phathui5 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 What about everyone with a social security number over the age of 18? Couldn't they use those records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 You think the government isn't aware of every single one of us? That's a lovely though, eh? But seriously, what do you propose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Service to country is socialistic because... ?? service to country isn't socialistic. Mandatory service to country IS socialistic. sitting next to MamaLynx on this one. Edited October 13, 2008 by Peek a Boo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 In this case, we fought for the right to join the military. How can we now say that we only want to join for the parts we like? Define "we." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 service to country isn't socialistic.Mandatory service to country IS socialistic. sitting next to MamLynx on this one. and according to the article linked to, neither candidate is proposing that. Obama said specifically in his response that he was against the draft. McCain has said the same thing (or, at least, he's said that he has no plans to bring the draft back). I don't think either of them has proposed getting rid of draft registration, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I propose not having it. Our goal is to never have a draft so why do we need it? We have the lovely social security number system, too. I think it's odd that people have to register at age 18 for something they are promised isn't going to happen. It makes me suspect that the people in charge are not being completely truthful. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 and according to the article linked to, neither candidate is proposing that. Obama said specifically in his response that he was against the draft. McCain has said the same thing (or, at least, he's said that he has no plans to bring the draft back). I don't think either of them has proposed getting rid of draft registration, though. mandating that people sign up to serve removes options for individuals. It IS socialistic. You don't mandate that people sign up and then never consider forcing them to serve. I strongly believe service should be a VOLUNTEER thing. mandatory sign ups are NOT VOLUNTARY. period. I'm not voting for Obama OR McCain --i think they are both woefully inadequate to lead this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pammy Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 that is just ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I propose not having it. Our goal is to never have a draft so why do we need it? We have the lovely social security number system, too. I think it's odd that people have to register at age 18 for something they are promised isn't going to happen. It makes me suspect that the people in charge are not being completely truthful. :) bingo. it's kind of a DUH statement, but sometimes one needs to point out the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 What's the plan in a national emergency? (I'm not being snarky, btw. I'm just wondering how you'd propose handling it. I think being immersed in the military culture for so long has kinda dulled my thinking to the notion that selective service should be done away with.) what has happened so far when we've had a national emergency? we see an increase ion VOLUNTARY signups. after 911, they had to STOP taking blood donations cuz people gave so freely. i suggest we maintain the volunteer status of our military and make sure our leaders are respected enough that should they call for more volunteers, they'll GET them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camibami Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I have no problem with instituting a mandatory (ish-variables happen) service policy, ala Israel, South Korea, etc. I do *not* feel it should be military service only, though- Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, charity work, etc should also be counted as service. I would be honored and touched if my girls chose to follow in their father and mother's footsteps and serve our great country in the armed forces. And, I am having a hard time thinking of a military specialty other than light infantry a female would be ill-suited for.Most of the combat arms are mechanized, and believe me, I have seen some wee little men in the infantry. I could take 'em.:lol: I would also defer to the combat commanders on that issue, though, not tradition or religious persuasion. Doesn't bother me- selective service registration does not equal a draft. I'm not opposed to a draft, either, really, though I know that isn't a popular opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 You don't mandate that people sign up and then never consider forcing them to serve. I strongly believe service should be a VOLUNTEER thing. mandatory sign ups are NOT VOLUNTARY. period. I don't disagree with that, and I'm not speaking up for mandatory registration. I'm just pointing out that that's a separate issue from whether women and men should BOTH register if anyone has to register. That's the only point of difference between Obama and McCain on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 And I know that you don't like either of them, Peek-a-boo. You've been very open about that ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I have to agree with people - I don't want ANYONE drafted, but if there is a draft, why are my sons more expendable than my daughters? I would want my kids assigned to positions they were competant to do....and if that meant that choices were made based on their body types, fine! I would expect that. Of course, if my kids were drafted the army would have to take me first. I don't believe any children/young adults (18-25 yr olds) should have to fight before everyone in the generation that started the war (read: us) is dead. JMHO. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and it is first thing in the morning here... But, huh? The average age of a sailor in the US Navy is 19. The average age of a Marine in the USMC is 19. The average age of a soldier in the Army is 19/20. The average age of an airman in the Airforce is 22. I don't think it is POSSIBLE for the "old farts" to out mass the children in the military. Something comes with age: maturity, responsibility, and something else has a hold on your paycheck (your family). Kris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 as far as I'm concerned, the selective service idea is horrible and goes against the very tenets of individual freedom in our country. The fact that women have been exempt from selective service signups is helping keep the selective service thing from being DOUBLY horrible. i will gladly take the supposed discrimination before MANDATING women to sign up for such a horrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 But if the females register, too, and there is a draft that will probably send even more males into direct combat as all the safer jobs go to females. I was in the Air Force, it was good for me but I was in no way cut out to be in the Army or Marines. I felt enought discrimination as a female in the AF and was almost raped at one point (thank God I had a brain and got myself out of it). I can't imagine being in a combat role or a female entering the military that wasn't as together or tough as I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawn of ns Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 No joke. I don't have a link right now and I need to leave for a while. I'm betting what you actually saw was a comparison of what women make working for Obama vs. McCain. Probably left out was that both campaigns pay their people the same regardless of gender but McCain may be paying people for in general, regardless of gender. So a comparison is made of what the women make and a false implication is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml With absolutely no disrepect to those who have daughters and women in your family serving in the armed services, I vehemently disagree with mandatory registration for women. ~Dana I haven't heard this (or read it yet), but I also disagree with mandatory registration. I would be an advocate of mandatory service of some sort for the greater good of society (hospital, elder care, transportation, military, religious, Green Peace, whatever...) if the young adult could choose the type of service he/she works. To force a woman to register for military, though, doesn't feel right. I served in the Air Force, and know that this isn't the type of life for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I wonder though... what if both mom & dad got drafted? Will there be an easy out for one of them, or will they have to scramble for child care arrangements? I don't think it'll happen. Someone would be home. I won't get drafted, for example. Doesn't mean I couldn't or wouldn't train as a home militia, but I wouldn't be drafted? Why? Because my dh is active duty military. IF, heaven forbid, a mandatory male AND female draft were issued there would be provisions for spouses made. The services aren't going to be seeking BOTH husband and wife, more than likely they would just want the husband. Kris, who is actually for a mandatory time in service during youth, but, honestly does NOT think it would happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I propose not having it. Our goal is to never have a draft so why do we need it? We have the lovely social security number system, too. I think it's odd that people have to register at age 18 for something they are promised isn't going to happen. It makes me suspect that the people in charge are not being completely truthful. :) Promise? I don't think it's a promise. (Again, no snark, just conversation.) Do you think young men sign up for selective service with the promise that if all hell broke loose, they won't be drafted (within the rules of a draft)? But I do think that if we are going to have selective service, every citizen needs to sign up. It's complicated, at least to me. And I don't think the Social Security office can track age and gender or provide an accurate database for call-up for an emergency. But then again, I don't have much confidence in bureaucratic agencies to find their own butts in the dark. (In general, as regards efficiency, as an unwieldy agency, etc, general disclaimers apply.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't disagree with that, and I'm not speaking up for mandatory registration. I'm just pointing out that that's a separate issue from whether women and men should BOTH register if anyone has to register. That's the only point of difference between Obama and McCain on this issue. oops- i missed this when i added my earlier general reply, but i think i answered your question on why--- i actually PREFER the discrepancy to avoid a total disastrous erosion of individual liberties. And I know that you don't like either of them, Peek-a-boo. You've been very open about that ;). :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't think it'll happen. Someone would be home. I won't get drafted, for example. Doesn't mean I couldn't or wouldn't train as a home militia, but I wouldn't be drafted? Why? Because my dh is active duty military. IF, heaven forbid, a mandatory male AND female draft were issued there would be provisions for spouses made. The services aren't going to be seeking BOTH husband and wife, more than likely they would just want the husband. I have to respectfully disagree. They don't make provisions now, why would they make provisions if this were a reality? We know PLENTY of couples that had to find family members to take their kids because their tours overlapped or were simultaneous. It's becoming more and more common because our military is over worked. When I was a kid and my Dad was still active duty, you're right, they did everything possible to make sure husbands and wives schedules did not take them both away from the family at the same time. Now, it's just not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawn of ns Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I haven't heard this (or read it yet), but I also disagree with mandatory registration. I would be an advocate of mandatory service of some sort for the greater good of society (hospital, elder care, transportation, military, religious, Green Peace, whatever...) if the young adult could choose the type of service he/she works. To force a woman to register for military, though, doesn't feel right. I served in the Air Force, and know that this isn't the type of life for everyone. Isn't that true of men as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Okay, not a promise but leaders are always saying it's never going to happen. There are so many what-ifs at play. My reasons for not having women are based on serving in the military myself and I posted below. I think if we had an emergency most of us as citizens will step up and do what's right, and even in the past kids from rich families were able to get out of serving or somehow had safer jobs. I don't think every citizen registering for SS is the answer to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 BTW, I'm against mandatory ANYTHING and definitely against the draft:001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Yeah, but that doesn't sound too difficult to me. Is there an exemption now for men who are single fathers? That must happen surely. Maybe in some, specific cases.... but, no. THis is why my dh and I have an agreement: If I die, he gets OUT. He takes a hardship discharge. Kris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I have to respectfully disagree. They don't make provisions now, why would they make provisions if this were a reality? We know PLENTY of couples that had to find family members to take their kids because their tours overlapped or were simultaneous. It's becoming more and more common because our military is over worked. When I was a kid and my Dad was still active duty, you're right, they did everything possible to make sure husbands and wives schedules did not take them both away from the family at the same time. Now, it's just not possible. They don't now because it is a *volunteer* military. People take on this responsibility and *keep* it knowing what it means for their families. I'd be curious to know, though, if in the current tempo inactive reservists can be recalled when their recall means they would leave a child without a parent as a primary caregiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 When I served, a reservist or guard was called up to active duty and her dh was active duty, too. This was during Desert Storm and she was very angry that she'd been activated even though she'd been receiving money for her part-time status. She was a mom and brought her dd with her. From what I understood she had done everything possible to get out of it but she was needed and so they activated her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawn of ns Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 oops- i missed this when i added my earlier general reply, but i think i answered your question on why--- i actually PREFER the discrepancy to avoid a total disastrous erosion of individual liberties.:D It IS a total disastrous erosion of individual liberties even if only one portion of the population is suffering it. It's worse because of that because as long as it's only one portion then that portion is, at the same time, more worthy AND more worthless. Only men are fit for battle. Only men are expendable. If it's wrong, then it's completely wrong and shouldn't be. Demanding the same of women might expose the indecency of it and force a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I would be an advocate of mandatory service of some sort for the greater good of society (hospital, elder care, transportation, military, religious, Green Peace, whatever...) if the young adult could choose the type of service he/she works. What is interesting to me, though, is that people complain over the idea of "legislating morality" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but "legislating charity" is OK? The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I'd be curious to know, though, if in the current tempo inactive reservists can be recalled when their recall means they would leave a child without a parent as a primary caregiver. From what we know where we live, they can. It's interesting though, If they tried to re-instate the draft, they would have so many more problems in this day and age than if they just left it alone! And, you're right, since Vietnam, it has been a Volunteer military. My Dad was part of that (volunteering). I just think they have gone from taking care of the families and recognizing the family unit as something important, to "you knew what you were getting into, say goodbye to your wife and/or find someone to take care of your kids." Maybe if they went back to taking care of the military family, they wouldn't need to think about the draft or SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. :iagree: I couldn't have said it better Heather! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Define "we." Exactly!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I have to agree with people - I don't want ANYONE drafted, but if there is a draft, why are my sons more expendable than my daughters? I would want my kids assigned to positions they were competant to do....and if that meant that choices were made based on their body types, fine! I would expect that. Of course, if my kids were drafted the army would have to take me first. I don't believe any children/young adults (18-25 yr olds) should have to fight before everyone in the generation that started the war (read: us) is dead. JMHO. Women shouldn't have to register. Men shouldn't have to register. Military service should be voluntary or not at all. The whole idea of selective service (draft) is immoral, IMO. Forcing someone into military service is akin to slavery. It's just one of the reasons I made sure to formally renounce my US citizenship before my child was born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Sen. Obama is paying men more than women to work on his campaign? Really? You're joking, right? I gotta run, but here is something I remembered reading a while back about this. I haven't fact checked it, though. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 What is interesting to me, though, is that people complain over the idea of "legislating morality" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but "legislating charity" is OK? The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. Sorry that it was a half-thought post, not well articulated. In exchange for some compensation (university, monetary payment), a young adult could work for a greater cause them himself and beer money for 2 years. In some countries this is military service, but we don't need that large an army and that's not necessarily the avenue for everyone. Mostly it's a way to overcome our "all about me" mentality and think of the greater good. Just an idea, but doubt it would ever come to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phathui5 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Of course, if my kids were drafted the army would have to take me first. I don't believe any children/young adults (18-25 yr olds) should have to fight before everyone in the generation that started the war (read: us) is dead. That ain't gonna happen. Young people are simply more expendable. Even with the service oriented programs, all you hear is politicians talking about mandatory service for young people, not the middle aged, not retired. Forty year olds aren't going "Sign us up!" They're going "sign up them young folks!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaik76 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Since I disagree with Selective Service across the board, I'm against this. Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 In this case, we fought for the right to join the military. How can we now say that we only want to join for the parts we like? *I* didn't fight for that and neither did my mother or my grandmothers, tyvm. I propose not having it. Our goal is to never have a draft so why do we need it? We have the lovely social security number system, too. I think it's odd that people have to register at age 18 for something they are promised isn't going to happen. It makes me suspect that the people in charge are not being completely truthful. :) I completely agree. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and it is first thing in the morning here... But, huh? The average age of a sailor in the US Navy is 19. The average age of a Marine in the USMC is 19. The average age of a soldier in the Army is 19/20. The average age of an airman in the Airforce is 22. I don't think it is POSSIBLE for the "old farts" to out mass the children in the military. Something comes with age: maturity, responsibility, and something else has a hold on your paycheck (your family). Kris They get something else with age too - a desire to protect their backside more. Let's face it, the older we get usually the less gung-ho we are about going out in a blaze of gun fire.;) It is different because they didn't put women into combat. In WWII Women here worked in factories and military offices too. That is the bottom line for me. Horrible things can happen to men who are captured. Worse things can happen to a woman. I don't think I need to elaborate on that point. Men and women are different. That may not be politically correct but it is a fact. It is one thing to serve in a typing pool and a whole other thing to be sent to a combat zone. Of course I don't think women should be in a combat zone or on board ship voluntarily either.... Men can do their jobs better when they are not distracted by women, fighting over women, dealing with the different ways women command or take commands, worried about protecting the woman in the foxhole next to them (any guy worth his salt will feel this way) exc, exc. My cousin is about as liberal as they come and he dreads the day when they will bring women onto his submarine. It is just a bad idea on so many levels. Are we going to have to learn to pee like a man next? Being equally valuable to society does not mean being exactly the same. I totally agree. One of the reasons men fight is to protect the women and kids at home! What is interesting to me, though, is that people complain over the idea of "legislating morality" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but "legislating charity" is OK? The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. Again I completely agree. As a side note... I have 6 sons and 2.7 daughters. We've taught all our sons that the duty of any male who wants to call himself a man is to protect and provide for women and children. I never want to see my sons in combat, but if the war is just and neccessary - I'd send my men. No consideration of sending our daughters would ever be given. Not by me. Not by their father. Not by their brothers. There are times when men must do the work of men - war is one of them. And during that time, women do the work of women. We'll fight if we must whatever comes on our patio. We'll work our bums off providing for our families who are missing their men and sending what support we can to the men in combat. It's not about who is more or less worthy. It's not about who is equal or not. We're both equally neccessary in different important ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 What is interesting to me, though, is that people complain over the idea of "legislating morality" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but "legislating charity" is OK? The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. Sorry that it was a half-thought post, not well articulated. In exchange for some compensation (university, monetary payment), a young adult could work for a greater cause them himself and beer money for 2 years. In some countries this is military service, but we don't need that large an army and that's not necessarily the avenue for everyone. Mostly it's a way to overcome our "all about me" mentality and think of the greater good. Just an idea, but doubt it would ever come to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 That ain't gonna happen. Young people are simply more expendable. Even with the service oriented programs, all you hear is politicians talking about mandatory service for young people, not the middle aged, not retired. Forty year olds aren't going "Sign us up!" They're going "sign up them young folks!" Ain't that the truth! When Obama signs up - I'll take him serious on it. When his kids are signed up - he can talk about my kids. Until then he can ... do something else.:auto: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vida Winter Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 I gotta run' date=' but here is something I remembered reading a while back about this. I haven't fact checked it, though. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/[/quote'] Yes this is what I'm talking about. And here's the article that I read on it originally: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY= ~Dana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokotg Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Ain't that the truth!When Obama signs up - I'll take him serious on it. When his kids are signed up - he can talk about my kids. Until then he can ... do something else.:auto: Again, Obama is not proposing mandatory service. He's suggested a voluntary program of service (including but not limited to military) in exchange for college tuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 It IS a total disastrous erosion of individual liberties even if only one portion of the population is suffering it. It's worse because of that because as long as it's only one portion then that portion is, at the same time, more worthy AND more worthless. Only men are fit for battle. Only men are expendable. If it's wrong, then it's completely wrong and shouldn't be. Demanding the same of women might expose the indecency of it and force a change. Nope. two wrongs don't make a right. protecting what bit of the population we can from such a horrid idea is the closest we can get currently to protecting the Basic Human Rights of an individual to not be forced into a mandatory service-slavery-signup. Right now women are at least protected from that, so their rights aren't totally eroded. Yet. I always thought "affirmative action" --aka reverse discrimination-- would "expose the indecency" of such blatant discrimination. alas, that is not the case. people get used to a wrong being a "right." We see that in other social issues too. no-- I'll work to demand the repeal of selective service AND keep the other half of the population exempt for as long as possible. i do agree with you that If it's wrong, then it's completely wrong and shouldn't be. but there's NO WAY i'll subject the other half of our population to mandatory signups "just" to make the human rights erosions "more fair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennifersLost Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and it is first thing in the morning here... But, huh? The average age of a sailor in the US Navy is 19. The average age of a Marine in the USMC is 19. The average age of a soldier in the Army is 19/20. The average age of an airman in the Airforce is 22. I don't think it is POSSIBLE for the "old farts" to out mass the children in the military. Something comes with age: maturity, responsibility, and something else has a hold on your paycheck (your family). Kris I'm saying that I think it's completely immoral that we (the parents) "allow" our government to draft our children for wars instead of going and fighting them ourselves. And I'm not being silly. I absolutely 100% believe that. If a war is "right" there will most likely be enough volunteers to fight it. When a war is so wrong or unpopular that people refuse to volunteer and there has to be a draft, then I strongly believe that it is the generation that started the war (the parents) that ought to fight it. I don't care if we're older, slower, stupider, or make more money. We get ourselves into a war, we get ourselves out of it. If every senator, congressman and president was required to go be a foot-soldier in each war they started, we wouldn't fight so much, would we? People are spurred to action whenever a cause is just. When they aren't spurred to action we should spend a lot more time asking "why" and a lot less time forcing them to join up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennifersLost Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 That ain't gonna happen. Young people are simply more expendable. Even with the service oriented programs, all you hear is politicians talking about mandatory service for young people, not the middle aged, not retired. Forty year olds aren't going "Sign us up!" They're going "sign up them young folks!" I would. My kids get drafted, I'll be in line ahead of them. And I'll be sure that every single person in the country knows what I'm doing and why. Hopefully shame the heck out of all of them. Making the children fight our wars before they have a chance at life. Sheeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I have to respectfully disagree. They don't make provisions now, why would they make provisions if this were a reality? We know PLENTY of couples that had to find family members to take their kids because their tours overlapped or were simultaneous. It's becoming more and more common because our military is over worked. When I was a kid and my Dad was still active duty, you're right, they did everything possible to make sure husbands and wives schedules did not take them both away from the family at the same time. Now, it's just not possible. The difference here is that you CAN get out of the military because you are pregnant/ have a child that you can't find care for. Double military service is a VOLUNTARY position. I know of plenty of families who are and have even stood "in-loco parentis" for friends over the years. These families stay in, mom or dad, and stay in knowing FULL WELL that they could both be deployed, even to a war zone at the same time as their spouse. The difference with what is being suggested of a civilian being required to serve in the military and a dual-military family is the pretense of fore-knowledge and acceptance of the risk of leaving a family's children parent-less for a short or long term period of time. Were a mandatory military service to be instated or a draft including females between the ages of 18-35 (I'm 33), I would first file a request of deferment for long term status. My husband is active duty military on sea duty and leaves for extended periods of time. Were he to go to shore duty, I still don't see my being able to be called up because he can be recalled to sea duty at any time (a "perk" of his job). Kris, who loves a debate but ALWAYS tries to be respectful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I don't think that young men should have to register. It does not improve things to have another half of our population registering as well. Remember what Mom used to say, "Two wrongs do not make a right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 They don't now because it is a *volunteer* military. People take on this responsibility and *keep* it knowing what it means for their families. I'd be curious to know, though, if in the current tempo inactive reservists can be recalled when their recall means they would leave a child without a parent as a primary caregiver. This happens all the time. My son's last Webelo leader in Washington was an inactive-duty Army reservist married to an active duty Army enlisted man. He was PCS'ing to Iraq and she was recalled. Their overlap is 13 months long. Their 10 year old son is staying with her mom. Kris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 What is interesting to me, though, is that people complain over the idea of "legislating morality" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but "legislating charity" is OK? The whole idea of serving others is that it is supposed to come from your heart (the right attitude, etc.) not from a government mandate. Even if Obama (or anybody else) does not think women should be drafted, forcing them (or anyone) to "serve others" goes against the spirit of service itself. Differing concepts of service here, I believe. Yes, charity comes from the heart. The proposal here as I see it is not charity, it is the fulfillment of one's responsibility as a citizen to contribute in a beneficial manner to one's society by serving in some capacity (whether it be teaching or military or what have you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts