Post: #1

Quote:"According to the New York Times, Hagel got an earful. Staff sergeants worried that if women were assigned to combat, the high standards of the Marine Corps would have to be lowered, “family lives would suffer,” and rates of sexual assault and harassment would increase. When Secretary Hagel asked whether it was right to deny the opportunity to a woman who wants to join, a fearless captain replied, “I haven’t met a female Marine who is standing up and shouting, ‘I want to be infantry.’

This must have been a shock, since the 15 Marines speaking to Hagel were not men; they were women. Similar opposition was registered when Military Times recently conducted an online survey asking active-duty female readers whether they would take a land-combat position if it were offered. Only 13 percent of the military women said yes, 9 percent weren’t sure, and a whopping 77 percent said no, they would not take a combat job.

Secretary Hagel and the Obama administration nevertheless are pushing forward with incremental plans to revoke all of women’s combat exemptions by January 2016. Once women are eligible for direct ground combat, federal courts are likely to force women into Selective Service registration and a possible future draft."

More here: http://nationalreview.com/article/358781...e-donnelly


Looks like the ladies have finally found a feminist principle they don't agree with---having to die in combat equally with men. Which is hilarious because because it's hard to imagine them rejecting the myriad other implications of feminism (ie, no-fault divorce, lifetime alimony, abortion, celebrated sluthood, etc).

The ladies may just learn, sooner or later, that choices and political agency don't come without a cost. That, eventually, you always have to pay up.

Pass the popcorn.

Post: #2

The funny thing is, selective service would be more oppressive... you know.. REAL state sanctioned oppression, than all of the fantasies they've been rallying against.

But selective service .... hey... that's what equality feels like.

Post: #3

The women are never used in combat in the front. Every soldier knows that. Only communists in Red Army made exceptions in this principle.

Post: #4

^^^ That man is a former Marine and should be revered by every swinging dick on this forum. I wouldn't be able to walk up to him without breaking down. Many of us answered the call to serve but men like him separated the men from the boys. Semper Fi Ssgt.

Now for female Marines. I talk shit on the forum, but given the state of affairs in the world, I'd rather be in a fighting hole about with a female that had the intestinal fortitude to go through Paris Island. A big majority today of men in America can't find their own balls. Those are the ones that don't serve and get real men killed.

There I said it. Sometimes women piss me off but I'll die for those in blues. Anyone that earns that title does. Look up the lineage. And don't FUCK with my Corps.

Post: #5

(09-22-2013 11:43 AM)Greek kamaki Wrote:  The women are never used in combat in the front. Every soldier knows that. Only communists in Red Army made exceptions in this principle.

Based on what I know about Russa/USSR, most women in combat in the front were nurses and took care of wounded male solders. There were exceptions, of course, but that was the general rule in Russia and later in the USSR. National service has been compulsory for all healthy men, but not for women: 2 years back in the Soviet days, about 1 year now.

In Israel, though, women have to join the army. I don't know if they participate in combat equally with men, though.

Post: #6

(09-22-2013 07:06 AM)randomForest Wrote:  Pass the popcorn.

Post: #7

Have a draft, but eliminate all of the loop holes. However give people the option to not go in. The only exception is, they lose their rights as citizens.

They basically become green card holders but cannot vote, own guns, etc. Hell, they should be able to be deported if the situation calls for it.

If a non US citizen gets drafted, then give them the option to become a full US citizen.

I'd serve if the opportunity called for it. I'd be scared shit less and it would 100% change the individual i am.

Post: #8

(09-22-2013 03:42 PM)frenchie Wrote:  Have a draft, but eliminate all of the loop holes. However give people the option to not go in. The only exception is, they lose their rights as citizens.

They basically become green card holders but cannot vote, own guns, etc. Hell, they should be able to be deported if the situation calls for it.

If a non US citizen gets drafted, then give them the option to become a full US citizen.

I'd serve if the opportunity called for it. I'd be scared shit less and it would 100% change the individual i am.

Read Starship Troopers. Not the movie, read the book. Serving in the military was the ONLY way you could get to be a citizen and be allowed to vote. It is a heroically red pill story. A great read.

Post: #9

^The citizenship approach would be great if holding a US citizenship actually had any substantial benefits - the US recently upped the fee to renounce your citizenship, and may further not even allow you to do so until you repay your debts. Citizenship is a tax trap.

That said, I think one option would be to up the taxes on people who dont serve.

Post: #10

(09-30-2014 04:00 PM)se7en Wrote:  ^The citizenship approach would be great if holding a US citizenship actually had any substantial benefits - the US recently upped the fee to renounce your citizenship, and may further not even allow you to do so until you repay your debts. Citizenship is a tax trap.

That said, I think one option would be to up the taxes on people who dont serve.

This would be a good set up.

In fact, the US could have a program where you can have you debt eliminated if you renounce your citizenship. Tax them a lot higher than regular citizens.

Then, when a war starts draft all of the non citizens and offer them citizenship for serving.

Either way, i'd like to avoid war.