-hero-secnav-off-base-on-women-in-combat/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR33d2j16OV0pX5qPEm8yqWsBvyLR-VJuj2tH9TiJqHhVWpz40OyKoHncO0_aem_0t0PQXJzNaicjsUCibJJpA

[Yakuda]

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. 

 

Why do you oppose equality? 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Why do you oppose equality? 

How am I opposing equality?

 

[Yakuda]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:32 PM, User said:

How am I opposing equality?

 

Should women be required to sign up for selective service like men are required to?

[User]

12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Should women be required to sign up for selective service like men are required to?

Nope. 

[Yakuda]

39 minutes ago, User said:

Nope. 

Why not? It's 2024 men and women are supposedly equal these days 

Edited June 21, 2024 by Yakuda

[User]

Just now, Yakuda said:

Why not? It's 2024 men and women are supposedly equal these days 

Equal how?

There is no such thing as 100% equality. We have differing social norms among many other things. Women have title 9 to give them opportunities because they are not physically equal to men and can't compete with them in sports... 

I don't support a mandatory draft of women because we don't need it for as long as we have able-bodied men, men are more suited to warfare from a social norms state to a physical state, and I also don't support making women fight while men can for the same reasons I insist and societal norms insist that women and children are saved first... 

 

[Yakuda]

7 minutes ago, User said:

Equal how?

There is no such thing as 100% equality. We have differing social norms among many other things. Women have title 9 to give them opportunities because they are not physically equal to men and can't compete with them in sports... 

I don't support a mandatory draft of women because we don't need it for as long as we have able-bodied men, men are more suited to warfare from a social norms state to a physical state, and I also don't support making women fight while men can for the same reasons I insist and societal norms insist that women and children are saved first... 

 

So then we agree the whole men and women are equal thing is nonsense. Excellent. 

[User]

36 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

So then we agree the whole men and women are equal thing is nonsense. Excellent. 

Equal how?

It is not a 100% or 0% proposition. 

They are equal under the law, rights, etc... 

[Yakuda]

Just now, User said:

Equal how?

It is not a 100% or 0% proposition. 

They are equal under the law, rights, etc... 

How? In the demands for equality of outcomes. That's how. Women want equality only when it suits them. 

[User]

19 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

How? In the demands for equality of outcomes. That's how. Women want equality only when it suits them. 

Not sure this is an issue about women wanting to be drafted. They are free to volunteer if they want to. 

This is more about the political left wanting to push this onto all women. 

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Not sure this is an issue about women wanting to be drafted. They are free to volunteer if they want to. 

This is more about the political left wanting to push this onto all women. 

What women might want is irrelevant. 

 they should if they want to have even a hint of intellectual integrity. I'm not in favor of this but if women want to demand equality then they don't get to pick and choose where they want to be equal. 

Edited June 21, 2024 by Yakuda

[User]

22 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

What women might want is irrelevant. 

I was responding to your comment: "Women want equality only when it suits them. "

[Yakuda]

On 6/21/2024 at 12:26 PM, User said:

I was responding to your comment: "Women want equality only when it suits them. "

And it's true. It's not equality to pick and choose what you want to be equal about. 

[Deluge]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, robosmith said:

Military service is ALL VOLUNTARY. There is no draft.

No one cares what you "staunchly oppose."

Armed conflict is not appropriate for the fairer sex. I get that most women here in the US are penis envying butches, but it's unnatural as well as inappropriate.

There's plenty the gals can do without holding men back in the trenches. 

Edited June 24, 2024 by Deluge

[User]

44 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

And it's true. It's not equality to pick and choose what you want to be equal about. 

Then, again, back to my comment before:

"Not sure this is an issue about women wanting to be drafted. They are free to volunteer if they want to. 

This is more about the political left wanting to push this onto all women. "