House Committee Votes to Require Women to Register for Draft
297 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50216547]And you don't think that's a generalization, or perhaps the result of women not being in combat for as long as men?
It's like if I let a few black people into combat and they all died - it would be unfair to say, "Black people just can't fight."[/QUOTE]
Except black people don't lack testosterone like women do.
You're comparing a real physiological difference between people to... skin tone? Really?
Cut the political correct crap. Women are inferior to men at physical activities on average.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50219999]Except black people don't lack testosterone like women do.
You're comparing a real physiological difference between people to... skin tone? Really?
Cut the political correct crap. Women are inferior to men at physical activities on average.[/QUOTE]
i would say they're naturally tuned to be inferior with physical strength but more naturally tuned to be superior in regards to endurance
[QUOTE=plunger435;50217688]Good idea, we should start to remove our government in a time of war, what a great well thought out idea.[/QUOTE]
I think he's referring to the trend of politicians sending everyone else's kids off to war, while their children will be deferred because their parents are rich politicians. (See George W Bush)
Unless I see politicians' kids actually get drafted, I'd think twice before joining a war.
"I ain't no senator's son"
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50219959]you can't decide every single congressman that gets voted in. ya, people aren't [I]completely[/I] powerless, but they're not responsible for every single political decision either[/QUOTE]
People are literally responsible for every single politician. Do you think they're just making up the voting numbers or something?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50220594]People are literally responsible for every single politician. Do you think they're just making up the voting numbers or something?[/QUOTE]
in the broadest of senses, yes, but citizens aren't one homogenous group. i'm just saying you can have a scenario where you vote for someone who isn't entirely pro-war but shifts their opinion when a conflict becomes too big, or a situation where 60 percent of people vote for something and the other 40% vote against it, etc. it's kind of a weird "gotcha" card to pull, is all
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50220666]in the broadest of senses, yes, but citizens aren't one homogenous group. i'm just saying you can have a scenario where you vote for someone who isn't entirely pro-war but shifts their opinion when a conflict becomes too big, or a situation where 60 percent of people vote for something and the other 40% vote against it, etc. it's kind of a weird "gotcha" card to pull, is all[/QUOTE]
Then you send a message by not reelecting them. If they continue to be elected after that then it is assumed they are still representing the peoples interests, if not then it sends the message that they fucked up.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;50216496]I believe women have a place in the military, but it isn't in combat. Stupid political correctness and screams for "equality" have forced the military into a corner, approving women for positions like infantry is a horrendous mistake.
However, if we're really going to take this route and allow them to fulfill combat positions and claim the "equality" card then yes they should be forced to register for the draft too.[/QUOTE]
It's more politically correct to administratively block a job sector from a segment of the population based entirely on gender. By "combat" I assume you mean infantry, scouts, tankers etc because women have been in strictly combat roles for decades. I'd say if a woman is able to pass training for these jobs and does well enough at her unit than there should be no administrative block in her way from doing her duty. It's a dumb way to lose out on potentially good soldiers to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban all women just because most can't hack it.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Richoxen;50216540]Yes.
[URL]http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units[/URL][/QUOTE]
This study has such blatantly poor methodology that Congress had to pull teeth to get it released publicly. Instead of comparing a mixed unit of volunteers with each other it put a group of combat soldiers up against average female Marines who are not pushed to the same standards combat units are. The shooting trials highlight this especially because, in the Army atleast, lethality is a massive focus for combat troops. Obviously the mixed unit is going to shoot worse than a unit that trained more and better on weapons.
Gee, I wonder if there is anything else that might indiciate that this "study" was made after a conclusion had already been reached. [QUOTE]
The summary of the Marine Corps study quotes a 1992 report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. That was the last time the government studied the effect of gender integration on ground combat units.
According to that commission, winning a war is sometimes "only a matter of inches."
Back then, the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."[/QUOTE]
Hey I wonder why only the Marines have come up with this "study" and why only the Marines have requested an exception to the DoD decision. Bizarre coincidence perhaps.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50216547]And you don't think that's a generalization, or perhaps the result of women not being in combat for as long as men?
It's like if I let a few black people into combat and they all died - it would be unfair to say, "Black people just can't fight."[/QUOTE]
Huh? Why would the average woman that enlists in 2020 perform better in combat than the average woman who enlisted in 2015?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50221029]Instead of comparing a mixed unit of volunteers with each other it put a group of combat soldiers up against average female Marines who are not pushed to the same standards combat units are. The shooting trials highlight this especially because, in the Army atleast, lethality is a massive focus for combat troops. Obviously the mixed unit is going to shoot worse than a unit that trained more and better on weapons.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't that because women couldn't meet the standards men have to reach, so they had to lower it?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50221111]Wasn't that because women couldn't meet the standards men have to reach, so they had to lower it?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, was it?
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=srobins;50221084]Huh? Why would the average woman that enlists in 2020 perform better in combat than the average woman who enlisted in 2015?[/QUOTE]
Because in a hypothetical 2020 that takes place 4 years after women have been integrated into combat units that have a tighter focus on developing combat skills and, more importantly, combat leaders that can go back and train new female recruits.
His comparison to black people is sloppy but taking a group of women who aren't trained combat troops, comparing them to trained combat troops, then saying "See women shouldn't be in combat arms" is dumb. That's essentially what the study boils down to.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50221134]I don't know, was it?[/QUOTE]
I couldn't find any source you'd accept on that point, so point's moot. But you're also ignoring other aspects of that study, such as [url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary/annotations/239541.html]women not being able to carry heavy equipment as fast as men[/url] and [url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary/annotations/239543.html]women got injured more than men doing the same physical tasks.[/url]
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50221029]Instead of comparing a mixed unit of volunteers with each other it put a group of combat soldiers up against average female Marines who are not pushed to the same standards combat units are. The shooting trials highlight this especially because, in the Army atleast, lethality is a massive focus for combat troops. Obviously the mixed unit is going to shoot worse than a unit that trained more and better on weapons. [/QUOTE]
I'm gonna challenge you on this: how was the mixed unit trained worse? Where's the source to that? Where in study was there a difference between the two units? Because as far as I'm aware, the units should have been trained exactly the same. That was the whole point of the study after all.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[t]https://i.imgur.com/AWyYB6Z.png[/t]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50221225]I couldn't find any source you'd accept on that point, but you're still ignoring other aspects of that study, such as [url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary/annotations/239541.html]women not being able to carry heavy equipment as fast as men[/url] and [url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary/annotations/239543.html]women got injured more than men doing the same physical tasks.[/url][/QUOTE]
Generally women won't be able to carry heavy equipment as well as men. Should a standard be adopted to make sure every marine is capable of carrying a crew-served weapon at a certain speed for a certain distance? Maybe. But I guarantee you atleast a few women will be able to pass that standard as long as it's realistic. Also, this falls under what I said regarding existing roles in the marines. Support roles will always do combat tasks worse than combat roles because they focus on different training at different intensities.
Women will definitely be more susceptible to injuries unfortunately. There will be ways to mitigate it but I don't think it will ever reach parity with males. I don't think this should prevent all women from having the chance at being combat arms though, especially if they are proficient at it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50221296]Generally women won't be able to carry heavy equipment as well as men. Should a standard be adopted to make sure every marine is capable of carrying a crew-served weapon at a certain speed for a certain distance? Maybe. But I guarantee you atleast a few women will be able to pass that standard as long as it's realistic. Also, this falls under what I said regarding existing roles in the marines. Support roles will always do combat tasks worse than combat roles because they focus on different training at different intensities.
Women will definitely be more susceptible to injuries unfortunately. There will be ways to mitigate it but I don't think it will ever reach parity with males. I don't think this should prevent all women from having the chance at being combat arms though, especially if they are proficient at it.[/QUOTE]
[quote]“[b]A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties.[/b] Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”[/quote]
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50221296]Support roles will always do combat tasks worse than combat roles because they focus on different training at different intensities.[/QUOTE]
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=Raidyr;50221296]Generally women won't be able to carry heavy equipment as well as men. Should a standard be adopted to make sure every marine is capable of carrying a crew-served weapon at a certain speed for a certain distance? Maybe. But I guarantee you atleast a few women will be able to pass that standard as long as it's realistic. Also, this falls under what I said regarding existing roles in the marines. Support roles will always do combat tasks worse than combat roles because they focus on different training at different intensities.
Women will definitely be more susceptible to injuries unfortunately. There will be ways to mitigate it but I don't think it will ever reach parity with males. I don't think this should prevent all women from having the chance at being combat arms though, especially if they are proficient at it.[/QUOTE]
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=KillerJaguar;50221303][editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
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]
Alright, but he's still got a point - if women are willing and able to perform above the (apparently somewhat sketchy(?)) studies state, then by all means, they should be allowed to serve. A blanket ban against women serving won't do anything that the application tests and basic training wouldn't do already: that is to say, finding and training proper soldiers, regardless of gender.
If they're capable for combat, then they'd be allowed in. If they aren't, then they won't. It's silly to block potentially capable soldiers based on their gender and their gender alone.
[QUOTE=geel9;50217513]What is so unreasonable about being opposed to being forced to fight a foreign enemy on foreign soil? Yeah, a draft is reserved for imminent threat to American soil -- oh, except for Vietnam, of course.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
From what I can see you people are shitting on wauterboi for not supporting the draft in terms of being forced to fight when it's not necessary to protect American soil. He's said multiple times that he's okay with fighting when it's to protect American soil. So the fact that you're still shitting on him shows to me that you're okay with being forced to fight in a war that isn't necessary for our defense.[/QUOTE]
I'd still like a response from the numerous people that seem to be in favor of forcing citizens to fight in wars abroad.
[QUOTE=geel9;50222164]I'd still like a response from the numerous people that seem to be in favor of forcing citizens to fight in wars abroad.[/QUOTE]
The draft isn't used to fight wars abroad but rather wars that are fought within
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;50216496]I believe women have a place in the military, but it isn't in combat. Stupid political correctness and screams for "equality" have forced the military into a corner, approving women for positions like infantry is a horrendous mistake.
However, if we're really going to take this route and allow them to fulfill combat positions and claim the "equality" card then yes they should be forced to register for the draft too.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, their strengths compared to males are not in their physical ability, but rather their careful decision making among others. However if a woman is fit and strong enough to be infantry than that's fair too.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50222244]The draft isn't used to fight wars abroad but rather wars that are fought within[/QUOTE]
Explain Vietnam.
[QUOTE=geel9;50222266]Explain Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
The reason why it will never happen again
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50222285]The reason why it will never happen again[/QUOTE]
did you know that World War 1 was originally called "the war to end all wars"
[QUOTE=geel9;50222342]did you know that World War 1 was originally called "the war to end all wars"[/QUOTE]
It's political suicide
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50222360]It's political suicide[/QUOTE]
So are a lot of things politicians do
you're also assuming the world of tomorrow is going to be the same as the world of today
[QUOTE=geel9;50222380]So are a lot of things politicians do
you're also assuming the world of tomorrow is going to be the same as the world of today[/QUOTE]
Nothing short of another world war on American soil would trigger the draft
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50222454]Nothing short of another world war on American soil would trigger the draft[/QUOTE]
I'm sure someone would have said that prior to Vietnam as well.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50222360]It's political suicide[/QUOTE]
If there's anything this election has taught us, it's that politicians are immortal now.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50218331]The topic is about international war, not criminals. Police can't help you against another nation's military.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it is precedent for the Military not having to defend people in specific.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50216582]I refuse to die for the pigfuckers in Congress that sell the American population to the furnace that is capitalism and the upper class while people delude themselves into thinking that our government in any way stands for freedom, ethics, and its own citizens. America is not something to be proud of, and I am not represented, so why should I die for a group of people that are completely out of touch and view me as the "other" that can go fight for him?
I'd only enter the fight if everyone in Congress joined me. Women being allowed to join only makes me feel better because they aren't treated as being weaker, but it doesn't detract from the problem that the draft poses. America doesn't deserve a draft.[/QUOTE]
I've said something like this before. I will die for liberty, I will die for democracy, and I will die for justice. I will not die for a government that hypocritically represents none of those ideals.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50216549]I will not die for this country.[/QUOTE]
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=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]
Most people arguably don't really owe any sort of debt to the government who gives protection and the like as they had no choice but to accept it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.