Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 55 of 55

Thread: House drops plans to make women register for draft

  1. #51
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    To be fair, the sponsor of HR 4478 (Draft America's Daughters Act), Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA) did not intend for the bill to pass out of the Committee and voted against his own Amendment. It was political theater ... Intended for consumption but not enactment.
    Note to Duncan.....File that one under the heading: Be careful what you ask for!

    Rainmaker can't click on the link.

    You see Commander, 'POLITICO' has been on my boycott list ever since it was revealed, in the Podesta emails, that their chief White house correspondent (GLENN THRUSH) was sending all of his articles to the Clinton Campaign (for their approval prior to publication).

    Because, as everyone outside the beltway knows, the legacy (mainstream) media is the real "fake news"
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-03-2016 at 04:52 AM.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post

    What would be the harm in drafting females to fill administrative, finance, maintenance and other support roles to allow the males to be steered to Combat Arms?
    #1 It would be very disruptive. For instance, What % of female draftees, (that don't want to be in the service) do you reckon would get pregnant or turn up lame?

    #2 There'd be no real purpose because The Millennial generation is plenty large, and if they needed more men they could always expand the age range.

    #3 There'd likely be a serious backlash (in fly-over country) to conscripting their teenage daughters, while 27 year old men stayed home.

    Look, in-spite of the Mainstream media lies..... Nobody really much cares about 'female empowerment' or 'gender equality'.

    A key component of planning is that you want to reduce risks (where possible). So, We shouldn't risk a National/Cultural disaster just to pacify a few greasy-haired lesbians.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-03-2016 at 04:56 AM.

  3. #53
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    #1 It would be very disruptive. For instance, What % of female draftees, (that don't want to in the service) do you reckon would get pregnant or turn up lame?
    Not sure, undoubtedly there would be some. Along with males who suddenly are conscientious objectors or equally 'lame' and unfit for Combat Arms. 25 years ago when I first enlisted, I would have completely agreed based on my own outlook on the issue and what I served of my peers, today's 18-21 year olds are generally much more willing / accepting of a female as a peer. A female in Combat Arms may not be normal, my experience in both regular infantry and Reconnaissance (USMC Special Operations) is that it would be more of a disruption in regular line units vice selective units where GTs and maturity are higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    #2 There'd be no real purpose because The Millennial is plenty large, and if they needed more men they could always expand the age range.
    We already recruit and retain females in those states roles, is part of your argument that we should not recruit them at all? If you are convinced that only males are fit for combat roles, why not conscript females to fill jobs that would free more of the 'fighters' to fight?

    IMO, if we got into a fight so bad that we did reinstate the draft, we would need a shit ton of people, front line troops do the fighting, but without the support personnel that fight will only go so long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    #3 There'd likely be a serious backlash (in fly-over country) to conscripting their teenage daughters, while 27 year old men stayed home.
    I think there would be a serious backlash almost everywhere just by reinstating the draft; we are too accustomed to a very small demographic of society filling our military. It is not lost on me that the majority if feminists who want Combat Arms open to females don't want to do that work themselves (along the lines of fighting for gender equality in law firms and hospitals are not so interested that 98% of folks that work public sanitation are male.

    /tangent going back 2 decades when Shannon Faulkner fought in court for 2 years to gain admission to the Citadel she won a huge victory for equality, then surrendered a lot of her ground when she reported to school overweight and out of shape and voluntarily withdrew less than 72 hours into the indoctrination.

    Females have a fairly good opportunity for success/promotion along side their male peers. I don't expect to see a female Commandant of the Marine Corps or Army until you have a female go into Combat Arms and work up through company, Battalion, Regiment, Division and MEF command (possibly a similar route in aviation), but very unlikely to come from the Service Support Group ranks. More likely to see a female Chief of Naval Operaions or Air Force Chief of Staff since the types of jobs that set an officer up to take that role have been open to females for some time. Bottom line: If the best person is white, black, male or female it doesn't matter what their demographic is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Look, in-spite of the Mainstream media lies..... Nobody really much cares about 'female empowerment' or 'gender equality'.
    Female empowerment, concur. On equality ... More and more are caring and the issue is important. I am all about providing the equal opportunity ... I can't provide equal outcomes, that is on the individual. We can and should ensure equal opportunity for success, and the Navy learned a hard lesson in trying to ensure/rush equal outcomes that got a female F14 pilot killed and lost an aircraft when they winged her despite substandard performance in carrier landing training. If a service member can do the job (even the hard ones) let them do it, if they can't, regardless of biology they shouldn't be doing it. However, the majority of today's military supports Combat Arms, it seems to make sense to put conscripted females there to pipeline the males into the Combat Arms roles where statistics show the vast majority f the females would not do well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    A key component of planning is that you want to reduce risks (where possible). So, We shouldn't risk a National/Cultural disaster just to pacify a few greasy-haired lesbians.
    I don't see the operation risk in an admin section, finance, IT etc. being majority female? Aim recruits into occupational fields where they are most needed. Most males would get aimed at Combat Arms, females to support. We should not compromise on readiness, but a 4:1 or 5:1 female to male ratio in a unit with no combat role won't impact combat readiness ... If the females fail as conscripted admin clerks then you have an objective data set to back up what is currently a subjective argument and the wind would be suck out of the feminists equality sails without having risked folks in the fighting hole -- that said ... I think it would be hard to fail as an admin clerk more than most of the ones we have now.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #54
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Note to Duncan.....File that one under the heading: Be careful what you ask for!
    He is not well liked by democrats and has more than once been licked by the republicans. He was trying to make a point and it bit him in the ass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Rainmaker can't click on the link.

    You see Commander, 'POLITICO' has been on my boycott list ever since it was revealed, in the Podesta emails, that their chief White house correspondent (GLENN THRUSH) was sending all of his articles to the Clinton Campaign (for their approval prior to publication).

    Because, as everyone outside the beltway knows, the legacy (mainstream) media is the real "fake news"
    POLITICO has some good content, hell, even MSNBC and Fox are good places to start and then actually start digging independently on a topic. But any site is going to have slant in the way the author wants you to go ... Too many people are taking a sole data point / article at face value and not digging on topics, or alternatively just remaining blissfully ignorant.

    Even if you disagree or don't like the site, reading the content can be good; I don't read Russian, Chinese or Iranian news because it is particularly riveting.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post


    POLITICO has some good content, hell, even MSNBC and Fox are good places to start and then actually start digging independently on a topic.
    Internet news is now under attack as "Fake news" by the establishment media. Because, Without it, Hillary would have been President.

    Now, You don't have to be PSYOP expert to recognize what's going on.

    MSM lost their monopoly on public information, so now they're tarring all sorts of sites (without any actual proof) as being "used by the Russians to spread propaganda".

    Left unchecked there's a potential to abuse counter measures to try and shut down any political opposition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    But any site is going to have slant in the way the author wants you to go ...
    Media slanting left or right is one thing...... But, when 95% of the corporate media was outright colluding with the DNC to nominate and elect a candidate, then "the news" is no longer "the news".

    So, one of the first things that needs to be addressed is the subversion going on between these leftist-funded political groups and the dual-citizen traitor's media empire.

    These corporate owners and advertisers are going to have to be taken on and busted up, Teddy Roosevelt style!


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Even if you disagree or don't like the site, reading the content can be good; I don't read Russian, Chinese or Iranian news because it is particularly riveting.
    Russia's always a threat. & General Flynn took a lot of heat for going on RT........

    But, RT is really no more of a propaganda outlet than CNN, ABC, NPR, NBC, CBS, Wapo ,NYT, Huffpost and most of the others spewing unverified BS or ramming biased prog opinion down our throats 24-7
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-05-2016 at 02:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •