right on

There shouldn't be a draft.

However, it seems to loom in our near future, so my reluctant opinion:
Of course women and men should be drafted equally. Women are not weaker in body or in mind then men. We are not more emotional- we may be prone to show more emotion, but that's a good release. We strained for our freedom, and now we have to stick true to it.

More sterotyping here people.
Once again, men have more muscle mass, but women are able to equal men in strengh (and considering that we can do that with less muscle mass and a smaller size that would make women stronger than men in ratio to size). As for emotions, the military does enough brainwashing to take care of that. Plenty of men cry too, by the way.

You can't have it both ways. If you say women should be allowed to be drafted then they can't choose whether they will go or not. Men don't have that choice and they are fathers. What is a father not important to a child. Also back in the old days when men went off to war who do you think took care of the family and house. Women did they hunted, grew and picked vegetables, and took care of the children. To say that women could not handle combat is ignorant and false. Any women in her right mind that wants to protect her country and also her family's future can kill if it comes down to it. Personally I don't want to be drafted, but there are plenty of women who do and can fight just as well as any man.

I think women should be able to choose whether they are drafted or not...i know that kind of erases the real meaning of the draft, but most women are mothers and they can't just leave their children.

I am planning to join the Army ROTC in college, but I will be on Reserve, because I want to pursue a career.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cherrycokebt:
Men are built stronger, and more hunter or soilder like, not only in physical ways, but also emotionally. Women are more likely to see a puppy and go "awwww" while men just glance away. We are biult differently, so i like the way the government has it set up now. Women arent allowed in actual combat, because of the unfit way we are built. but for those women who do want to serve their contry, they can. we do have freedoms! but, this is the way it has to be so that our army doesnt fall apart because of some woman crying at the site of dead bodies.

---

thats y they can. if they want to, they can join. and i guess most men r built solidly and emotionly, but some r like babbies. almost like me for instance....not realy a baby but i do get emotional sometimes....which u may have noticed by now. if a guy gets dumped....yeah he is probably going to feel like **** for a while. and if he doesnt....ship him out to war in a sec! yeah...well im out

Men are built stronger, and more hunter or soilder like, not only in physical ways, but also emotionally. Women are more likely to see a puppy and go "awwww" while men just glance away. We are biult differently, so i like the way the government has it set up now. Women arent allowed in actual combat, because of the unfit way we are built. but for those women who do want to serve their contry, they can. we do have freedoms! but, this is the way it has to be so that our army doesnt fall apart because of some woman crying at the site of dead bodies.

To Dr. Strangelove.

I was not really discussing the point of whether the draft should be taken away or not. I was stating that I feel it is unfair that lets say you vote to re-instate the draft and I vote not to, but three months later my birthday comes up and yours doesn't. Don't you think that if your going to be bold enough to state your opinion in such a public way, the way being voting, that you as the American in favor of it should be the one to act on it. Your saying that you think that it is ok to put the draft into effect, that's fine, I completely understand the standpoint on that. I just hope you will be in the front of the line to sign up. "I vote in favor of the draft, just don’t make me go." Isn't just a little, well, selfish.
In a way my not wanting to fight at all is selfish as well, but at least I don’t want to send someone like me, someone who doesn’t want to fight, to fight in my stead.
(If you indeed will be standing in the front of the line to sign up to go to war after putting the draft into effect, I disagree with your idea's on the draft, but applaud your willingness to sacrifice your life for what hopefully is a just cause.)

DrStragneLove, save the typing time. I dont want to arue with you anymore. We've different opinions, so we can argue all day long if we can and wont end, thus I just wanted to say: peace

You know, if red would just shut the hell up, my job would be a hell of a lot easier.

Decent answers are on the way. Just not now. I've been away since 5 am, and have to wake up in another 6 hours. Huzzah for work.

quote:

---

we can blow the hell pout of any country and if we are in danger and we haqve a competent leader, no country had better cross the line.

---

Can we really? Then why where we so worried about WMDs? A competent leader? Thats a joke... I hope.

quote:

---

you're telling me to stop thinking im so high and mighty? look at you thinking that you are a better fighter just because you are puerto rican. even though you technically arent.

---

Who are you to say she isnt Puerto Rican? Personally, I think you're un-american, for supporting Bush. And you should step off your high horse, 'coz pretty soon you're going to get bucked off.

quote:

---

impossible there is no country our size. WE ARE THE ONLY SUPERPOWER THER IS NO OTHER. the Russian power dosent exist anymore.

---

If we're such a superpower then why are we afraid to go into North Korea?

Ha. You're just like a man bragging about the size of his... I'll just shut up.

My goodness red dont make me debate this whole thing over again. About the whole women soldier thing: I dont know if anyone has brought this up yet, but since most soldiers from other contries are men, there is a chance of rape. This is usually not an issue with men soldiers. And since most re*****ans wouldnt even let women abort their baby if they got pregnant from a situation like that, I dont think that would be really fair. And if someone did get pregnant, they would have to be sent immeadiately home, right? What if they didnt find out that they were pregnant until they got to war? And what about feminine things like periods? Things like pads are not really readily available in war. And as much I hate to say it it is true that men are naturally stronger than women.

Bushism of the day:
"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers."—Houston,Texas, Sept. 6, 2000

quote:

---

a reason to fight? we had september 11! are you saying we need a wordl class tragedy to go to war every time? bush's job is to keep us safe and protect our lives. saddam had the capabilities he's had them before he's got them in syria or lebanon.

---

the terrorsit werent from Iraq!

quote:

---

we can blow the hell pout of any country and if we are in danger and we haqve a competent leader, no country had better cross the line.

---

me da pena...... nothing lasts forever. youre empire shall fall. all have

quote:

---

yes clinton funded nuclear reactors in north korea. the rest of the world liked us? yes because clinton was just like those EUro "peace loving" leaders.

---

fine. go with Bush and say youre Canadian when you travel

quote:

---

yes it would be stupid at this point. and you're telling me to stop thinking im so high and mighty? look at you thinking that you are a better fighter just because you are puerto rican. even though you technically arent.

---

it we were so bad, you wouldnt have 3 bases here. and i already told you about the quantity of murder, thus yes, we are good at killing.

quote:

---

impossible there is no country our size. WE ARE THE ONLY SUPERPOWER THER IS NO OTHER. the Russian power dosent exist anymore.

---

lol..... anywho im happy youve realized russia cant beat you

quote:

---

we're doing our job.

---

if the U.s. was a highschool student, youd be the one who puts geeks into lockers

"again youre proving my point. Iraq had no WMD, NK did, and BUsh annoyed the whole world with fighting because of the WMDs, so why not show his face and attack NK?"

in actuality you can look to the Bekaa valley, Lebanon. either there or syria.

"wrong. I consider this war stupid not only because it had no reason, but because its an easy war. You go against NK ill respect you all so much."

if it comes to war...we will if we cna through it with out war ok. we did the same with iraq.


"yes it would be because then you had a reason to fight, unlike now."

a reason to fight? we had september 11! are you saying we need a wordl class tragedy to go to war every time? bush's job is to keep us safe and protect our lives. saddam had the capabilities he's had them before he's got them in syria or lebanon.



"stop thinking youre so invincible. you are vincible."

we can blow the hell pout of any country and if we are in danger and we haqve a competent leader, no country had better cross the line.

"oh, and now youre blaming Clinton? When Clinton was in office, the rest of the world liked you."

yes clinton funded nuclear reactors in north korea. the rest of the world liked us? yes because clinton was just like those EUro "peace loving" leaders.

"no, see Im Puerto Rican, which makes me better at fighting. Anywho, of course now that you have a wasted war called Iraq, going to NK would be stupid."

yes it would be stupid at this point. and you're telling me to stop thinking im so high and mighty? look at you thinking that you are a better fighter just because you are puerto rican. even though you technically arent.


"exactly, attack someone your own size."

impossible there is no country our size. WE ARE THE ONLY SUPERPOWER THER IS NO OTHER. the Russian power dosent exist anymore.


"Youre being a bully."

we're doing our job.

quote:

---

Ah, so THAT's the reason we control you. Your ethnicity has nothing to do with protecting you from artillery bombardments and streams of .50 cal.

---

you had 3 military bases here. one was removed because we annoyed you too much and i guess you got tired of us.

quote:

---

Because NK is better dealt with with diplomatic means. Iraq's military weakness makes the military option much less of a last resort. NK is not like this. We're also not ready to attack NK. You need to look at the military situation, not just your over simplified opinion. The Iraq war was extremely clean. A war with NK would result, within the first half hour, with the complete annihilation of the entire city of Seoul. You;d probably have at least 5 times the number of civilians killed in the first hour then the entire civilian death count during the entirity of the current Iraqi war.

The cost, at this point, is simply too high, and not worth the risk. The cons outweigh the pros. What part of that are you not grasping?

---

im not grasping (nor much people are) why did you attack Iraq.

quote:

---

America has never lost a military engagement in the past few decades. Even the bloodiest fighting of Veitnam, the Tet Offensive, was a signifigant victory. The only reason the US has lost, and would lose, against a third world nation, is due to political reasons. We're not invincible, but our military, if unleashed without restriction, is the most devestating force humanity has ever seen.

And the rest of the world liked us, but, to paraphrase TR, rightousness is a better path than ignorant peace.

---

youre are vincible. anyone can be when you dont let anyone else have good arms.

quote:

---

again youre proving my point. Iraq had no WMD, NK did, and BUsh annoyed the whole world with fighting because of the WMDs, so why not show his face and attack NK?

---

Because NK is better dealt with with diplomatic means. Iraq's military weakness makes the military option much less of a last resort. NK is not like this. We're also not ready to attack NK. You need to look at the military situation, not just your over simplified opinion. The Iraq war was extremely clean. A war with NK would result, within the first half hour, with the complete annihilation of the entire city of Seoul. You;d probably have at least 5 times the number of civilians killed in the first hour then the entire civilian death count during the entirity of the current Iraqi war.

The cost, at this point, is simply too high, and not worth the risk. The cons outweigh the pros. What part of that are you not grasping?

quote:

---

wrong. I consider this war stupid not only because it had no reason, but because its an easy war. You go against NK ill respect you all so much.

---

The US does not need the respect of people with no military knowledge. And I still don't get the reason you think WMDs were the ONLY reason. Yes, that was the reason it was sold on, but there were many other reasons, just as worthy.

quote:

---

stop thinking youre so invincible. you are vincible. oh, and now youre blaming Clinton? When Clinton was in office, the rest of the world liked you.

---

America has never lost a military engagement in the past few decades. Even the bloodiest fighting of Veitnam, the Tet Offensive, was a signifigant victory. The only reason the US has lost, and would lose, against a third world nation, is due to political reasons. We're not invincible, but our military, if unleashed without restriction, is the most devestating force humanity has ever seen.

And the rest of the world liked us, but, to paraphrase TR, rightousness is a better path than ignorant peace.

quote:

---

no, see Im Puerto Rican, which makes me better at fighting.

---

Ah, so THAT's the reason we control you. Your ethnicity has nothing to do with protecting you from artillery bombardments and streams of .50 cal.

quote:

---

again that would piut our country into even more danger. especially since we know korea has nuclear capabilities. if we went into north korea, we hae the potential for an all out nuclear war. dont get me wrong the US could blow the heck out of north korea before north korea even has a chance to respond and i really hope it doesnt come to that. the US has an annoying history of not enetring war until we are hit hard. and this time the stakes are raised with the nuclear threat factored in.

---

again youre proving my point. Iraq had no WMD, NK did, and BUsh annoyed the whole world with fighting because of the WMDs, so why not show his face and attack NK?

quote:

---

and yet if we did go into north korea, liberals would be saying that bush is a moron and a horrible idiot fo rleading America into a potential nuclear war.

---

wrong. I consider this war stupid not only because it had no reason, but because its an easy war. You go against NK ill respect you all so much.

quote:

---

less?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! contrary nuclear mushroom clouds dont make war less noticeable.

---

yes it would be because then you had a reason to fight, unlike now.

quote:

---

i dont think so. we could blow the heck out of that country. their country is not united, they have absolutely nothing other than their military. and they wouldnt even had thier WMDs had clinton not funded their nuclear reactors. well another mess he got us into.

---

stop thinking youre so invincible. you are vincible. oh, and now youre blaming Clinton? When Clinton was in office, the rest of the world liked you.

quote:

---

and you probably would have fought bravely and died very quickly. we are not all powerful but war right now would not be at al the best option. if we took decisive action and destroyed all nuclear reacotrs,...no even themn it would be too risky. war is always the last option.

---

no, see Im Puerto Rican, which makes me better at fighting. Anywho, of course now that you have a wasted war called Iraq, going to NK would be stupid.

quote:

---

do you have any idea what kind of blood bath would occur had we rushed into war with north korea? not to mention we might have started an all out nuclear war. where would we be then? liberals would all be cursing bush even more that is if there was any left after all the nuclear fallout that might have happened. we knew that iraq was disoriented we knew from experience in desert storm that saddam's forces were not loyal at all. we had to get them before they did end up like north korea. if we didnt, we might have right now two north koreas and then where would we be?

---

exactly, attack someone your own size. Youre being a bully.

i think NO!!!! here in my country quite a lot women decided to join the army!so now we have them! LOL and if they want 2 be equal! well then they should also get this job as a solider!

"Youre proving my point. Bush has gone about "war against terrorism", so why not strike NK?"

again that would piut our country into even more danger. especially since we know korea has nuclear capabilities. if we went into north korea, we hae the potential for an all out nuclear war. dont get me wrong the US could blow the heck out of north korea before north korea even has a chance to respond and i really hope it doesnt come to that. the US has an annoying history of not enetring war until we are hit hard. and this time the stakes are raised with the nuclear threat factored in.

"Theyre more likely to screw up your country than Iraq. Bush has made himself look like a coward."

and yet if we did go into north korea, liberals would be saying that bush is a moron and a horrible idiot fo rleading America into a potential nuclear war.

"If you fought with NK, youre whole "war on terrorism" crap would at least would be less noticeable."

less?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! contrary nuclear mushroom clouds dont make war less noticeable.

"NK can turn your country upisde down, Iraq may kill a few."


i dont think so. we could blow the heck out of that country. their country is not united, they have absolutely nothing other than their military. and they wouldnt even had thier WMDs had clinton not funded their nuclear reactors. well another mess he got us into.


"If i were President, and I felt desperate and for some unknown reason wanted to attack a country, I'd go for a real threat, like NK."

and you probably would have fought bravely and died very quickly. we are not all powerful but war right now would not be at al the best option. if we took decisive action and destroyed all nuclear reacotrs,...no even themn it would be too risky. war is always the last option.