• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why aren't Women included in Selective Service?

BirdinHand said:
There should not be any forced military service.

Period.
Click to expand...


When I lived there in the 60's the draft was being used to replace the dead resulting from Vietnam.

The evening news was mostly of soldiers being helped into helicopters and body bags.

Being a Canadian I was confused as the educational system was hammering away at how we were "free" and "the only true democracy (bullshit) etc." To ask a question about mandatory service got you sent to the principal's office.

When I returned to Canada I discovered what "free speech" really was and that drafting people for war as just WRONG! Maybe if that country was directly attacked, but to fight a war half way around the world for a people who hate America simply wasn't in the cards. The draft was NEVER needed in WWII as Canada's deployment was the largest and longest of any country.

In the years to come I worked as a volunteer helping other "draft dodgers/freedom seekers" to settle in country.

To defend ones borders is worthy, anything else is simply wrong.
 
Fearandloathing said:
When I lived there in the 60's the draft was being used to replace the dead resulting from Vietnam.

The evening news was mostly of soldiers being helped into helicopters and body bags.

Being a Canadian I was confused as the educational system was hammering away at how we were "free" and "the only true democracy (bullshit) etc." To ask a question about mandatory service got you sent to the principal's office.

When I returned to Canada I discovered what "free speech" really was and that drafting people for war as just WRONG! Maybe if that country was directly attacked, but to fight a war half way around the world for a people who hate America simply wasn't in the cards. The draft was NEVER needed in WWII as Canada's deployment was the largest and longest of any country.

In the years to come I worked as a volunteer helping other "draft dodgers/freedom seekers" to settle in country.

To defend ones borders is worthy, anything else is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Somebody went in your place you know.
 
Cyrus Alimonte said:
A genuine question, I am curious. Why aren't they included in it? Instead of just men between the ages of 18-25, why not include women in it? More potential troops to be drafted, and it would strive more towards the Equality that woman seek. Yet again, a genuine question, I have a feeling some would see this as misogynistic
Click to expand...
I think it would be a nightmare, both bureaucratically and logistically. First the social problem: parents sending their daughters off to war. It's a gut level thing and we're traditional in our thinking. In all of western history, women weren't viewed as combatants. To that point,how does the federal government wrench "mommy" out of the house to serve on the front line?? Not a good look. Canada would really become the 51st state by virtue of all the Americans smuggling their daughters with grandchildren across the border. Probably outnumber the Canadians. But then there's the reality that generally speaking, women are biologically at a disadvantage in terms of front line/infantry strength
 
There should be no draft, PERIOD.

There should be no Selective Service, PERIOD.

Selective Service should be abolished and all registration records.

If the government wants bodies to slaughter in another useless war, they should have to beg for volunteers.
 
Peacenik said:
Are trans women subject to the Selective Service?
Click to expand...

Simple answer, no. They have a mental illness and are therefore ineligible to serve.

Now for a more complex answer, yes they are subject to the Selective Service. However, their classification would be 4-F, stating they are not qualified to serve for medical reasons.

Every male is subject to the Selective Service. Even ministers and members of the clergy have to register. As far as I am aware, the only men exempt from registering are those that are actively incarcerated, or who have a sex related or felony conviction.
 
Safiel said:
There should be no draft, PERIOD.

There should be no Selective Service, PERIOD.

Selective Service should be abolished and all registration records.

If the government wants bodies to slaughter in another useless war, they should have to beg for volunteers.
Click to expand...

What about the medical draft?

Are you even aware that such a thing exists? And that President Biden was considering enacting it during the COVID pandemic?

Interesting bit of trivia, the medical draft was considered in 1918-1919 during the Spanish Flu Epidemic. But it was decided it was not needed, as there were already so many soldiers finishing their service from WWI that they used those instead.

This is known as the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System", a critical part of the Selective Service Law. That in the event of a major health issue medical personnel can be drafted to assist. This is something that most in the medical industry are aware of, and all involved can indeed be drafted. After 9/11, my wife was one of those notified by the HCPDS that she might get called up to respond in New York. That was later rescinded, when it was realized that the flood of patients some were expecting never materialized because almost everybody involved was actually dead.

So if another pandemic was to break out tomorrow that was closer to the Spanish Influenza or earlier pandemics in lethality, would you be opposed to the medical draft? Most do not realize how lucky the planet was during COVID, thankfully that was a "nothing sandwich" and had a very low mortality rate.
 
Loulit01 said:
Approximately 300,000 African Americans served in the Vietnam War. In 1965, African Americans filled 31% of the ground combat battalions in Vietnam, while the percentage of African Americans as a minority in the general population was 12%. In 1965, African Americans suffered 24% of the U.S. Army's fatal casualties. African Americans saw combat at a higher percentage and suffered casualties at a higher rate. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to the Vietnam War as a white man’s war, a black man’s fight. See: Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772-1991, M. Clodfelter (pp. 243, 255) and Vietnam War: The Essential Reference Guide, J. Willbanks (pp. 4-5).
Click to expand...

And are you even aware that over 75% of those who fought in Vietnam were not draftees? That's right, over 75% were volunteers.

Here is a fact that will likely shock you, blacks have traditionally been far more likely to volunteer to serve in the military than whites.

At this time, blacks make up about 14% of the US population. Yet they also make up about 20% of the US military. In the US Army, they make up over 23% of the enlisted ranks.

That's a pretty significant skewing, right into the most dangerous segment of those who served.

Very few draftees were sent to Vietnam, the vast majority were sent to Europe or served in the US. That way they could send over more volunteers, for a great many reasons. Most notably, the volunteers had at a minimum a four year contract. Draftees only had a two year contract. And it takes from 4-6 months to train a soldier. Add in about three months of additional training before sending them overseas (mobilization) then a three month demobilization period when they get home, and it's quite clear that it was almost impossible to send draftees to Vietnam. The vast majority of that 25% that did go were in non-combat positions that qualified for "On the Job Training", such as cooks and supply.

But not Infantry. They would quite literally have finished their training, gone to their mobilization training, then get right on a plane. Then after serving for a one year deployment have to be sent right back to the states and go right into demobilization so they could be released.

And big shocker here, those kinds of non-combat positions that did end up in combat have always suffered significantly higher casualty rates. Because unlike those actually trained in the Infantry, they have almost no training in actual combat.
 
Luce said:
I am against a draft, due to the way it ****s up the military, but if there is going to be a draft, it should include everyone 18-25, with no exceptions whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So we should then also draft the felons, the ones with clear medical problems, as well as those with diminished IQs?

Seems to me we had exactly that kind of program back during Vietnam. It was the "Disability Draft", also known as "Project 100,000", and as "MacNamara's Morons". Where they decided to run an experiment and draft at least 100,000 into the service that otherwise would not have qualified (mostly for criminal backgrounds, lack of education or low IQ). And in the end, drafted around 350,000 people.

And it was a complete disaster. With much higher mortality rates, much higher incarceration rates (both in and out of the military), and a great many other things including higher drug addiction rates and divorce rates after service.
 
Oozlefinch said:
What about the medical draft?

Are you even aware that such a thing exists? And that President Biden was considering enacting it during the COVID pandemic?

Interesting bit of trivia, the medical draft was considered in 1918-1919 during the Spanish Flu Epidemic. But it was decided it was not needed, as there were already so many soldiers finishing their service from WWI that they used those instead.

This is known as the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System", a critical part of the Selective Service Law. That in the event of a major health issue medical personnel can be drafted to assist. This is something that most in the medical industry are aware of, and all involved can indeed be drafted. After 9/11, my wife was one of those notified by the HCPDS that she might get called up to respond in New York. That was later rescinded, when it was realized that the flood of patients some were expecting never materialized because almost everybody involved was actually dead.

So if another pandemic was to break out tomorrow that was closer to the Spanish Influenza or earlier pandemics in lethality, would you be opposed to the medical draft? Most do not realize how lucky the planet was during COVID, thankfully that was a "nothing sandwich" and had a very low mortality rate.
Click to expand...

I oppose ANY mandatory government service (civilian or military) on principle.
 
Cyrus Alimonte said:
A genuine question, I am curious. Why aren't they included in it? Instead of just men between the ages of 18-25, why not include women in it? More potential troops to be drafted, and it would strive more towards the Equality that woman seek. Yet again, a genuine question, I have a feeling some would see this as misogynistic
Click to expand...
ask hegseth the drunk
 
rhinefire said:
ask hegseth the drunk
Click to expand...
Selective Service was put in place in 1973 by an act of Congress. Secretaries of Defense have no control.

And the only lawmaker who has pushed for reinstatement of the draft in the last 20 years was Charlie Rangel (DEMOCRAT — NY)
www.militarytimes.com

Why one lawmaker keeps pushing for a new military draft

Since 2003, Rep. Charlie Rangel has introduced seven bills to bring back the draft. None of them have had any success.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com

Democrats sure do love their indentured servants. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom