The US Election, Part XI

[imaenoon]

I can't think of anything that would substantial alter my argument, so I'll leave it to stand. I do understand your position, though, Wrath of Dagon, and I can even sympathize with it, if that means anything at all.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

I'm sure all the guys suffering from PTSD will be happy to know that killing is perfectly natural to them, and they need to get over it.  

Would you send your wife to war while you stayed home with the kids?

I wouldn't send anyone ideally, as I oppose the draft, but it her number came up and mine didn't that's what would happen (although, in my case, my partner has a heart condition that would likely exempt her from service so it's most likely completely hypothetical).

[ShadySands]

 

 

 

 

"What kind of man lets a woman take a bullet for him?"

 

You'd rather take a bullet for a woman?

I wouldn't force women to fight in the first place. There's no equality on this issue, men are natural killers, women are not. If they volunteer, that's a different story.

 

 

This. I thinking drafting women is uncivilized for a number of reasons. If they want to fight, ok, but they have to be placed in suitable combat situations. Front lines or close quarter combat, they just wouldn't be as effective. Also, women combatants would have much more to lose if they were captured by the likes of Isis. 

 

You guys do realize that the military isn't entirely infantry and special forces, right?

 

Most women would not qualify for those roles, hell, a lot of men don't even qualify for them

 

This is making me think it's even a better idea than I did before because hopefully people like you would then oppose any unnecessary war that might require a draft

 

Shady when you trained for the marines before you were deployed how many women did the marine training in your unit?

Basic training and combat training are segregated but your MOS(military job) school is coed. Field exercises and weapons training are coed as well but often you are not with just your unit especially with larger exercises. 

 

There weren't many women in my unit but I couldn't give you an exact count, my platoon had 1 or 2 depending on the deployment

[Agiel]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-voter-lost-home-treasury-secretary-43923824

 

Beautiful.

 

It's almost as if America hasn't had close to 30 years to get the full measure of that man (note that this strip was first published in 1987):

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Wow, you folks are nuts. I mean, I'm crazy, I'm sure, but seeing you guys is like a field trip to the Patton state hospital. Does make me laugh out loud, though. I don't see why it's bad that women should be required to sign up for the draft. The assumption should not be that they're required to fight on the front lines. They just need to sign up to serve. If it comes down to the draft, we're going to be in such dire straights we'll probably take anyone who can heft a gun because it'll be an 'only bullets can stop them now' situation.

Anyone who's serving could potentially be in a combat situation. If you're not ever going to have a draft, there's no point of registering. Once they're registered, what's to stop an SJW president from sending them into combat?

 

Look here, Wrath of Dagon, I actually naturally feel the way you do. I would not let my mother, wife, or sister jump in front of danger before me. I agree that men have a hero complex and that is no where more apparent than in the United States pretty much through it's entire history. However, if women *really* want to be equal, then they must have equal stake and equal risk. I think ShadySands hit the nail on the head, and it's something I've been trying to get across. Most people don't serve in actual combat roles. You're right that any service member can end up in combat, but those situations already exist and women have already seen them. Not to mention women flying in what is essentially combat roles as helicopter pilots.

 

Volourn has a point about the sexism to men, and I agree with him. I'm kind of scared of him too, so I won't critique his manner of saying it, but the truth is the truth.

 

However, it's also sexist to women. Either they are our equals in terms of facing danger or they are our charges and we must decide what is best for them. It does a great disservice to women to pretend that we must protect them by denying them the right to fight for God, Country, and loved ones.

 

But we need to use common sense and be  logical when we say  " we  need to consider women as equal to men in society "

 

This applies to things like gender pay gap, women's right to abortion, women's right to decide what career they want  " etc.

 

But we not talking about women being equal in every facet of society because there are real physiological differences between men and women and sometimes you will put women at a major disadvantage if you want them to be treated completely equally to men

 

For example in contact sports like rugby, football, american football men and women teams dont compete against each other for obvious reasons ....so I'm unclear how men are being discriminated against like volo suggests?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Edit: And I doubt you have imagination enough to understand what kind of meat grinder you'd be sending them into.

And I'm sure you know everything there is to know about war and that 'meat grinder'...

[ShadySands]

 

Edit: And I doubt you have imagination enough to understand what kind of meat grinder you'd be sending them into.

And I'm sure you know everything there is to know about war and that 'meat grinder'...

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

"What kind of man lets a woman take a bullet for him?"

 

You'd rather take a bullet for a woman?

I wouldn't force women to fight in the first place. There's no equality on this issue, men are natural killers, women are not. If they volunteer, that's a different story.

 

 

This. I thinking drafting women is uncivilized for a number of reasons. If they want to fight, ok, but they have to be placed in suitable combat situations. Front lines or close quarter combat, they just wouldn't be as effective. Also, women combatants would have much more to lose if they were captured by the likes of Isis. 

 

You guys do realize that the military isn't entirely infantry and special forces, right?

 

Most women would not qualify for those roles, hell, a lot of men don't even qualify for them

 

This is making me think it's even a better idea than I did before because hopefully people like you would then oppose any unnecessary war that might require a draft

 

Shady when you trained for the marines before you were deployed how many women did the marine training in your unit?

Basic training and combat training are segregated but your MOS(military job) school is coed. Field exercises and weapons training are coed as well but often you are not with just your unit especially with larger exercises. 

 

There weren't many women in my unit but I couldn't give you an exact count, my platoon had 1 or 2 depending on the deployment

 

So the 1-2 women in your deployment  didnt do the same physical training you did which I would expect ? The reason I ask is in movies like Full Metal Jacket you see this, IMO, really rigorous basic training that marines are subjected to and I am genuinely wondering if a women would be able to compete at the same level as men? 4

 

Let me ask the question a  different way. When you were in Iraq were the women doing the same job as you as direct deployment  or did they do other jobs like signals, medical, transport , intelligence etc. 

[Agiel]

 

@Elerond:

Yet not everyone volunteers for the armed forces.

 

In my opinion it should not be choice. Everybody needs to serve in capacity they are capable. Which is one of the reason why I support Finland's constitutional obligation to serve.  

 

 

I posted this article on another topic, which kind of explains why that approach probably doesn't really work for the US, emphases mine:

 

 

What Americans Don’t Understand About Their Own Military

Reinstating the draft is hardly a realistic solution to bridging the military-civilian gap in the U.S. And here's why.

 

One of the strangest criticisms of US security policy is that it burdens a too-small percentage of the American people, because only about 1% of the adult population serves in the military. Because such a small percent of the population is at risk in American wars, American politicians are said to feel free to send the military to fight wasteful, unwinnable, and costly wars.

 

 

The preference is apparently for conscription, which would put more of the population at risk, and supposedly lead to fewer and wiser wars. “If only the politicians’ sons or daughters were forced to serve!” is the lament.

 

The model is always WWII, when over 12 million Americans were in uniform—more than 15% of the adult population of the time—and a much higher percentage of the adult male population.

 

The burden of fighting then was supposedly widely shared. The contrast: today, fewer than 1.4 million men and women are active-duty military, and another 800,000+ are in the reserves. Given that there are about 200 million Americans between the ages of 18-65, this is just over 1% of the relevant population.

 

There are several problems with the argument.

 

Fifteen percent of 200 million would produce a military of 30 million—a bit large, one must say, for less than all-out global warfare. But even 2% produces a military of four million people; a third larger than the military on active duty during the 1960s, when the Soviet Union was being confronted globally, while a major war was being fought in Vietnam.

 

Each year, about four million Americans reach the age of 18. Currently, the American military needs fewer than 200,000 of them to volunteer for active duty or the reserves to maintain its numbers. With that pool, the military can insist on a high school education for enlisted personnel, and a college degree for officers. Avoided are the medically unfit, those with serious criminal records, and those who would chafe under the discipline required.

 

Of course, the argument isn’t that all of the age group should serve in the military. Rather it is that some form of public service should be required of all. But what would the government do with four million 18 year-olds each year?

 

Our hospitals, inner-city schools, and Native American reservations already have well-paid employees to do the necessary work. Political correctness would require women to face the same obligations as men. Who would be forced into the military or prison guard jobs? Could it be voluntary? Wouldn’t that be the same system we have now? Wouldn’t the rich and influential always find a way to make the service of their children career-enhancing or at least safe?

 

During the last year of the Second World War, there was a manpower crisis as the US found itself running out of infantry soldiers. The better-educated draftees were used in technical and support functions, or found their way into safe and draft-exempt civilian occupations.

 

During the Vietnam War, the draft—in effect only to feed the infantry fighting the war—was essentially voluntary as those who wanted to avoid fighting joined the Navy, found an easy disqualification, or fled the country. The current all-volunteer force allows people to choose their risk, and compensates them for it. Those who want to be in the most hazardous branches of the armed services are double or triple volunteers, having had to decide to join the military, and then having opted for its most dangerous jobs.

 

Some might say that all who do so are coerced by their poverty to be in the military, making the military a home for black people and others who are economically disadvantaged. African-Americans are indeed over-represented in the American military when compared to their percentage of the general population, but not of the prime relevant age group (18-24).

 

The military is an attractive employer, given its pay structure and post-career benefits. But minorities are over-represented in the non-combat occupations (medical services, transportation, administration, etc.); combat arms are predominantly white, attracting youths who see themselves as spending some post-high school time in an adventure-land with guns and as having no intention of making the military a career.

 

The volunteer military is actually better educated and less poor than the draft military, because it is smaller and more selective than the draft military. One third of American youth, heavily minority, do not complete high school, and thus make themselves largely ineligible for the military even if they wish to serve.

 

In fact, more than 1% of Americans are involved in America’s defense. In addition to the two plus million service personnel—the 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 plus in the reserve components—there are 800,000 plus civil service employees of the Department of Defense—people who work in military depots, defense laboratories, shipyards, and contract management offices—and five to six million (the exact number is not known) contract employees—people who build weapon systems, provide support services, and conduct defense related research.

 

This totals to 3-4% of the adult population. Add spouses and other family members, and you can see that not an insignificant portion of the American population is involved in defense.

 

One percent or eight, the interests of America’s military, defense civil servants, and defense contractors are not ignored by politicians. Bad wars aren’t the product of a military that is too easy to commit and too small to count politically. Rather, the bad wars are the result of America being the global policemen, seeking to guarantee the security of too many others—and creating the expectation that America will intervene in every dispute where force may be involved.

 

It isn’t that soldiers’ lives aren’t valued. Actually, the concern with their casualties has grown with time even after conscription was abolished. It is just that American presidents are expected to act—to do something when trouble starts in the Middle East, when North Korea rattles some sabers and when Russia tries to change its boundaries. Doing something often involves the deployment of ships, the use of soldiers as advisors, a missile strike, and the start of a bombing campaign. One thing leads to another, but rarely to a quick, easy victory.

 

A better criticism is that America has stopped paying for its wars. In the past, wars brought dedicated tax increases, and the sharing of burdens broadly among citizens—taxpayers and voters as well as the soldiers in the fight. But the global war on terror instead gave Americans tax cuts, deficits, and borrowing on a massive scale which was readily obtained from foreigners at low interest rates.

 

The domestic political constraints on the use of force are only casualties, and not a growing financial burden on taxpayers. The costs of wars are passed to future generations, those not yet with a vote. This is not a good development. Few citizens are warriors or need to be, but all should pay for their country’s wars.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Agiel

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Edit: And I doubt you have imagination enough to understand what kind of meat grinder you'd be sending them into.

And I'm sure you know everything there is to know about war and that 'meat grinder'...

 

I drew that conclusion from the cavalier attitude towards it Hurlshot was displaying. I read a lot about it although obviously that's not the same as experiencing it for yourself.

[imaenoon]

 

 

@Elerond:

Yet not everyone volunteers for the armed forces.

 

In my opinion it should not be choice. Everybody needs to serve in capacity they are capable. Which is one of the reason why I support Finland's constitutional obligation to serve.

 

 

I posted this article on another topic, which kind of explains why that approach probably doesn't really work for the US, emphases mine:

 

Hate your politics, but I love the articles you post. (Well, hate is probably the wrong word, but I had to have a contrast.) I think something the rest of the world sees that most Americans do not is that we're quite militaristic in our country. That's not a value judgment. I love my country, flaws an all, but we're actually quite fixated on military and war. We almost always feel as if we're doing it for the best of reasons, but we're a country ready to fight people. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's truly terrible. Either way, most definitely it is what it is.

 

EDIT: I would also say that I believe that it's not just whites over represented in combat roles, but also Hispanics. I can't remember and it's been a while since I looked into it.

Edited December 2, 2016 by imaenoon

[Meshugger]

A question for WoD - why is it a man's duty to fight and die while the woman stay aside from antiqued gender roles? Why it it better for a child to lose a father, or fathers because gay couples having kids is a thing, than to loose a mother or mothers? Why shouldn't woman fight besides sexist drivel?

 

Oh, wait, it's because you're clinging to that drivel for dear life.

 

It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war.

 

There are exceptions to the norm as you pointed out, but that's another story.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Meshugger

[ShadySands]

 

snip

So the 1-2 women in your deployment  didnt do the same physical training you did which I would expect ? The reason I ask is in movies like Full Metal Jacket you see this, IMO, really rigorous basic training that marines are subjected to and I am genuinely wondering if a women would be able to compete at the same level as men? 4

 

Let me ask the question a  different way. When you were in Iraq were the women doing the same job as you as direct deployment  or did they do other jobs like signals, medical, transport , intelligence etc. 

From what I recall (I've never seen the movie proper just clips here and there) the FMJ training scenes take place in boot camp and as I said boot camp is separate for men and women so I have no idea what they do. When I was in some their fitness standards were lower than ours in the physical and combat fitness tests that we did the same but I don't know how that's changed since I've been out. As far as competing against men then it depends what it is. A couple women in my company were always at or near the top when it came to the rifle range and run times and one could max out the male PFT pull ups and all. Were they weaker than men in general? Yes, of course they were as the average man is stronger than the average woman

 

In Iraq it didn't really matter as everybody does their job, whatever it is, at the risk of their life because there were no safe spaces... hell even the small church on post took IDF more than once. Combat roles were not open to women at the time but that did not mean that they never saw combat or were out of danger

[HoonDing]

"It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zkPqg-75g

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Edit: And I doubt you have imagination enough to understand what kind of meat grinder you'd be sending them into.

And I'm sure you know everything there is to know about war and that 'meat grinder'...

 

I drew that conclusion from the cavalier attitude towards it Hurlshot was displaying. I read a lot about it although obviously that's not the same as experiencing it for yourself.

 

 

Sorry, it's just that men are natural cavaliers.

 

[Meshugger]

"It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zkPqg-75g

 

[Hurlshort]

 

A question for WoD - why is it a man's duty to fight and die while the woman stay aside from antiqued gender roles? Why it it better for a child to lose a father, or fathers because gay couples having kids is a thing, than to loose a mother or mothers? Why shouldn't woman fight besides sexist drivel?

 

Oh, wait, it's because you're clinging to that drivel for dear life.

 

It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war.

 

There exceptions to the norm as you pointed out, but that's another story.

 

 

Historically, women have dealt with different trauma than men.  Going off to war is one thing, carrying a child for 9 months and then raising it in an age when infant mortality was incredibly high is another thing entirely.  Men may have a physical edge through history, but women have it mentally.  Maybe women should handle only command roles, while men do the grunt work.      

Edited December 2, 2016 by Hurlshot

[imaenoon]

This thread is the perfect example that a Trump presidency isn't the end of society. Look, the election was less than a month ago and we're already on to arguing about flag burning and women's draft. Oh, don't get me wrong, we'll be arguing about some of Trump's policies soon enough and, I'm telling you now, some of his supporters will be unhappy with things the guy does and some of his detractors will be pretending they're unhappy with some of the things he does. At least we're not cooking rats and the family pet like the poor bastards down in Venezuela. That's what hard core lurches to quasi socialist government nationalizing everything it can get in its clutches.

[Raithe]

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

A question for WoD - why is it a man's duty to fight and die while the woman stay aside from antiqued gender roles? Why it it better for a child to lose a father, or fathers because gay couples having kids is a thing, than to loose a mother or mothers? Why shouldn't woman fight besides sexist drivel?

 

Oh, wait, it's because you're clinging to that drivel for dear life.

 

It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war.

 

 

Spoken like someone who hadn't had a biology class since high school.

[Meshugger]

 

 

A question for WoD - why is it a man's duty to fight and die while the woman stay aside from antiqued gender roles? Why it it better for a child to lose a father, or fathers because gay couples having kids is a thing, than to loose a mother or mothers? Why shouldn't woman fight besides sexist drivel?

 

Oh, wait, it's because you're clinging to that drivel for dear life.

 

It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war.

 

There exceptions to the norm as you pointed out, but that's another story.

 

 

Historically, women have dealt with different trauma than men.  Going off to war is one thing, carrying a child for 9 months and then raising it in an age when infant mortality was incredibly high is another thing entirely.  Men may have a physical edge through history, but women have it mentally.  Maybe women should handle only command roles, while men do the grunt work.      

 

 

Women had to deal with different kinds of trauma, i agree, and through history they have learned how to survive at all costs among the carnage brought by men, that's true as well. However, matriarchal civilizations do not emerge organically and i think it is rooted down to the male ego, which in turn stemmed from biology. Men have to dominate, they naturally form hierarchical structures and they compete with each other within those structures while the women pick the respective winners. It's seems to happen in any time of history.

 

The dynamics of these hierarchies are reflected to a certain degree if you look in the environment of a female-dominated workplace and a male dominated one (like 90% of one sex). 

[Meshugger]

 

 

A question for WoD - why is it a man's duty to fight and die while the woman stay aside from antiqued gender roles? Why it it better for a child to lose a father, or fathers because gay couples having kids is a thing, than to loose a mother or mothers? Why shouldn't woman fight besides sexist drivel?

 

Oh, wait, it's because you're clinging to that drivel for dear life.

 

It's rooted down to basic biology. At the most base level, women are birth and life and men are war.

 

 

Spoken like someone who hadn't had a biology class since high school.

 

 

Spoken like a petty woman.

[imaenoon]

In other news, the Wisconsin recount is narrowing the gap between Trump and Clinton. She *is* gaining on him.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/02/first-day-of-wisconsin-recount-nets-hillary-one-vote/

[Hurlshort]

Matriarchal societies, while rare, certainly did exist.  Ghana comes to mind.  Now certainly the fact that men tend to possess more strength has given them the edge when it comes to dominating a society, but the idea that we need to maintain that status quo for the future seems fairly ridiculous.  Next we will be bringing back feudalism.  

[Guard Dog]

 

 

snip

So the 1-2 women in your deployment  didnt do the same physical training you did which I would expect ? The reason I ask is in movies like Full Metal Jacket you see this, IMO, really rigorous basic training that marines are subjected to and I am genuinely wondering if a women would be able to compete at the same level as men? 4

 

Let me ask the question a  different way. When you were in Iraq were the women doing the same job as you as direct deployment  or did they do other jobs like signals, medical, transport , intelligence etc. 

From what I recall (I've never seen the movie proper just clips here and there) the FMJ training scenes take place in boot camp and as I said boot camp is separate for men and women so I have no idea what they do. When I was in some their fitness standards were lower than ours in the physical and combat fitness tests that we did the same but I don't know how that's changed since I've been out. As far as competing against men then it depends what it is. A couple women in my company were always at or near the top when it came to the rifle range and run times and one could max out the male PFT pull ups and all. Were they weaker than men in general? Yes, of course they were as the average man is stronger than the average woman

 

In Iraq it didn't really matter as everybody does their job, whatever it is, at the risk of their life because there were no safe spaces... hell even the small church on post took IDF more than once. Combat roles were not open to women at the time but that did not mean that they never saw combat or were out of danger

 

From my own experience I found than there were a few women who were really good marines, a few who were not worth a s--t and the rest were somewhere in between. Just like the men.