• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Scrap the Selective Service?

Cyc

Cyc

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 11, 2000
Messages
11,370
Location
Canada
I was wondering, since it's sex discrimination, whether the Selective Service should either be expanded, to include all citizens at the age of 18, or scrapped altogether, since the idea of conscription is a major human rights issue, and I can't realistically see it being used again.

Are any of the candidates campaigning on this issue?
 
As far as I know its a non-issue.

It is bullshit that males have to submit to selective service and females don't in an age where the goal seems to be sexual equality. However, barring some really extreme circumstances I don't see the US drafting for the army ever again so its only a contradiction in principals at this point.
 
Care said:
As far as I know its a non-issue.

It is bullshit that males have to submit to selective service and females don't in an age where the goal seems to be sexual equality. However, barring some really extreme circumstances I don't see the US drafting for the army ever again so its only a contradiction in principals at this point.
Click to expand...

Im not so sure history tells us that there will be another major war and its been awhile since the last one so you know...
 
Well there is no fucking way im going to join the military regardless of if they draft me.
 
These days, I think it's just a way to make us all look like Good Americans, because--whether it's ever used or not--Good Americans will put Cincinnatus to shame when it comes to trading their iPads and cappucinos for a rifle that will be utterly useless against MIRVs, but which will result in the valiant deaths expected of Good Americans. The U.S. military could shrink to the clerk's office at Wright-Patterson without putting a dent in Selective Service--count on it.
 
The exclusion of women from the draft really makes no sense before. The logic used to be that, whereas women were excluded from combat and the point of the draft was to raise combat units, there was no point in drafting women. These days, however, something like 5/6 of the military are not in combat roles, so there'd be plenty of work that women could do in the military in the event of a major crisis.
 
Wouldn't being rigid and unquestioning make one a fragment definition of "unintelligent"?
I support the lives of people who throw themselves in the battlefield for an ideology that I too support (freedom, etc) and wouldn't ever speak ill of them. But being in the lower faculty of military isn't exactly a thinking mans position. Skills acquired on the battlefield don't easily translate to peaceful society, there's no Charlies in the tree to 'get' or 'retreat' from.

The exclusion of women from the draft really makes no sense
Click to expand...
Do you know the cost difference of a womb and a penis? Losing massive wombs is an astronomical cost to society, especially draft ages.
 
Sorry but there is nothing noble about being in the military. If we were being threatened by a foreign aggressor I would show some respect to people willing to defend us, but that has not been the case in my lifetime. The fact that you people are given jobs with zero qualifications and are being paid by my tax dollars to do things I don't agree with pisses me off to no end so spare me your self righteous bullshit. How about you show some respect for people that actually produce things in order to prop up all the ridiculously expensive shit the military does.
 
Haha if you want to be spared self-righteous bull shit you're going to have to stop the silly humanitarian act and look at who actually gets into the military and the reasons why. Poverty stricken, uneducated (despite what the capitalism motto says it too needs the uneducated and readily produces them) gangs (result of uneducated/poverty) the over saturated national spirit (which doesn't inclusively belong to capital), the color ratio (capital division), etc.

And actually you're wielding a double edged sword, you don't support what they do, but hail capitalism and benefit from their work with control of resources. Which in my mind is the worst aspect of what you said, and hell, I'm a communist you're supposed to be a capitalist here, don't be ambiguous embrace capitalism! Whether or not you like it or find it self-righteous you would be a hell of a lot poorer than what you are now if not for the long and arduous task of keeping our 'geographical dominance' planned out since '43 in our grasp.
 
Shrooms00087 said:
Haha if you want to be spared self-righteous bull shit you're going to have to stop the silly humanitarian act and look at who actually gets into the military and the reasons why. Poverty stricken, uneducated (despite what the capitalism motto says it too needs the uneducated and readily produces them) gangs (result of uneducated/poverty) the over saturated national spirit (which doesn't inclusively belong to capital), the color ratio (capital division), etc.

And actually you're wielding a double edged sword, you don't support what they do, but hail capitalism and benefit from their work with control of resources. Which in my mind is the worst aspect of what you said, and hell, I'm a communist you're supposed to be a capitalist here, don't be ambiguous embrace capitalism! Whether or not you like it or find it self-righteous you would be a hell of a lot poorer than what you are now if not for the long and arduous task of keeping our 'geographical dominance' planned out since '43 in our grasp.
Click to expand...

You must have me confused with someone else, I do not hail capitalism.

With the recent trend of globalization we really don't need militarily superiority to assert dominance over peripheral states. We certainly don't need to hand out huge contracts to private companies so they can profit off of our involvement in foreign counties. I am confident we could find a better way to spend the money we have invested into the military that would be more of a benefit to the American people.
 
I stand corrected, but maybe they will find a cure. It's been 261 years I'm all for probable odds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top