House Committee Votes to Require Women to Register for Draft
297 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;50223398]lmao how pathetic. Not only are you missing the entire point, but you have also shown just how selfish you are. No one has ever fought for just "their country", they fight for ideals they believe in, or perhaps loved ones, but nobody literally fights for a flag and an anthem.
If you are not willing to fight for the country that provides the infrastructure, land, and leadership that keeps you fed, and keeps the society you are a part of running, then why should you be able to piggyback off of it, and why should that country work for you? You could argue that you provide the country with the taxes that keep it running, but so do everyone else who [I]are[/I] wiling to fight for "their countries", so what makes you an exception?[/QUOTE]
Attempting to use an ideological argument in defense of the draft (that the only reason someone wouldn't want to fight for the country is because they're a "selfish coward") is shamefully silly, and solves absolutely nothing aside from acting as a jingoistic defense of the draft. Using that argument fails to take into account the many, many reasons one might not want to fight in a war, and the legal and social conditions that often surround conscription.
Perhaps the most simple one is this basic truth; people do not want to die and suffer in conflicts that they did not want, nor did they have any say in creating it. Take, for example, the Vietnam War - the most cited example of the utter stupidity surrounding Selective Service. Every able-bodied male was legally required to serve, lest they be charged and arrested- regardless of their current beliefs (exempting religious pacifism in Christian denominations), career paths, or willingness to even fight and die at all. Those drafted would, ultimately, be shoved, kicking and screaming, into a war that was years long, killed hundreds every week, was started unjustly, and ultimately was [B]entirely pointless[/B]. Vietnam crushed people's hopes, dreams, ideals, families, and lives - and, in many cases, it was completely against the will of those suffering. To bring an end to this practice was the point of the peace protesters - anti-war demonstrators wanted the war to end, just as much as they wanted the draft to end, as it would bring the soldiers back home and keep future youth from fighting and dying in a war that they never wanted, intended, or should have gone into.
Perhaps you should consider another viewpoint regarding conscription. Take, for example, the numerous dictatorships and oppressive regimes that used, and still use, conscription as a tool. Would you find your point just as valid if it was used to justify the conscription of North Koreans? What about men during the USSR? Would their resistance to serving a government that actively betrays and hinders them still be considered 'cowardly' and 'selfish,' because they, too, supply them with homes, land, and infrastructure, or does forced service in non-dictatorships hold special privilege?
The point I'm making is that conscription is a thoroughly retarded idea - from the inefficiency of conscripted soldiers in combat (especially in comparison to those that actually [I]want [/I]to serve), the costs of forcing civilian professionals into becoming amateur (and shitty) soldiers and the societal and economic impact that their death would cause, and the fact that it causes undue suffering on those that did not want to suffer.
It seems that the stupidity surrounding the draft tends to extend to arguments in defense of it, too - you wouldn't believe how many times I've seen the 'rejection = cowards' argument to defend the draft, especially in this thread alone.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;50223398]lmao how pathetic. Not only are you missing the entire point, but you have also shown just how selfish you are. No one has ever fought for just "their country", they fight for ideals they believe in, or perhaps loved ones, but nobody literally fights for a flag and an anthem. [/QUOTE]
That rings pretty hollow when you start talking about conflicts like Korea and Vietnam, where nobody was fighting to protect their loved ones and plenty of people were forced to fight against their ideals, and the best justification that could be given was the nebulous and still unproven concept of Domino Theory.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;50223398]If you are not willing to fight for the country that provides the infrastructure, land, and leadership that keeps you fed, and keeps the society you are a part of running, then why should you be able to piggyback off of it, and why should that country work for you? You could argue that you provide the country with the taxes that keep it running, but so do everyone else who [I]are[/I] wiling to fight for "their countries", so what makes you an exception?[/QUOTE]
I'm not the exception, the people who get paid by the government to fight (and, in effect, don't pay taxes) are the exception. It's a job, they get paid, they get benefits and recognition. You might have a point if it was an entirely voluntary service with no compensation, but it's not.
I don't have any social obligation to be a firefighter or policeman simply because they are necessary to maintaining the social order. I pay my taxes so that someone else can be appropriately compensated for taking that risk.
Do people understand that mandatory conscription doesn't necessarily mean combat roles?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50224878]You do realize those things are paid for by taxes, right? You pay taxes, you get to use them.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think you get to pay for them? Because the government exists. Go live on a remote island. Have fun! Also, good luck defending yourself with the now-valueless dollars in your wallet.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50221303]
Now you're just making things up. [URL="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf"]You should read the study itself.[/URL]
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
It's a sad truth to accept, but those small physiological difference can be the difference between life or death.[/QUOTE]
That's not the study, that's a summary of the study. Finding out the details of how it was conducted is incredibly tricky. [URL="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/05/12/gceitf-inside-the-assessment/26590797/"]This [/URL]is all I have found that provides a lot of information. Basically the way it worked is exactly how I explained it; they took volunteers from existing Marines, so support personnel were put against teams of Marines who were not only already trained in the techniques they were competing at but were actually led by [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/USMC/comments/3vccy7/i_am_a_marine_who_participated_in_the_ground/"]combat [/URL]veterans.
I'm also not making things up, I'm speaking from my short time in the Army. Combat units tend to be "harder" than support units. All Marines receive the same training but then go off to units that have varying training schedules, both in terms of hands on skills. If this is a complete shot in the dark I'm sure a Marine on FP will correct me.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50221445]If those small differences cost people their lives on a battlefield, is it really worth it? If being just a little bit too weak means you can't drag your comrade to safety and he dies, is that worth it?[/QUOTE]
But atleast some women can drag their comrade to safety. Why would you stop the people who can hack it just because there are people who can't? It makes no sense. You are losing out on good talent for purely arbitrary reasons, which is why every other branch of the military including special operations have opened up on integration.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50228087]That's not the study, that's a summary of the study. Finding out the details of how it was conducted is incredibly tricky. [URL="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/05/12/gceitf-inside-the-assessment/26590797/"]This [/URL]is all I have found that provides a lot of information. Basically the way it worked is exactly how I explained it; they took volunteers from existing Marines, so support personnel were put against teams of Marines who were not only already trained in the techniques they were competing at but were actually led by [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/USMC/comments/3vccy7/i_am_a_marine_who_participated_in_the_ground/"]combat [/URL]veterans.
I'm also not making things up, I'm speaking from my short time in the Army. Combat units tend to be "harder" than support units. All Marines receive the same training but then go off to units that have varying training schedules, both in terms of hands on skills. If this is a complete shot in the dark I'm sure a Marine on FP will correct me.
But atleast some women can drag their comrade to safety. Why would you stop the people who can hack it just because there are people who can't? It makes no sense. You are losing out on good talent for purely arbitrary reasons, which is why every other branch of the military including special operations have opened up on integration.[/QUOTE]
I asked a question, I didn't say "don't let women in" I asked what the cost could be and would it be worth it
Why you have to jump to fucking conclusions is beyond me
I'm personally 100% for women in combat roles, but apparently asking a question like that invalidates my position to people like yourself
Okay than explain what you mean by "is it worth it" because I was assuming that "Is it worth it" meant "Is it worth it to allow women in combat roles"
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50228291]Okay than explain what you mean by "is it worth it" because I was assuming that "Is it worth it" meant "Is it worth it to allow women in combat roles"[/QUOTE]
Is it worth the cost of life if someone dies because they're not ready for the job, apply it to a man or a woman
Fuck man, i'm asking a question and you're ready to jump at me for something that I didn't even remotely imply.
you're desperate to make me out into a villain for a statement that had no ill will behind it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50228304]Is it worth the cost of life if someone dies because they're not ready for the job, apply it to a man or a woman
Fuck man, i'm asking a question and you're ready to jump at me for something that I didn't even remotely imply.
you're desperate to make me out into a villain for a statement that had no ill will behind it.[/QUOTE]
The obvious answer is no because [I]the entire point of every post I've been making is that men [B]and [/B]women[/I] are capable of being "not ready for the job" and as long as the standards are the same the ones who aren't "ready" would hopefully be weeded out.
I don't think you are a villain, I think you are asking pointless questions. What did you expect the answer to be, that the military should absolutely allow people who can't make the grade stay in? Fuck no.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50226353]I "get" to pay them because I had the amazing luck of being born here. And if I don't pay them, they take me to jail.
"If you don't like it, you can giiiit out!" thank you for my daily dose of redneck.[/QUOTE]
The daily dose of redneck is you not realizing that a government is more than the taxes it gets some of its money from.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50228087]That's not the study, that's a summary of the study. Finding out the details of how it was conducted is incredibly tricky. [URL="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/05/12/gceitf-inside-the-assessment/26590797/"]This [/URL]is all I have found that provides a lot of information. Basically the way it worked is exactly how I explained it; they took volunteers from existing Marines, so support personnel were put against teams of Marines who were not only already trained in the techniques they were competing at but were actually led by [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/USMC/comments/3vccy7/i_am_a_marine_who_participated_in_the_ground/"]combat [/URL]veterans.[/QUOTE]
All I wanted was proof and you gave it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.