Army, Marine Corps Generals Say Women Should Have To Register For The Draft

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 3, 2016.

  1. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160203
    works for me.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    I don't see a problem with this. After all, women want equal treatment, right?
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    We should probably get rid of it altogether since there is almost no chance it would ever be used, but if it is going to stick around then I would agree everyone should have to register.
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    Its high time we got rid of the entire Selective Service System.

    Lets start out by saying its an absurd holdover from the days of the Cold War. Its mission: To provide manpower to the armed services in an emergency, is pointless given the high-tech nature of modern warfare in general, and our high-tech military in particular. At the bare minimum, it takes at least a year to train new recruits to be of any military value whatsoever. By which time its more than likely that whatever emergency had arisen would be over.

    We also need to keep in mind that the US military has at its disposal huge resources of already trained individuals through the National Guard and Reserves. These are people who have already been trained. In many cases they are already receiving some form of compensation. And any specialist services - everything from computer technicians to mess hall cooks - could be better, and cheaper - supplied by private contractors.

    Lasty, even if we did find ourselves in some odd situation where we needed to draft a couple hundred thousand young people for national or military service - I'm quite sure the Government already has sufficient data on eligible people. Social security data; SAT scores; credit files.

    If we are ever to bring our Federal Budget under control - the US military is going to have to make some choices about what to keep, and what to get rid of. And given the choice between another aircraft carrier or squadron of F-35s - and the pointless, intrusive, and wasteful Selective Service apparatus - get rid of a draft system bureaucracy that is never, ever going to be used.
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    It will take more than cutting the military to get the Federal budget under control.
     
  7. thewap, Feb 3, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2016

    thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #7
    It will take some accounting (to the horror of govt. to get rid of waste - $50 per bolt for assembly anyone?), how about getting rid of dept. of ed for starters, then obamacare and their IRS division,
    TSA, Homeland security (Oh no only the FBI??) to name but a very few..

    National debt close to 20 trillion
    http://www.davemanuel.com/us-national-debt-clock.php

    Where is the money DOD? (black budget / no accounting 12 trillion )
    http://solari.com/archive/missing_money/

    Bailouts 29 trillion ?
    http://ritholtz.com/2011/12/bailout-total-29-616-trillion-dollars/
    --- Post Merged, Feb 3, 2016 ---
    Both democrats and republicans are wanting congress to declare war. What do you think will happen when and if war is declared? - simple answer: the draft. (yes we can!), and if drafted I daresay you will have to start learning *gun control* pretty quick. Oh the irony..
     
  8. XrayTed macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #8
    I've never agreed with the concept of females serving in direct combat roles, and I think its a shame the usual suspects have pushed through legislation that allows them to.

    Now that its done, why wouldn't they have to register ?
     
  9. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #9
    I've said for years that as long as there is a selective service that women should have to register as well as men.
     
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    Just abolish the selective service altogether. A draft is never happening again. Shut the **** down and stop wasting tax dollars on an antiquated and useless system.
     
  11. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    No complaints here. It's about equality and there are going to be women just as capable as men - not as a quota system but as ability. Seems stupid not to use any viable and legitimate resource...
     
  12. XrayTed macrumors regular

    XrayTed

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    #12

    You may or may not know that WW1 was touted as "the war to end all wars" in its aftermath.
    Men at that time could not conceive of mass madness returning again, they really thought that men and nations have gotten it all out of their systems, and that we would never be marching down that path again now that they knew the horrors involved.

    Well, just the fact that is was subsequently called "World War 1" tells you how that train of thought worked out. Your sentiments may be common sense, but leaders of nations must always be prepared for a return of mass madness which would require a mass of generic manpower.
    As long as there are cannons, then cannon fodder will always be needed.
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    It's an unnecessary move given the current state of technology. It would just create another wasteful federal bureaucracy.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    The world and battlefield has changed drastically since World War I started 102 years ago. We have 10 aircraft carriers, 75 submarines, and thousands of drones, fighter jets, and missiles. Wars of the future won't be fought with million man armies.

    The military would be better off killing off the selective service and using that money to harden our cyber infrastructure. Cyber attacks and cyber warfare will pose a much bigger problem in the next century than anything else.

    Plus, with technology now, we have more than enough data on the US population that a draft list could be built if absolutely necessary without the whole selective service system. Just use a social security or IRS database. But it's not worth wasting all the money to keep that system together for the less than 1% chance that we'd ever need it.
     
  15. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #15
    In times of war, the SC found it constitutional for congress to enact the draft.

    In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution in the Selective Draft Law Cases. The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the 13th Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.

    Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional. United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936 (1968).[80] Justice William O. Douglas, in voting to hear the appeal in Holmes, agreed that the government had the authority to employ conscription in wartime, but argued that the constitutionality of a draft in the absence of a declaration of war was an open question, which the Supreme Court should address.

    During the World War I era, the Supreme Court allowed the government great latitude in suppressing criticism of the draft. Examples include Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)[81] and Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).[82] In subsequent decades, however, the Court has taken a much broader view of the extent to which advocacy speech is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, in 1971 the Court held it unconstitutional for a state to punish a man who entered a county courthouse wearing a jacket with the words "**** the Draft" visible on it. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).[83] Nevertheless, protesting the draft by the specific means of burning a draft registration card can be constitutionally prohibited, because of the government's interest in prohibiting the "nonspeech" element involved in destroying the card. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).[84]

    In 1981, several men filed lawsuit in the case Rostker v. Goldberg, alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring that men only and not also women register with the Selective Service System. The Supreme Court upheld the act, stating that Congress's "decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women", that "since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause", and that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'"[85]

    The Rostker v. Goldberg opinion's dependence upon the existence of certain government "policies", which by definition have no force of law much less any constitutional weight, has garnered renewed scrutiny since the Department of Defense announced its decision in January 2013 to do away with most of the federal policies which have kept women from serving in combat roles in ground war situations. Both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force had by then already opened up virtually all positions in sea and air combat to women.
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    The difference now is we have a very large, professional standing army, a navy that's never seen its equal in world history, and that one jet that cost a trillion dollars.

    ...and no good enemies to use all this cool stuff against. Not unless Europe decides to go bat**** again, anyway.
     
  17. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #17
    Of course the butchers want more meat for the grinder.
     
  18. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #19
    Hillary wants a three sided war against ISIS, on the one hand, and against Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran on the other.
    While abjuring the need for 100,000 US ground forces, Clinton would increase the number of US Special Forces and “embed” them in greater numbers with “indigenous forces.” In other words, she would escalate the US presence gradually, Vietnam war-style, so as not to alarm the American public, which wants no part of another war in the Middle East.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/19/hillary-clintons-road-to-war/
     
  19. 5684697 Suspended

    5684697

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #20
    It was inevitable given the transition to opening combat jobs to women. I've said for decades that this would eventually happen.
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    The strategies we could employ by drafting women are mind-boggling. Of course, Bill Murray mentioned some of them on SNL back in 1980:

    Bill Murray: President Carter proposed the drafting of women, and everybody's all worked up about it. Personally, I don't see what they're complaining about. Women in the Armed Forces could be the best thing that ever happened in this country.

    Let's say we have a war with Russia, and the women fight. If we win, that's okay; and if we lose, we can say to the Russians: "Wow! You beat a bunch of girls. You must be really proud of yourself! You Russians are real tough guys, yeah!" Can you imagine how embarrassed the Russians would be?

    The same holds true for weapons! Why give weapons to our soldiers? If we win without them, fine! And if we lose, we can say: "Oh, so you BEAT us! We didn't even HAVE any weapons! What do you want? BIG DEAL!"

    If you ask me, the BEST defense our country could have... would be an army with poorly-equipped, untrained, unarmed women! That way, either we would win the war or we'd make the Russians look like incredible jerks! And isn't that what it's all about, anyway?​
     
  21. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #22
    To be fair and equal, women should not only be required to register but also required to fight in combat when the need arises.
     
  22. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
  23. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #24
    It's kinda strange being in complete agreement with you for once.
     
  24. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    Ha, I think we should have a mandatory draft with no loopholes and politicians kids should be at the front of every war
     

Share This Page