News Draft proposal - Women get ready for your equal opportunity

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Draft Women
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the draft proposal SB 89 and HR 163, which aims to include women in the Military Selective Service Act, potentially effective January 2005. Opinions vary on the necessity and morality of reinstating a draft, with some arguing it could strengthen civic duty and military capability, while others view it as a violation of individual rights. Concerns are raised about the political motivations behind the proposal, especially in an election year, and skepticism exists regarding its likelihood of passing. The conversation also touches on the historical context of military service, the performance of draftees versus volunteers, and the implications of mandatory service in a democratic society. Participants express mixed feelings about the draft, with some advocating for equal responsibilities for women and men, while others argue against forced military service, emphasizing the importance of individual choice and consent in matters of war. The debate reflects broader themes of civic duty, government authority, and personal freedom.
  • #31
Dimitri Terryn said:
By what right can a state decide over an individuals life? One could think that if they have a good case for war, a draft would not be necessary, because there would be enough volunteers for it.

Besides, it is a military fact that drafted troops perform very poorly, resulting in many innecessary casualties. So in the long rong, instating a draft when it is not absolutely needed is a negative thing for the efficiency of the armed forces.

Woohoo - once again. Draft == service to your country. Plenty of ways out of combat.

As for what right can a state decide over an individuals life? The answer is ANY right the individuals, as a collective, give to that state. You pay taxes because the state says so.

The poor performance of drafted troops is the only thing that bothers me, however, everything I have read is draft for a previous volunteer military. I wonder how it is for a country that has a mandatory service for all, and not just a draft at the time of war.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
If the government decided to exterminate, oh, I don't know, maybe the Jews, would you still say it's civic duty, just like taxes, and the draft is just a spiffy idea?
 
  • #33
phatmonky said:
. I wonder how it is for a country that has a mandatory service for all, and not just a draft at the time of war.
It seems to work for Israel.
 
  • #34
Adam said:
If the government decided to exterminate, oh, I don't know, maybe the Jews, would you still say it's civic duty, just like taxes, and the draft is just a spiffy idea?
To prevent a tyrannical regime from taking power in the United States, our Constitution provides its citizens with the right to bear arms. By the way, didn't the Australia Government recently confiscate the firearms of its citizens. Seems like Hitler did something similar in the late 1930's.
 
  • #35
The draft proposal is just a political ploy to cause support for bush's foreign policy to drop.
 
  • #36
Dissident Dan said:
The draft proposal is just a political ploy to cause support for bush's foreign policy to drop.
On the nose!
 
  • #37
phatmonky said:
The theory goes:
Draft has, and will, always allow objector status. Got a problem with fighting? Go do 2 years of public service domestically.
Got a problem with it? Too bad! It's part of being a citizen - just like taxes.

I fail to see how any compulsory duty, including the payment of taxes, is justified. User fees should be instated instead. Look at what Robert Moses was able to achieve in the city and state of New York using almost no taxpayer dollars.
 
  • #38
Robert Zaleski said:
To prevent a tyrannical regime from taking power in the United States, our Constitution provides its citizens with the right to bear arms. By the way, didn't the Australia Government recently confiscate the firearms of its citizens. Seems like Hitler did something similar in the late 1930's.

Actually, the US Constitution guarantees the right of the states to have well-organised militias. It says nothing about redneck yahoos with hunting rifles and six-packs in their SUVs on the weekends.
 
  • #39
Robert Zaleski said:
It seems to work for Israel.

That was on my mind. They do seem to be a very skilled military as well.
 
  • #40
loseyourname said:
I fail to see how any compulsory duty, including the payment of taxes, is justified. User fees should be instated instead. Look at what Robert Moses was able to achieve in the city and state of New York using almost no taxpayer dollars.

If you fail to see how being forced to pay taxes is justified, then perhaps you also agree with the reference that it is in the same bucket as burning jews?
And hence I guess all government programs are, and you are an archist?

If this is the case, then I'd rather we not continue this conversation. I simply don't see how we can have a conversation of what is right and wrong about a draft if you believe all forced activites via a state are bad.
 
  • #41
phatmonky said:
If you fail to see how being forced to pay taxes is justified, then perhaps you also agree with the reference that it is in the same bucket as burning jews?
And hence I guess all government programs are, and you are an archist?

I'm not a particularly big fan of burning Jews, but I'm not sure what that has to with this. I never said that all government programs are unjustified. I said that involuntary compulsion (by any powerful entity over a powerless entity, not just by a government over its citizens) is unjustified. Perhaps this discussion really hinges on what is meant by "compulsion."

When I say that user fees are a more just means of raising money for a given project than taxes, I say that because the user of a product or service is giving consent for his money to be spent on in when he undertakes the act of using that product or service. Someone who takes the train to work should not have money taken out of his paycheck to build a highway. Robert Moses, the man I referred to earlier, managed to build up an entire network of highways and bridges and parks (New York City still has the greatest length of highway of any city in the US, despite the fact that almost nothing has been built since the end of Moses' reign) using tolls rather than taxes. The people that used the bridges and parks and highways paid for them. Furthermore, the public authorities that supervised these development projects worked exactly like corporations. If a given project went over budget or the construction was poorly done and the infrastructure failed, the authority went bankrupt and another entity took over. This seems greatly preferable to the current system we use where the government simply raises tax rates every time it messes up.

To bring this back to the topic of military service, a war that citizens are not freely willing to fight in is a war that does not have the consent of the people. Such a war is unjust. The government is set up to serve the people, and if the people do not want to fight, then the nation should not go to war.

If this is the case, then I'd rather we not continue this conversation. I simply don't see how we can have a conversation of what is right and wrong about a draft if you believe all forced activites via a state are bad.

You say that the government should force its citizens, against their will, to serve in some civic capacity. I can't see any way to justify this. If you see one, please tell me, but as of this moment, you have not given any reason for me to change my mind. Just about any career that a citizen ends up filling will exist for the purpose of providing some service to his fellow citizens. If this is not civic duty, I don't know what is. What is it that you see forcing people to do that they aren't already doing?
 
  • #42
Adam said:
Actually, the US Constitution guarantees the right of the states to have well-organised militias. It says nothing about redneck yahoos with hunting rifles and six-packs in their SUVs on the weekends.
You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.
 
  • #43
Robert Zaleski said:
You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.

Hence the state militias. Citizen-organized militias were thought to better represent the will of the citizenry, and could effectively deter the federal army from turning on the people. Even if every individual is armed, without an organizational structure, they aren't going to get far when attacked by a standing army.
 
  • #44
Dissident Dan said:
The draft proposal is just a political ploy to cause support for bush's foreign policy to drop.

don't we hope :biggrin:
 
  • #45
anything, and i mean anything that enhances the possiblity of war should be soundly decried.

look at the mess the patriot act created. not only did we lose more individual freedoms, but it allowed a war to be initiated.

we must support new legislation to begin reducing governments power. we must support any peace enhancing legislation. including, disarmament. our high degree of military strength will not stop terrorists.

understanding and helping with the worlds problems will ultimately lead to peace. let's direct our resources ($$$) toward peace. all the recent and ancient wars have not created peace. when will we learn??

preach peace.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
Last edited:
  • #46
loseyourname said:
Hence the state militias. Citizen-organized militias were thought to better represent the will of the citizenry, and could effectively deter the federal army from turning on the people. Even if every individual is armed, without an organizational structure, they aren't going to get far when attacked by a standing army.
I'm just one of many gun owners holding up his end to the Second Amendment. I'm patiently waiting for my State to form a militia.

It's estimated that between 200 to 300 million guns exist in the USA. I don't think any military in the world would want to go up against those odds militia or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
olde drunk said:
look at the mess the patriot act created. not only did we lose more individual freedoms, but it allowed a war to be initiated.

we must support new legislation to begin reducing governments power. we must support any peace enhancing legislation. including, disarmament. our high degree of military strength will not stop terrorists.

ironic that we have a republican president...republicans generally are all about less government.
 
  • #48
Although I am not necessarily in favor of a draft, some of you who think your government has no right to 'own you' for a couple of years need to stop and think what your government is actually doing for you.

1) Justice system. How'd you like to give up a fair trial and just be found guilty on the spot?
2) Currency system. How'd you like to give up money and go back to trading chickens for lumber to rebuild your barn?
3) The security that comes with our currency system. (Federally insured banks.)
4) Your voice in our elected officials.
5) Everyday things like our highway system.

I could go on and on. Now sometimes I get a little miffed that our laws restrict our freedom but that is not the fault of government. It is the fault of other people. The more densely populated a place is the fewer freedoms you will have. If we want to live in a somewhat civilized manner in densely populated areas it requires government. If you want freedom, move to the middle of nowhere.

There is not a single person born in this country who has the right to a darn thing. We for the most part are extremely lucky with what we have. As for fighting in a war that you don't believe in? I'm with you 100%. If you don't like it, there are in fact options. I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam and he said that if he had known before he went in what it would be like he would have found some way to stay out. The old saying holds true, war IS hell. I do believe though that most people could do well with a little basic training. However, that is not to say that every draftee will be sent to war. Had we had a draft of some form over the last 30 years we just might have a stronger military than we do today. A required 2 year stint and you just might decide you like it enough to stay. After all, there are people that actually volunteer for it so wouldn't it stand to reason that those same people would stay in after required basic training?
 
  • #49
Robert Zaleski said:
You need to get acqainted with the Federalist Papers. Our Founding Fathers greatest fear was that a standing army could be directed against the will of the citizenry by a tyrannical regime.

Hence the need for the STATES to have well-organised militias to protect them from the federal authority.
 
  • #50
LOL sovereignty.net ?? Is that your trusted news source? Here are some "headlines" from sovereignty.net:
Biodiversity Discovered

Are we facing massive extinctions, as some claim? Here is a lengthy study of biodiversity that explodes the "extinction" myth.
How Environmentalists Intend to Rule the World

Ron Arnold has analyzed a speech by Randall Hayes, President of the Rainforest Action Network, which lays out in great detail, how global greens are working to transform and control the world's economic system, in pursuit of global governance.

Looks like the rantings of Radicals to me... not surprising that they throw labels like "socialist" around as if they were credible.
 
  • #51
Adam said:
Hence the need for the STATES to have well-organised militias to protect them from the federal authority.

This probably shouldn't even be necessary because the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798 stated that "...the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts."

This was in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, but in might be applicable in a case like an unjust (or unpopular) war.