Well, in my personal opinion? No. I would rather not give my opinions, because I would probably be called a seeeeexist by the ist-alarmists here. BUT! the feminists try so hard to be "equal" so why not, I'm sure they would be happy about it.

 

 

 

What's with all the draft talk.

They want to be treated as equals yet we can't touch them unless our life is in danger. Screw that, let them join the draft.

 

Agreed. With equal rights must come equal responsibility.

Well, in my personal opinion? No. I would rather not give my opinions, because I would probably be called a seeeeexist by the ist-alarmists here. BUT! the feminists try so hard to be "equal" so why not, I'm sure they would be happy about it.

 

 

 

What's with all the draft talk.

 

 

 

Please give your opinion, if it's an opinion and you're not forcing it upon anyone I don't see how anyone would get in your face about it. They may challenge your opinion though, if you're up for that.

No thanks, I don't want my fiancee raped, tortured and then killed by an 'enemy'

Anthropologically, men are seen as the hunters and belligerents while women are seen as taking care of the family. We simply cannot make both genders, as some said, sign the draft. The military would be overwhelmed with waivers. If did ever have another war such as WWII, it would be far better for the country itself to make surplus items than have too many soldiers at war without supplies. Societies will always be sexist, if only because of that, women should or will not be forced to sign the draft.

They won't force women to join the draft for several reasons.

 

 

 

1. Women aren't allowed to join Military Special Forces. The reason for this is because women are more likely to be victim of an infection from missions where they can't shower for weeks or even months. Although I don't agree with this; it will mostly likely never change because of medical liabilities.

 

 

 

2. Let's face it guys; girls distract us if they're pretty no matter how disciplined we are. Guys are more aggressive than girls, but if you have a girl around; the guys will be flirting with the girl instead of being alert about their surroundings.

 

 

 

There's probably other reasons, but I'm too lazy to list them.

They won't force women to join the draft for several reasons.

 

 

 

1. Women aren't allowed to join Military Special Forces.

 

 

 

Damn. -.-

 

 

 

Anyway, in Norway, it's compulsory for men to join the military for a year, and optional for women, right now I regret that I didn't join the Norwegian Air Force. Maybe I could have climbed my way up to become a jet pilot, but the chances are slim.

 

 

 

Damn. -.-

 

 

 

Anyway, in Norway, it's compulsory for men to join the military for a year, and optional for women, right now I regret that I didn't join the Norwegian Air Force. Maybe I could have climbed my way up to become a jet pilot, but the chances are slim.

 

 

 

I wish the US Military would take me. I know the Army won't, but the Marines aren't sure what their eyesight limit is or if they even have one. If they don't I'll probably be joining in the next year or 2. I've wanted to join since I was 16, but I'm cursed with a -19.75 refrac in my eyes.

 

 

 

Damn. -.-

 

 

 

Anyway, in Norway, it's compulsory for men to join the military for a year, and optional for women, right now I regret that I didn't join the Norwegian Air Force. Maybe I could have climbed my way up to become a jet pilot, but the chances are slim.

 

 

 

I wish the US Military would take me. I know the Army won't, but the Marines aren't sure what their eyesight limit is or if they even have one. If they don't I'll probably be joining in the next year or 2. I've wanted to join since I was 16, but I'm cursed with a -19.75 refrac in my eyes.

 

 

 

Originally, candidates had to have 20/20 vision to be accepted into the pilot program. Edwards said those requirements had loosened to 20/30. With the new changes, Naval Aviator candidates can now have 20/40 eyesight. Edwards said pilots who see 20/20 naturally and pilots who wear glasses to correct their eyesight to 20/20 have the same flying ability.

 

 

 

 

http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mc ... efuls.aspx

If did ever have another war such as WWII, it would be far better for the country itself to make surplus items than have too many soldiers at war without supplies.

 

I'm not sure I see your point. A draft that included women wouldn't leave the country empty; there'd still be plenty of people 'at home making items', they just wouldn't all be female. A draft doesn't automatically mean calling up everyone eligible and shipping them off to war.

 

 

 

Anthropologically, men are seen as the hunters and belligerents while women are seen as taking care of the family. We simply cannot make both genders, as some said, sign the draft. [...] Societies will always be sexist, if only because of that, women should or will not be forced to sign the draft.

 

What's the logic to that? Could I not equally say "societies will always be sexist therefore you should make me a sandwich"? We're supposed to be striving to end sexism, not to perpetuate it, and that means ignoring how the genders are 'anthropologically seen'. That's what got women the right to vote.

 

 

 

Originally, candidates had to have 20/20 vision to be accepted into the pilot program. Edwards said those requirements had loosened to 20/30. With the new changes, Naval Aviator candidates can now have 20/40 eyesight. Edwards said pilots who see 20/20 naturally and pilots who wear glasses to correct their eyesight to 20/20 have the same flying ability.

 

 

 

 

http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mc ... efuls.aspx

 

 

 

Is this supposed to give me hope or is it supposed to be an answer to the eyesight issue for Marines? I know I'd never be able to be a pilot. I'd rather be Infantry.

It always depends on the scenatio. But, contrary to popular opinion, I personally believe women are just as fine soldiers as men ( and im a guy)

 

 

 

Take Joan of Arc for example.

No, no one should be obligated to do anything.

 

 

 

Conscription itself is a bad idea, so double no.

 

 

 

Originally, candidates had to have 20/20 vision to be accepted into the pilot program. Edwards said those requirements had loosened to 20/30. With the new changes, Naval Aviator candidates can now have 20/40 eyesight. Edwards said pilots who see 20/20 naturally and pilots who wear glasses to correct their eyesight to 20/20 have the same flying ability.

 

 

 

 

http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mc ... efuls.aspx

 

 

 

Is this supposed to give me hope or is it supposed to be an answer to the eyesight issue for Marines? I know I'd never be able to be a pilot. I'd rather be Infantry.

 

 

 

Both.

 

I still struggle with the eyesight issue, I know that RNAF doesn't accept laser-operated-pilots-want-to-be. It's mean. Since I really want to be a jet-pilot. :P

No, no one should be obligated to do anything.

 

 

 

Conscription itself is a bad idea, so double no.

 

What if the world was facing a mass nuclear war across six continents?

 

What use would a massive conscripted army be in that situation? Perhaps they could all join hands and sing for peace?

To be honest I don't know. I personally wouldn't dream of going to war, I'd rather hack the enemy computers from home thank you very much. But I do think that if we want equality, we should be prepared to be equal in this respect too. Feminists always see the bad things that inequality does for women, don't notice the 'good' (depends on your opinion really) things it can do for us.

 

 

 

However thinking about it, women would be more vulnerable in theory. But once a month the enemy wouldn't stand a chance. :ohnoes:

I'm not sure I see your point. A draft that included women wouldn't leave the country empty; there'd still be plenty of people 'at home making items', they just wouldn't all be female. A draft doesn't automatically mean calling up everyone eligible and shipping them off to war.

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies.

 

 

 

What's the logic to that? Could I not equally say "societies will always be sexist therefore you should make me a sandwich"? We're supposed to be striving to end sexism, not to perpetuate it, and that means ignoring how the genders are 'anthropologically seen'. That's what got women the right to vote.

 

That's not the main point. Armed Forces aren't going to be caught up in the middle of semantics or prejudices. This concept of purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces, at least in the United States, is common and seemingly effective for short periods of time, which about all the time the discrepancies last.

My opinion- It should be in the extremes. Everyone drafted or nobody at all, just voluntary.

On the topic of conscription - I'm against it unless something really, really calls for a draft, but otherwise, no. However, having some sort of mandatory military training in high school, and perhaps college/uni, would be fine with me, as that's the case in Taiwan, I think. (Though males also have to go through further training at the age of 18, which I don't support)

 

Anyway, as long as a household has someone to stay behind to take care of any people who need it, I suppose women ought to be obligated to join the draft. Though like I said, I'd almost always be against such a draft in the first place.

It's nothing more than a matter of societal values. In China every citizen is drafted for 2 years of service, in western countries every man is drafted for ½-1 year or more of service. That means women serve in the military as well.

 

 

 

Say what you want about communism or human rights, but some societies like Israel and China are way ahead when it comes to equality between genders (ignoring the fact that uneducated rural people in China often abort their child if they suspect it's a girl - they tend to think a boy would bring them more money and honor, this practice doesn't really exist in the big cities)

 

 

 

There isn't an "excuse". There isn't a reason why women shouldn't serve their society in societies where men have to, not even in civil service. Maybe the idea will catch on from Israel/China to other countries as well one day.

Man if that ever happens, I'll feel sorry for most of them. Female officers have more chances of getting raped than civilians

 

 

 

WHAT?!?! Wow. Seriously? You have no idea. You do realize that there are mostly non combat jobs in the military right? The ground pounders are supported by many many many other operations. Who said women would be out there kicking in doors. You're statement is just stupid and ignorant anyway. Women are actually a prized possession to the US forces in Iraq and Afghan because the native women feel much more comfortable being searched and talked to by a Woman in the US military. They give more information to women and it settles problems down, keeps the guys out of trouble.

 

 

 

Like i said, some of the best machine gunners (Meaning someone needed to step up and volunteer for a patrol or the position) have been women. They defuse a lot of situations before they start. In a mostly male dominated profession, having that small hint of female presence there is enough i promise you.

 

 

 

Females are trained the same, they get the same weapons training and marshal arts training. So why would they be at any more risk then men? I fail to see it. Sign em up.

sure I see no reason not to draft woman; however, I do think if we get down to taking one person out of a family it should be the father. If that sounds sexist my apologies, but in general woman are better natural caretakers then men, and since were talking about drafting a lot of people general trends do matter.

When I said conscription let me clarify. Assuming you were given the proper training and had been part of the army reserve, it would be fine as Kriegmeir pointed out. However if you were picked off the street and pack-sent to another country - thats' a bad idea.

 

 

 

I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be in the army.

You're statement is just stupid and ignorant anyway.

 

no u

 

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 0658.story

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... usat_x.htm

 

http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/pr ... -05mst.htm

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494197/

I'm not sure I see your point. A draft that included women wouldn't leave the country empty; there'd still be plenty of people 'at home making items', they just wouldn't all be female. A draft doesn't automatically mean calling up everyone eligible and shipping them off to war.

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies.

 

Sorry, but that argument is patently absurd. There is no logistical reason whatsoever why a draft involving both men and women need result in supply shortages. By drafting both sexes you vastly increase the number of available soldiers, which means you can also narrow the criteria in other areas. You could, for example, narrow the age range in which people are liable to be called up. In that example the population that could be relied upon by employers would simply change from "women" to "people over X years of age".

 

 

 

The rest of your post is answered elsewhere - female soldiers are not a liability.