First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Conscription (Drafting) - Your Views
28673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Michigan, USA
Offline
Posted 1/26/08

p1491625 wrote:

istead of drafting, lets do something about "equal rights" and give women the chance to serve in the frontlines (legally they can't serve as actual troops on the front lines, if anybody does policy debate wombat)

While that would make things "equal" there are problems with women serving on the frontlines, and some of it is for our protection, and some of it is simply the difference between women and men, that make men more suitable for combat.

1. Maternal Instinct. While to me this is one of the weaker arguments I think it still has some merit. When put in a dangerous or life threatening situation, many times the women soldier might opt not risk themselves for fear of the the children she'll leave behind if she dies. I say this is a weaker argument because there is a such thing as paternal instinct, and so this could apply to men as well. I still use this as a point though because in general I think maternal instincts are stronger (not all cases, but usually) and as men are in general more aggressive they're more likely to do what's necessary. Not just in a life threatening situation, but any combat situation.

2. Physically, men and woman are just different. It's unavoidable. Studies show that woman can't march as far, carry as much weight, and if they were put into a hand-to-hand combat situation, regardless of how strong they are as woman, they most likely would be over-powered by a man.

3. Also because of this physical differences, to make things "equal" they lower the physical requirements of men soldiers. That makes the army only as strong as the weakest link... not a good idea.

4. With the way our society is set up a lot of times the "men must protect women" idea is subconsciously there. So on the battlefield when a female soldier is injured, the men's first instinct is to protect her, instead of sticking to the military plan.

5. Having women on the frontline puts the opponent at a large advantage when taking POWs. If the pubic is told a female POW of war has 2 children at home, the pressure to accept the demands of the opponent is much higher.

So there are just jobs that men and women are better suited for. Women can still contribute through other military jobs that don't involve combat, like intelligence and such. So it's not that we're inferior, you just have to consider everyones strengths and weaknesses so the whole system works at full capacity =).
1065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / A small town in t...
Offline
Posted 1/26/08

Do0mAid wrote:


p1491625 wrote:

istead of drafting, lets do something about "equal rights" and give women the chance to serve in the frontlines (legally they can't serve as actual troops on the front lines, if anybody does policy debate wombat)

While that would make things "equal" there are problems with women serving on the frontlines, and some of it is for our protection, and some of it is simply the difference between women and men, that make men more suitable for combat.

1. Maternal Instinct. While to me this is one of the weaker arguments I think it still has some merit. When put in a dangerous or life threatening situation, many times the women soldier might opt not risk themselves for fear of the the children she'll leave behind if she dies. I say this is a weaker argument because there is a such thing as paternal instinct, and so this could apply to men as well. I still use this as a point though because in general I think maternal instincts are stronger (not all cases, but usually) and as men are in general more aggressive they're more likely to do what's necessary. Not just in a life threatening situation, but any combat situation.

2. Physically, men and woman are just different. It's unavoidable. Studies show that woman can't march as far, carry as much weight, and if they were put into a hand-to-hand combat situation, regardless of how strong they are as woman, they most likely would be over-powered by a man.

3. Also because of this physical differences, to make things "equal" they lower the physical requirements of men soldiers. That makes the army only as strong as the weakest link... not a good idea.

4. With the way our society is set up a lot of times the "men must protect women" idea is subconsciously there. So on the battlefield when a female soldier is injured, the men's first instinct is to protect her, instead of sticking to the military plan.

5. Having women on the frontline puts the opponent at a large advantage when taking POWs. If the pubic is told a female POW of war has 2 children at home, the pressure to accept the demands of the opponent is much higher.

So there are just jobs that men and women are better suited for. Women can still contribute through other military jobs that don't involve combat, like intelligence and such. So it's not that we're inferior, you just have to consider everyones strengths and weaknesses so the whole system works at full capacity =).


All of your arguements are sound!!!



955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 1/26/08

Do0mAid wrote:


p1491625 wrote:

istead of drafting, lets do something about "equal rights" and give women the chance to serve in the frontlines (legally they can't serve as actual troops on the front lines, if anybody does policy debate wombat)

While that would make things "equal" there are problems with women serving on the frontlines, and some of it is for our protection, and some of it is simply the difference between women and men, that make men more suitable for combat.

1. Maternal Instinct. While to me this is one of the weaker arguments I think it still has some merit. When put in a dangerous or life threatening situation, many times the women soldier might opt not risk themselves for fear of the the children she'll leave behind if she dies. I say this is a weaker argument because there is a such thing as paternal instinct, and so this could apply to men as well. I still use this as a point though because in general I think maternal instincts are stronger (not all cases, but usually) and as men are in general more aggressive they're more likely to do what's necessary. Not just in a life threatening situation, but any combat situation.

2. Physically, men and woman are just different. It's unavoidable. Studies show that woman can't march as far, carry as much weight, and if they were put into a hand-to-hand combat situation, regardless of how strong they are as woman, they most likely would be over-powered by a man.

3. Also because of this physical differences, to make things "equal" they lower the physical requirements of men soldiers. That makes the army only as strong as the weakest link... not a good idea.

4. With the way our society is set up a lot of times the "men must protect women" idea is subconsciously there. So on the battlefield when a female soldier is injured, the men's first instinct is to protect her, instead of sticking to the military plan.

5. Having women on the frontline puts the opponent at a large advantage when taking POWs. If the pubic is told a female POW of war has 2 children at home, the pressure to accept the demands of the opponent is much higher.

So there are just jobs that men and women are better suited for. Women can still contribute through other military jobs that don't involve combat, like intelligence and such. So it's not that we're inferior, you just have to consider everyones strengths and weaknesses so the whole system works at full capacity =).


I kinda disagree because there are alot of really buff women who could beat up alot of guys lol. But I think that considering our current caliber of recruiting (i.e. high school dropouts) the average intelligent woman just may make a better soldier. (i.e. the difference between running at the enemy and sniping them off this (this may be a bit exagerated)). But in all seriousness, the caliber of recruitment that a draft accepts is much lower than normal, basically comprising of: are you able bodied and under 60 (random number) if you are, you're accepted. compared to this, I think that there are plenty of women who want to be part of the military that can't. I think that maternal instinct is trumped by a brother in arms mentality (gotta go back to save the guys cause we're guys and we bonded), and a mother who has to take care of two orphaned sons definitly attracts more sympathy to the POW than the mother who leaves two children to the father (again with the protect the women mental). Finally, I just disagree with some of this stuff because there is a considerable amount of women do fight in the frontlines and do fine (google it) because although it is illegal, its kinda like the DADT policy.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Is there really any need for people to be strong? Isn't that why we invented gunpowder? Isn't strength only important for certain branches of the military that are not drafted anyway? And we are talking conscription not regular forces anyway, so couldn't everyone be prepared to fight if push comes to shove, rather than 1/2? Skill is more important. And most women are more physically fit than me anyway. And I would believe many men can say the same, at least the honest ones. By the way, if you ever encounter a feminist that gives you .....whatever: I find that mentioning conscription for both sexes as something to fight for makes a horrendous argument more enjoyable, lest they simply shut up. Just a tip.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

Do0mAid wrote:


p1491625 wrote:

istead of drafting, lets do something about "equal rights" and give women the chance to serve in the frontlines (legally they can't serve as actual troops on the front lines, if anybody does policy debate wombat)

While that would make things "equal" there are problems with women serving on the frontlines, and some of it is for our protection, and some of it is simply the difference between women and men, that make men more suitable for combat.

1. Maternal Instinct. While to me this is one of the weaker arguments I think it still has some merit. When put in a dangerous or life threatening situation, many times the women soldier might opt not risk themselves for fear of the the children she'll leave behind if she dies. I say this is a weaker argument because there is a such thing as paternal instinct, and so this could apply to men as well. I still use this as a point though because in general I think maternal instincts are stronger (not all cases, but usually) and as men are in general more aggressive they're more likely to do what's necessary. Not just in a life threatening situation, but any combat situation.

2. Physically, men and woman are just different. It's unavoidable. Studies show that woman can't march as far, carry as much weight, and if they were put into a hand-to-hand combat situation, regardless of how strong they are as woman, they most likely would be over-powered by a man.

3. Also because of this physical differences, to make things "equal" they lower the physical requirements of men soldiers. That makes the army only as strong as the weakest link... not a good idea.

4. With the way our society is set up a lot of times the "men must protect women" idea is subconsciously there. So on the battlefield when a female soldier is injured, the men's first instinct is to protect her, instead of sticking to the military plan.

5. Having women on the frontline puts the opponent at a large advantage when taking POWs. If the pubic is told a female POW of war has 2 children at home, the pressure to accept the demands of the opponent is much higher.

So there are just jobs that men and women are better suited for. Women can still contribute through other military jobs that don't involve combat, like intelligence and such. So it's not that we're inferior, you just have to consider everyones strengths and weaknesses so the whole system works at full capacity =).


I can partially see where you are coming from here. However it is not right to expect us men to be told to die for you without the willingness to do so yourself. I am against the idea of conscription on moral grounds. That does not change that women have to accept the risk of draft as well if they think men should or they do not deserve the same rights as men in anything. My answer to all those arguments is quite simple. It is that we have women serving in combat units now just as well as their male counterparts/ Maybe you should tell them they are unsuited for the armed forces.
28673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Michigan, USA
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

I can partially see where you are coming from here. However it is not right to expect us men to be told to die for you without the willingness to do so yourself. I am against the idea of conscription on moral grounds. That does not change that women have to accept the risk of draft as well if they think men should or they do not deserve the same rights as men in anything. My answer to all those arguments is quite simple. It is that we have women serving in combat units now just as well as their male counterparts/ Maybe you should tell them they are unsuited for the armed forces.

It's not that the women are unwilling, it's that it's simply impractical. I'd rather have the strongest army I could to increase my chances of being successful, than give everyone a chance just in the name of equality. It's like a football team. There's 1st string, 2nd string, 3rd string, etc. The best players always start the game because it increases the chances of winning. The 2nd string only goes in when the 1st is injured or burned out and needs a rest. You can't treat the military like a little league team where everyone gets to play regardless of ability.

There are plenty of ways for women to contribute on the frontlines without being put in a combat situation. If the women out there now can match the physical and psychological factors of a man or the ideal soldier, then sure, put them out there, but I think it's unlikely. It depends what your objective is. If your objective is to have everyone equally represented on the battle field, then put them out there, but if your goal is to have the most efficient army, you need to only put your best people out there. So it's not even necessarily about gender to me, but about not lowering requirements and standards simply because we're trying to be "fair". If women were to be included in the draft, that would definitely happen simply because of natural differences.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

Do0mAid wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I can partially see where you are coming from here. However it is not right to expect us men to be told to die for you without the willingness to do so yourself. I am against the idea of conscription on moral grounds. That does not change that women have to accept the risk of draft as well if they think men should or they do not deserve the same rights as men in anything. My answer to all those arguments is quite simple. It is that we have women serving in combat units now just as well as their male counterparts/ Maybe you should tell them they are unsuited for the armed forces.

It's not that the women are unwilling, it's that it's simply impractical. I'd rather have the strongest army I could to increase my chances of being successful, than give everyone a chance just in the name of equality. It's like a football team. There's 1st string, 2nd string, 3rd string, etc. The best players always start the game because it increases the chances of winning. The 2nd string only goes in when the 1st is injured or burned out and needs a rest. You can't treat the military like a little league team where everyone gets to play regardless of ability.

There are plenty of ways for women to contribute on the frontlines without being put in a combat situation. If the women out there now can match the physical and psychological factors of a man or the ideal soldier, then sure, put them out there, but I think it's unlikely. It depends what your objective is. If your objective is to have everyone equally represented on the battle field, then put them out there, but if your goal is to have the most efficient army, you need to only put your best people out there. So it's not even necessarily about gender to me, but about not lowering requirements and standards simply because we're trying to be "fair". If women were to be included in the draft, that would definitely happen simply because of natural differences.


Modern technology has pretty much made women able to serve as well as men. I do not think the women in the armed forces now are suffering because they are females. Also remember that you have to pass a fitness test to be eligible for the draft so in reality your point is absurd. As I said we have women fighting now. I am reminded of the fact that females do not want to be "only women" but want to be treated specially on matters like this.
28673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Michigan, USA
Offline
Posted 1/27/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


Do0mAid wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:

I can partially see where you are coming from here. However it is not right to expect us men to be told to die for you without the willingness to do so yourself. I am against the idea of conscription on moral grounds. That does not change that women have to accept the risk of draft as well if they think men should or they do not deserve the same rights as men in anything. My answer to all those arguments is quite simple. It is that we have women serving in combat units now just as well as their male counterparts/ Maybe you should tell them they are unsuited for the armed forces.

It's not that the women are unwilling, it's that it's simply impractical. I'd rather have the strongest army I could to increase my chances of being successful, than give everyone a chance just in the name of equality. It's like a football team. There's 1st string, 2nd string, 3rd string, etc. The best players always start the game because it increases the chances of winning. The 2nd string only goes in when the 1st is injured or burned out and needs a rest. You can't treat the military like a little league team where everyone gets to play regardless of ability.

There are plenty of ways for women to contribute on the frontlines without being put in a combat situation. If the women out there now can match the physical and psychological factors of a man or the ideal soldier, then sure, put them out there, but I think it's unlikely. It depends what your objective is. If your objective is to have everyone equally represented on the battle field, then put them out there, but if your goal is to have the most efficient army, you need to only put your best people out there. So it's not even necessarily about gender to me, but about not lowering requirements and standards simply because we're trying to be "fair". If women were to be included in the draft, that would definitely happen simply because of natural differences.


Modern technology has pretty much made women able to serve as well as men. I do not think the women in the armed forces now are suffering because they are females. Also remember that you have to pass a fitness test to be eligible for the draft so in reality your point is absurd. As I said we have women fighting now. I am reminded of the fact that females do not want to be "only women" but want to be treated specially on matters like this.

I wouldn't know about modern technology of war, I don't know enough about the subject to comment on that, so I can't reply to that, but even if the physical doesn't matter, the psychological still does. I'm not worried about women suffering, I'd be worried about the efficiency of the army. You seem to be trying to make it sound like just because I'm woman I want to "leave the hard jobs to the men" because we want to be put on some sort of pedestal and that's not it at all. Yes you have to pass a fitness test, but the standards for men and women are entirely different. Here are the requirements to enter basic training for the US Army:
http://www.army.com/enlist/push-ups.html
The highlighted score of 50 in each column is the passing score. Men between the ages of 17-21 have to be able to do 35 push-ups. Women in the same age group, only have to do 13. There's a difference because they recognize the physical differences of men and women. Now, these standards should be different because every person in the army has to do basic training to get any kind of military position, and I don't want women completely barred from the military, that's just stupid, but in a combat situation when these physical differences make a big impact, they need to be considered.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
When does the physical matter for conventional forces? If you have a rifle and end up in hand-to-hand combat, you've done something wrong. Aim is much more important, as long as you're ok fit. Running fast is also more important than strength. Only for forces like the marines, that have to withstand large waves, does strength matter. Besides, again: why shouldn't a woman be ready too fight? That's what conscription is about.
648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Iwakuni, Japan
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
Mmmmh....I have been in the Marines for a year, and granted I love the Marines and what we stand for, I am not sure if I want to stay in after four years (I am thinking of going Navy). Therefore I think I am going to have to go with that it should be someone's choice. Because some people just aren't cut out for it. They don't send you to boot camp without being prepared, if you work hard at it, you'll be fine. I didn't work hard til 4 months before I was suppose to ship, and I got shipped a month early (Although I got stuck there 1 month longer due to an injury 4 weeks before graduating.) Trust me there are women that really could be grunts (infantry), and could whup a man's ass. I think if they can do it, then they should have that choice.

Also our Physical Fitness Requirements are as follows:

Female:

12 Sec Flexed Arm Hang/15 sec when you are in the Fleet/Taking your PFT at Boot Camp.
45 Crunches in 2 mins
31 Min 3 miles.

Male:
3 Pull ups
45 Crunches
28 Min 3 miles

I am not sure if the male one is correct I belive it is. Right now I am too lazy to ask my coworkers! LOL
314 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Maryland
Offline
Posted 1/27/08
I am against conscription. If this country is for the people, by the people, then how come the government can make us join the military wether we want to or not.
2910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / With in the light
Offline
Posted 1/30/08
yes it is the best way to protect our country
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 2/5/08
Drafts are bad, universal conscription, not so much. Drafts water down the effectiveness of a professional army and most draftees eventually equate down to meat-shields and cannon fodder. Universal conscription is different - upon turning 18 all males enter the military for a certain period of time. This creates a standard of equality and bonding that surpasses social barriers. It creates a sense of national pride. Often the government also will give benefits to its conscripts after they get out of the service, or even sometimes offer them enticing incentives to make a career out of it. Essentially it is a system that is not only equal and fair, but one that also brings a country together and creates an effective fighting force...Conscription when done right, is almsot never a bad thing.

---> Read Heinlein's Starship Troopers and LEARN!
37888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 2/5/08
Um, I'd say I'm against it. Nobody should be forced to fight if they don't want too.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
61 / F
Offline
Posted 2/5/08
Why join the Army when you could be hired as a Black Water agent and make THOUSANDS of dollars each week? And do what ever you want with people lives and not be accounted for?

*/cry*
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.