I see a broader definition of "war".
They stronger party often uses less than it could.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Should Be Eligible For Or Exempt From The Draft?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
They stronger party often uses less than it could.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
There hasn't been a real war since the big bombs dropped. It's just been a pensive standoff, with no major moves in the bigger international chess game
In the news...
Conservatives riled up over registering women for draft - Roll Call
Excerpted...
onservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate National Defense Authorization Act that would require women to register for the draft, and two defense hawks opposed the Pentagon bill in the Armed Services Committee over the issue.
The Senate’s NDAA, which the committee approved on July 21, contains an amendment by the panel's chairman, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, that would require women to sign up with Selective Service, just as men do between the ages of 18 and 25. If enacted, women could be drafted into military service in the event of a national emergency, though there is no prospect of that on the horizon, and no American has been drafted in nearly half a century.
If the bill became law in its present form, women would have to start registering one year after enactment of the NDAA, a knowledgeable Senate aide told CQ Roll Call.
But while most of the committee's Republicans voted for the amendment, five voted no, senators and aides disclosed. And two of them, who normally are strong advocates for supporting the military — Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri — voted against the Pentagon authorization bill because of their concerns about the draft issue, their aides revealed Friday.
Meanwhile, a bicameral group of liberal and conservative lawmakers, in a letter Friday to House Armed Services leaders, called for an end to the Selective Service system itself, which the members called "expensive, wasteful, outdated, punitive, and unnecessary." The letter came from Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Reps. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore. and Rodney Davis, R-Ill.
Conservatives riled up over registering women for draft - Roll Call
Excerpted...
onservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate National Defense Authorization Act that would require women to register for the draft, and two defense hawks opposed the Pentagon bill in the Armed Services Committee over the issue.
The Senate’s NDAA, which the committee approved on July 21, contains an amendment by the panel's chairman, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, that would require women to sign up with Selective Service, just as men do between the ages of 18 and 25. If enacted, women could be drafted into military service in the event of a national emergency, though there is no prospect of that on the horizon, and no American has been drafted in nearly half a century.
If the bill became law in its present form, women would have to start registering one year after enactment of the NDAA, a knowledgeable Senate aide told CQ Roll Call.
But while most of the committee's Republicans voted for the amendment, five voted no, senators and aides disclosed. And two of them, who normally are strong advocates for supporting the military — Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri — voted against the Pentagon authorization bill because of their concerns about the draft issue, their aides revealed Friday.
Meanwhile, a bicameral group of liberal and conservative lawmakers, in a letter Friday to House Armed Services leaders, called for an end to the Selective Service system itself, which the members called "expensive, wasteful, outdated, punitive, and unnecessary." The letter came from Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Reps. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore. and Rodney Davis, R-Ill.
In the news....
Democrats Tuck Female Draft Into Defense Bill - Washington Free Beacon
A Senate panel just took a step closer to requiring women to register for the US military draft
Senate Defense Bill Would Require Women to Register for the Draft
No longer just the Republican Party waging a "war on women", eh.
Questions:
1) Will feminists see this as a general issue of liberty for all,
or strictly thru the lens of women being possibly compelled
to serve against their will?
2) Should be exempt if pregnant or with children?
3) Should men be exempt if with children?
4) Should trans men & women continue being exempted?
5) Should clergy be subject to the draft too?
6) Should student deferments be reactivated?
Democrats Tuck Female Draft Into Defense Bill - Washington Free Beacon
A Senate panel just took a step closer to requiring women to register for the US military draft
Senate Defense Bill Would Require Women to Register for the Draft
No longer just the Republican Party waging a "war on women", eh.
Questions:
1) Will feminists see this as a general issue of liberty for all,
or strictly thru the lens of women being possibly compelled
to serve against their will?
2) Should be exempt if pregnant or with children?
3) Should men be exempt if with children?
4) Should trans men & women continue being exempted?
5) Should clergy be subject to the draft too?
6) Should student deferments be reactivated?
Last edited:
Soon, the whole world will look like the scenes of our future as told in The Terminator.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Russian Citizens Are Now Being Prepped for Nuclear War
Somewhat alarming
To answer your original thread, question, I thought an appropriate answer might be no one under 25. Or I wonder if that would be supported by those who believe, or have proved, that the human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. Therefore, I would assume that anyone 25 and older would have maximal trigger discipline, which seems to be what is needed, especially when they seem to be carting around bigger and bigger stuff
You got dat right.
Younger people are easier prey for government....
- Less likely to be entrenched in a career.
- Less likely to have started a family.
- Easier to mold into a killing machine.
- Less expectation of compensation.
- Less expectation of civil liberties.
- Less politically influential.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
I don't think anyone should be drafted, but I will answer.
Yes, since folks like Quakers are pacifists.
I don't think both parents should be drafted. One parent should be present with kids. Single parents should be exempt.
Pay should be better. We have military members on welfare and that's just wrong.
Differently abled people can have non combat jobs that they are able to.
But those are my answers based on if people have to be drafted, which I disagree with.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
I can see temporary measures, but they often don't end up being temporary. If we had a say in where taxes went I think people wouldn't be so against them. Any pet project, no matter how ridiculous, gets put in with practical things, like infrastructure. I don't like that. I want to be able to do what actually works instead of doing it to help out a politician's buddy or something similar.
I wonder....
Some military jobs are much better & safer than others.
I've known guys with these jobs...
- Chauffer
- Tennis pro <--- In Vietnam of all places!
- Soldier
- Special forces
Is it fair that some are assigned kill or be killed
jobs, while others have safe cushy jobs?
Because We The People (being the citizenry), in Congress Assembled (our duly elected representatives) have decided through the legislative process to include that as one of the required duties of citizenship.
Is that a good policy, or a bad policy?
Personally, I think it is a bad policy, but then, I think much of what has been passed as law is bad policy...along with poor implementation. Personally, I've in favor of a change in policy...
but so far, attempts to change it haven't worked...
There's law, and there's justice. The two aren't always compatible.
Laws are often made by rich, powerful people, to further their own interests, at the expense of The People.
There's nothing stopping congress from resuming slavery, but I wouldn't call that just.
Laws are often made by rich, powerful people, to further their own interests, at the expense of The People.
There's nothing stopping congress from resuming slavery, but I wouldn't call that just.
There's also the problem that the draft is clearly
prohibited by the 13th Amendment. And the 14th
Amendment specifically prohibits the discrimination
that's inherent in the system.
But the justices ignore the Constitution when they
feel the need. They can always construct some
complex tendentious legal rationale for whatever
they desire.
As I said, bad policy and poor implementation...and so far, efforts legislative and judicial have not resolved those issues...
Law is a man-made construct, and is easily changed if it becomes inconvenient. Consider the 21st amendment: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
The formal amendment process is not a quick or easy thing.
Also, opposition to slavery is more unified these days.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And the irony is that surveys have shown that most people who consider themselves to be Republican favor pretty much all of the measures of the BBB proposal.