Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Would you allow women to be exempt from such dafting?

Absolutely not.

Audie wrote:A couple of things. You start out apparently supporting imperialist wars.

I support drafting women, but not necessarily for imperialist wars.

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence about imperialism. The humanist in me knows that it's evil and wrong to subjugate other nations to ensure that we enjoy safety and a high standard of living. That kind of behavior flies in the face of our national mythology - we're supposed to be the good guys, but frequently we're not. On the other hand, the pragmatist in me suspects that if it's not realpolitik then it's just [nonsense] wishful thinking. From that perspective the world is a hard place, we have what we have because we're not squeamish about taking it, and at the end of the day might makes right and always has.

So yeah, I'm conflicted.

Audie wrote:Then its more like national service? Not sure..?

Nope, it's a period of mandatory military service for everybody, starting when they turn 18 and/or graduate from high school. Or something like that. It's not real so I'm not going to think much about the details.

Audie wrote:Putting everyone in the army doesnt seem like the way to reduce "defense" spending. Or avoid military adventures.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now less than 5% of Americans has done any time in the military (or so I hear - the number might not be exact, but anyway it's a very small portion of the total population). That means that the last 15 years of war were real, visceral, day-to-day reality for what, 10% of us, tops? For everyone else it's TV. We can all agree that it's serious, but let's face facts here - strangers fighting 10,000 miles from here don't hold our attention like a deadline at work, a sick kid, or a hundred other things that are in our faces every day.

Now imagine if literally everybody either had served, was serving, or had at least one close friend or relative on active duty. Think about how much more attention we'd be paying to the details. Think the VA system would still be broken if it impacted 95% of us rather than 5%? Think politicians would be as quick to use violence rather than diplomacy if all of their grandkids were on the firing line?

Well, maybe, but hopefully not.

Wars have been fought since the beginning of time. For power / greed / whatever. But we need to have Some respect for women -- women bear our children. Men can't do that. And there Is a place For women who Want to go into the military. But Not into combat. Let the Men do That.

I have a granddaughter who's just enlisted in the Navy. For Her, the discipline will be Good. She's a smart young lady. Needs a good , fresh start. But NO combat, please. Let the Men do that. And then let those men be Single.

So many kids have Dads and some have Both parents in the military and the grandparents raise the kids. That's just not right. Kids need the stability of Dads in a safe environment / Out of the war zone.

Five of my grandkids went from getting letters to having some Skype visits from their Dad. Kids need to get hugs from those Dads. It's very hard on those kids.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Would you allow women to be exempt from such dafting?

Absolutely not.

Why absolutely not?

I wouldn't want women fighting wars, unless absolutely necessary.
Women and children I feel are to be protected, not protectors.
Society wants to rip that quite natural role away from men.

BUT, should a woman desire to serve, then that's their own adult decision.
I have no problem with that. Forcing women to be drafted, I feel is a violation against women.
Even if our politically correct societies prefer to make no gender distinctions despite the obvious.

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Would you allow women to be exempt from such dafting?

Absolutely not.

Why absolutely not?

I answered that already.

Kurieuo wrote:I wouldn't want women fighting wars, unless absolutely necessary.
Women and children I feel are to be protected, not protectors.
Society wants to rip that quite natural role away from men.

Lumping women and children into the same category is condescending, and whether a woman is the protector or the protected is completely situational. Nobody is ripping anything away. Society is all of us, and views are changing. It's been moving in that direction since Rosie the Riveter. The Women's Liberation movement was 40 years ago, for god's sake. How long is it going to take conservatives to adjust?

Kurieuo wrote:BUT, should a woman desire to serve, then that's their own adult decision.
I have no problem with that. Forcing women to be drafted, I feel is a violation against women.
Even if our politically correct societies prefer to make no gender distinctions despite the obvious.

Seems to me that having the decision made by men - and whichever way it goes that's what's going to happen - is a violation against women, but such is life. Perhaps there should be a national referendum in which only women get to vote.

Kurieuo wrote:Even if our politically correct societies prefer to make no gender distinctions despite the obvious.

Gender distinctions obviously exist. What you're talking about is gender roles - the man is the protector and provider, the woman's job is to raise the kids, and so on and so forth. That was all well and good when the US was an agrarian society, farmer and housewife were both grueling, full time jobs, and the division of labor was enforced by the fact that women weren't strong enough to do all the farm work and men couldn't nurse the babies. These days - take a breath, this is gonna hurt - things are different. Today a woman can plow a field as well as a man because the tractor is doing all the work. Anybody can give a baby a bottle of formula, so who (if anyone) stays home with the kids is decided based on salary and benefits, not gender.

Besides all that, combat has changed. Putting women in hand-to-hand combat against big, strong with swords and axes would have been crazy, but that's not how the military works anymore. Most military jobs don't involve combat at all. For those that do, intelligence, awareness, and training tend to matter more than brute strength. Flying a helicopter, driving a tank, and reading the radar screen on a destroyer are all combat positions, but none of them have strength as the primary requirement. Even the in the infantry strength is mostly about marching a long way with a heavy pack. The fact is the Army is mostly mechanized and they don't wear 100 pound backpacks into battle. Actual combat is rarely hand to hand, and firing an M-4 at an enemy soldier is more about body positioning and mechanics than strength.

Besides all of that, there's the reality that women have been in combat in the Middle East for years. Often it wasn't deliberate, but that's beside the point. They were shot at and they shot back. Some of them killed people. Others were killed. Apparently they can handle it.

The United States isn't the Middle East.

I'm old school --women should be 'at home' and the men go out to battle.

No Crochet, Ed wants to force his values onto you that women are just as good for war as men. You ought to be drafted too if men are.

crochet1949 wrote:The United States isn't the Middle East.

I'm old school --women should be 'at home' and the men go out to battle.

So it makes no difference that some women are better suited to go into battle than some men?

Kurieuo wrote:No Crochet, Ed wants to force his values onto you that women are just as good for war as men. You ought to be drafted too if men are.

Huh? Last I looked I was just stating my opinion. I'm surprised at you, K. You're usually better than that.

You also seem to have completely missed my point, which is that universal, mandatory military service might be a good way to increase involvement in our democratic process and lead to a more closely supervised, more effective government that better represents our interests. If we all had more skin in the game we might not be at war literally all the time.

I'm also not suggesting that standards should be relaxed, or training modified in any way. That means that women would only be doing jobs that they were physically qualified to do. Seems like you missed that part, too.

Mandatory service..what will it actualoy accomplixh?

For sure increase the enormous mikitsry budget.

For sure, takd people out of productive pursuits. We are talking millions of years
worth of work suntracted from production anc put onto the deficit.

Audie wrote:Mandatory service..what will it actualoy accomplixh?

For sure increase the enormous mikitsry budget.

For sure, takd people out of productive pursuits. We are talking millions of years
worth of work suntracted from production anc put onto the deficit.

It could be like that, sure, but it wouldn't have to be.

Who's to say, for example, that the military couldn't be put to work on domestic projects? It worked for the Romans.

edwardmurphy wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:The United States isn't the Middle East.

I'm old school --women should be 'at home' and the men go out to battle.

So it makes no difference that some women are better suited to go into battle than some men?

Kurieuo wrote:No Crochet, Ed wants to force his values onto you that women are just as good for war as men. You ought to be drafted too if men are.

Huh? Last I looked I was just stating my opinion. I'm surprised at you, K. You're usually better than that.

You also seem to have completely missed my point, which is that universal, mandatory military service might be a good way to increase involvement in our democratic process and lead to a more closely supervised, more effective government that better represents our interests. If we all had more skin in the game we might not be at war literally all the time.

I'm also not suggesting that standards should be relaxed, or training modified in any way. That means that women would only be doing jobs that they were physically qualified to do. Seems like you missed that part, too.

I don't think he missed your point, Ed, but I do think you dismissed his.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Audie wrote:Mandatory service..what will it actualoy accomplixh?

For sure increase the enormous mikitsry budget.

For sure, takd people out of productive pursuits. We are talking millions of years
worth of work suntracted from production anc put onto the deficit.

It could be like that, sure, but it wouldn't have to be.

Who's to say, for example, that the military couldn't be put to work on domestic projects? It worked for the Romans.

The new Great Wall, directed by Trumpus maximus.

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think he missed your point, Ed, but I do think you dismissed his.

That I did, but not out of hand. I read what he said and responded to it.

Audie wrote:The new Great Wall, directed by Trumpus maximus.

I was thinking more of roads, dams, bridges, and the like, actually. FDR implemented something not completely different during the Depression and it worked out pretty well.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical, none of it's likely to happen, and I'm done arguing about it. You all can feel free to think it's a terrible idea for your own various reasons.

edwardmurphy wrote:That I did, but not out of hand.

Not out of hand. On a false premise.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think he missed your point, Ed, but I do think you dismissed his.

That I did, but not out of hand. I read what he said and responded to it.

Audie wrote:The new Great Wall, directed by Trumpus maximus.

I was thinking more of roads, dams, bridges, and the like, actually. FDR implemented something not completely different during the Depression and it worked out pretty well.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical, none of it's likely to happen, and I'm done arguing about it. You all can feel free to think it's a terrible idea for your own various reasons.

How about an argument over vegetsrianism then?

Audie wrote:How about an argument over vegetsrianism then?

I'm aware that vegetarianism is the responsible choice, but I just can't bring myself to eat a veggie burger.