The Draft?

[Mathim]

I have to tell this story, you guys'll love this. When the Iraq problem first started (during the beginning of the Shock and Awe bullcrap) one of my teachers and I made a sort of unofficial bet about whether or not the government was going to have to resort to drafting people in. I bet they would, and he bet they wouldn't, because he was positive there never would be one again. He put up the deed to his house, but it was unspecified what I was putting up on my end. About a month later, he withdrew from the bet, he was that scared of a draft becoming necessary. Fucked up, huh? That's how frightening shit got.

As for only drafting men...let me say this. Women are smarter, women are more qualified leaders, and women are much more vital for carrying on the species. I'd rather most of the male population be killed in war as long as the women remain. I mean, there's sperm banks and whatnot, for repopulating, and women would probably fix all the crap that's happening thanks to the male status quo. So in that regard, I believe it is a better option than treating women as equals, at least, when it comes to the chances of being cut down by machine gun fire or being burned alive or blown apart by a rocket-propelled grenade or suicide bomber.

As for forced birth control, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it. Do I agree with it? No. Why? Because I believe that in the military, people are expected to exercise a certain amount of self-control. Ergo, if they're all resorting to what I'm sure amounts to disobeying orders, they ought to be kept a closer eye on or assigned/positioned in ways that prevent those kinds of relations from going on when it's inappropriate.
On the other hand, if a woman in the field was captured by an enemy group and was tortured and raped, I think she would be able to appreciate the idea of not being able to get impregnated in that situation, am I right?

The whole thing is a mess. The military does demand strictness but when forced service like the draft is involved, it's really unfair to everyone called into it against their will. The fact is, there is no solution. They've set it up to have no compromise.

[RubySlippers]

This is not official but a Warrant Officer in the family in Iraq said with the current deployments and plans of Israel he expects us to be bombing Iran and likely needing military containment after the elections and before the new president takes office. Bush already has the authorization to bomb Iran just what they consider the terrorists as in part of the government, all they need is a reason Israel will likely start and force us to act.

And for all your assumptions he is terrified they do not have the soldiers to contain Iran if they do as he suspects unleashing terrorists backed by them and ground troops into regions adjoining them including Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq is not unlikely of course. And they will be the victim that is want they want they can then make this a defensive war against a non-MUslim threat on Muslim land.

And he said if that happens a draft may not be optional anymore we may have a threat in four nations and Iran is not weak they can and will fight. We are stretched thin over there now and to invade Iran and secure it against a hostile government, population and religious leaders will need a full scale army to occupy it.

[Inkidu]

Mathim, the point isn't whether women are smarter, military birth control or whatnot. The point is with the amendments to the constitution that no one can be discriminated against because of gender etc. etc.

Does that make an all male draft unconstitutional? Now I like reasoned out answers but I will start limiting people to yes or no if they keep going of on the military birth control or whatnot.

Military birth control: Women serve with men fraternization with the opposite sex is illegal. The military knowing that they can't stop people from doing the do enforce mandatory birth control. No other evil reason other than you can't have an active duty woman with a bun in the oven.  End of derailment.

[Sherona]

The point of the matter, is everythng is politics. And no politician with any right mind, would inact a law forcing women to serve, and forcing women (Or men) to use Birthcontrol. Its one thing to Say "You sign up for the army, oyu know the risks so take BC" quite another to say "Your forced to join, so you are also forced to curb your own reproduction."

That being said, The constitution can also be said to be openly against drafting if one wants to nit pick and pry things apart. For everyone who died due to being drafted, they were denied "Life". For those who are drafted unwilling and must follow the stringent terms tehy are denied "Liberty" I mean anyone can find constitutional issues with anything, especially the draft.

[ZK]

I don't agree with mandatory birth control and at the same time, I do.

When at war, you -do not- want to be carrying a child, especially through that sort of hell.

But I stand by my decision, drafting shouldn't be unless the nation was invaded or giant mecha become standardized in the armies. Whichever comes first.

[Sherona]

No you don't want to be carrying a child. And most women who volunteer for war go on BC, the others don't have sex so don't bother. Its the "I am a happily arried woman, bending over backwards to get pregnant and now teh military says I have to go to war..and I have to take BC pills or shots that lower my fertility for up to a year after I finish taking them" That gets me.

Yes going off the shot or pill can make you fertile soon after, but your chances of getting pregnant is lowered for a while until your hormones adjust.

[Caehlim]

The soldiers who don't follow orders are sentenced to dishonorable discharge and lose their 401k, generals who do not follow the presidents orders get the same.

While I appreciate that there is a difference between the law, and what gets done, a soldier is under no responsibility to follow an illegal order. Such orders can be refused. In that political climate they may well receive a presidential pardon as well by the new president.

The president is the highest ranking military official in the U.S. (Commander and Chief) his orders are not to be disobeyed

I may be the Queen of May or the King of Classic rock. Titles do not confer power, you can only hope that this magic word "president" when waggled about enough can cause other humans to do what you say.

If you defy the laws that have endowed you with your cool sounding title then you'd better hope you have charisma or blind zealots who are fanatic about your title or you're cutting off the basis of your power.

I think many people in the US believe (correctly, legally speaking) that the constitution outranks the president.

[Inkidu]

The president has the rank to give the orders and massive bombing isn't illegal, end of derailment. 

[Sherona]

Unfortunately Caehlim yours is an idealist idea. Generals are career soldiers. They follow orders, when one is in the position more then once in one's career that following orders saves lives, then one tends not to look at orders too closely and a president is too politically correct to make a blatant illegal order.

That being said, Even if we do a bombing, the draft is so constitutionally edgy that it won't be ordered in..

[Caehlim]

end of derailment.

You know, you desperately make me want to undertake the deliberate attempt to derail this thread. However I won't since that would be disrespectful. Just warning you that a statement like that triggers the contrary nature of folk like me.

/Derailment.

Please continue with the conversation. Thankyou and sorry for the interruption.

[Inkidu]

Unfortunately Caehlim yours is an idealist idea. Generals are career soldiers. They follow orders, when one is in the position more then once in one's career that following orders saves lives, then one tends not to look at orders too closely and a president is too politically correct to make a blatant illegal order.

That being said, Even if we do a bombing, the draft is so constitutionally edgy that it won't be ordered in..

The draft itself is by no means edgy. It is one of the core doctrines of the American Constitution. The states got together and decided that anything for the defense of the nation. Now do I think it was instigated wrong or the gender issue could be wrong, yes. But the draft is a perfectly acceptable thing.

[Sherona]

Considering all the problems that have been brought up in this thread with the constitutionality of the draft, and keeping in mind that the constitution was drafted well before amny of the amendments taht make the draft dodgy and thus the admendments added does.

that being said, it would take way too much effort to re-structure the draft so that personal freedoms of women mainly to not be encroached upon, as well as allow for women to be drafted that I doubt anyone will want to do it.

The most logical course of action would be to withdraw troops in places we don't need ratehr then fill our own. Plus the fact that there are areas where women are not permitted in the armies so a draft would have to work around that as well.

Its edgy and not something we will probably need to worry about.

[Mathim]

I think it's insane that, after a war was fought against England to secure the independence of the United States, something about a draft/military thing like it wasn't put into the Constitution. I mean, all we had was, 'the military can't force people to let soldiers stay in their homes', or something like that. Didn't they think someone else might try to fight us and take over, and that everyone would have to have some rights suspended so they could be made to fight, and fight to their fullest at that? Of course, that would definitely have made it an all-male draft, back then...couldn't argue with the constitution if that was the case.

I don't get how war needs so many soldiers when the technology is this insane. It's not really 'war' if it's deciding which people to kill and which ones not to kill, that deserves another category altogether.

[Sherona]

Probably they did not want some insane meglomaniac leader starting wars for no reason grabbing all the people and forcing them to fight in said wars.

That being said, again, I would hope most people would not have to be made to defend their homes..

[Oniya]

If conscription is considered necessary but unconstitutional, then most likely Congress will amend the constitution.

Amending the Constitution isn't all that easy.  Look how long they've been pushing the 'anti-flag-burning' amendment, and that's a somewhat popular one.

Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

   1. Congress proposes amendments.
      As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

   2. The states propose amendments.
      The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

Number 2 has never been used.  Since the Bill of Rights, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed.  17 have been adopted, and two of those cancelled each other out (Prohibition).

Two-thirds is also the amount of votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto, and that's rare in and of itself.  Getting that and the 3/4 approval of the states, for something as unpopular as conscription - I don't see it happening.  Then you've got that 7 year time frame - if we're still in Iraq in 7 years, that's two more Presidential terms, and I predict by then, the war will be less popular than Vietnam.

[Sherona]

Wonderful way of putting it Oniya, I have to say I couldn't agree more.

[Ignaddio]

That being said, The constitution can also be said to be openly against drafting if one wants to nit pick and pry things apart. For everyone who died due to being drafted, they were denied "Life". For those who are drafted unwilling and must follow the stringent terms tehy are denied "Liberty" I mean anyone can find constitutional issues with anything, especially the draft.

Not to be nitpicky, but the Constitution does not grant you Life nor Liberty.  You are, however, free to pursue it. Things like the death penalty and imprisonment in general would not be possible if all Americans were granted inalienable life and liberty. I volunteered my service, so clearly my opinions on the draft are moot, but I feel that if women are to have the same rights as men in all aspects (and they should), they ought to have the same responsibilities.

[Oniya]

Actually, the word "pursuit" is specifically used in connection with happiness. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Reference: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

[Ignaddio]

Actually, the word "pursuit" is specifically used in connection with happiness. 

Reference: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

D'oh!

I stand corrected. >.>

That's what I get for running off half-cocked.

[Oniya]

It's okay - I have a tradition of watching 1776 at least once a year and grew up with the Schoolhouse Rock recitation of the Preamble.

[Atlus]

It's been a few years since history class, so bare with me if I'm mistaken. I just reread the constitution and the amendments and I can't find anything about women being declared equal. Before anyone misinterprets this, I am in no way saying that women aren't equal to men. I am saying I can't find it on the books. If it is not stated explicitly that women are equal to men then how is the drafting of men only unconstitutional? And again for clarity's sake I do not support the draft for anyone.

My personal opinion on the subject is that the draft should only be legal when the US is under direct attack by a sovereign nation and all other resources have been tapped. Even then I hesitate. As to whether or not it should be legal to draft women along with men, hell yeah. If we're all equal, then we all bear responsibility for our nation's security. And no, drafting women for desk jobs while the men folk go die is not truly drafting them. A soldier is a soldier, train'em, suit'em up, and ship'em out. Let everyone do what they can, without regard to gender. As far as the subject of birth control goes, I would assume BC medication would be a requirement. Is it an invasion of one's personal rights? Yes, kind of like....I don't know...being ordered to go kill and die for your country.

And since it came up earlier, if the US needs troops for something badly enough, there will be a draft. Political suicide or no, if we are under attack and need troops they will be acquired by any means necessary. If sept. 11th proved anything it was that the US is willing to suspend or deny personal freedoms in times of crisis. They take US citizens and hold them without trial. They spy on internet and phone transmissions without cause. Don't tell me they won't send unwilling soldiers to war or make women swallow a pill.

Okay, I'll come down from the soap box now.

[CaptainErotica]

  A little bit of insight from someone with real life experience. Sorry if some of this has been said already.

  When you sign your contract with the military you are in effect becoming their property. Of course they can't lawfully order you to commit suicide or other obviously stupid crap, but they can and will treat you as their property. I was personally put on report for "Destruction of Government Property" (hereafter DoGP) for punching a metal wall after my boss pissed me off. I have seen guys get put on report for DoGP for getting tattoo. It use to be okay, but recently they started cracking down on ink that was visible below a short sleeved uniform.

   As for experiments and ordering you to take shots, etc. When Iraqi Freedom started they issued an order that all active Service members be given a series of Anthrax vaccine shots. This vaccine was and I think still is experimental. Many people refused and were ordered to do it r face dishonorable discharge for failure to obey a lawful order. We were ordered to get Small Pox Inoculations which actually give you small Pox fin the affected area for a few weeks. I'm not lying for two weeks I was infected with small Pox, with no choice to say no.

   on the subject of birth control. I lost count of how many women I watched check into the ship one day and a month later were pregnant and trying to get out. Ordering women to take birth control is not a very far fetched concept and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. I've worked with women that were ten times better at their job than some of the men, but for every hard working woman who does what she needs to do to prevent getting pregnant there were two that didn't and then everyone else was left picking up their slack. I can understand a married  woman in the service getting pregnant but the vast majority of them are young 18 or so girls. It isn't a perfect solution, but then again it isn't a perfect world we live in either.

I do apologize if what  have said offends some women. It is surely not my intent. I happen to think that if they  were to make birth control mandatory then they should make the punishment stricter on the males caught having sex with female shipmates -unless they are married of course.

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

[Sherona]

Number one, voluntary enrollment very well could mandate BC in active duty women. Have us sign a form stating that if you sign up for the military you have to take precautions. That STILL gives women a choice. Its only in "You have no say in if you want to sign up for military, and you have no say in..."

My second question, I thought it was already against the military rules to fraternize with opposite genders? I was close to signing up, but didn't quite get all the ink dried up so I am not sure on this issue.

Draft for defense of our own borders due to a clear attack/threat yes could happen, and probably most would volunteer to duty, but draft for random sketchy wars? No, no one is going to kill their carreers to send people over to invade a country on a personal vendetta.

[Oniya]

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

But - outside of various Snopes-busted urban legends, it's perfect birth control!  Ah well, military intelligence...

[Ignaddio]

Number one, voluntary enrollment very well could mandate BC in active duty women. Have us sign a form stating that if you sign up for the military you have to take precautions. That STILL gives women a choice. Its only in "You have no say in if you want to sign up for military, and you have no say in..."

My second question, I thought it was already against the military rules to fraternize with opposite genders? I was close to signing up, but didn't quite get all the ink dried up so I am not sure on this issue.

Draft for defense of our own borders due to a clear attack/threat yes could happen, and probably most would volunteer to duty, but draft for random sketchy wars? No, no one is going to kill their carreers to send people over to invade a country on a personal vendetta.

It is frowned upon, yes, at least in the Navy, but there are all sorts of married military couples, and even more just dating. The real issue is fraternization up and down the chain of command, across Commissioned/Noncomissioned and Senior Enlisted/Junior Enlisted boundaries. This applies to more than just romantic ties, but social and financial ties as well.

On a rather amusing side note. did you know that it is against the UCMJ(Uniform Code of military Justice) to practice oral sex....actually anything but missionary.I'm assure it never gets used, but it is still there.

There's another, less amusing article that only specifically forbids the carnal knowledge of children under the age of twelve. I think it's been updated since, but when I went to bootcamp in 2004 that's what it still said, with nothing elsewhere in regards to other minors. It also specifies that penetration is sufficient to complete the offence (in both articles), so clearly heavy petting is in the clear. >.>