In this age of reasonable efforts at gender equity, I think that the government would have a great deal of difficulty drafting men only and getting away with it without cases before the Supreme Court. That would be interesting.
I don’t know where they are going to find these soldiers. Didn’t the gov break promises about enlistment bonuses?
Our Tennessee National Guard is ill equipped to take care of things back home. If the New Madrid Earthquake decides it’s time for The Big One, the Guard will have to hitchhike to Memphis (or so the rumor goes).
In 1981 SCOTUS ruled that exempting women from Selective Service registration because the purpose of a draft was to get combat troops and since the military exlcuded women from combat they could exempt them from the draft. But it’s 25 years later, women serve in more roles than ever before. The distinction between combat and non-combat troops in Iraq seems to have become rather academic. Many (if not most) of the roles consripts would be likely to serve can now be filled by women. SCOTUS would definatly have cause to revisit the case. Of course we’re more likely to “win” Iraq then reinstate the draft .
No, it was alleged to be a front in the war on terror. What it’s always been is an almost totally unplanned escapade, sold to the public by way of bullshit, wherein a small group of soldiers were asked to do something impossible.
Thought to be, but probably wasn’t, and it still would have taken Kerry quite some time to increase the actual size of the military. I don’t think reality had much to do with Kerry’s proposal, it was just something that was supposed to sound better than what Bush was doing.
Yay! Maybe now we can get the Equal Rights Amendment passed!
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
That is a lie. An obvious, shamefaced, completely cynical lie the Bush Admin has been trying to sell us for four years. Don’t tell me you’ve bought it! :dubious:
Here’s what the war was really about, in case you were wondering (and it’s not quite the obvious thing).
What i find intriguing: the rotten, corrupt elite that run this country do NOT serve, nor do their children. look at the Congress-how many congressment have children serving in the armed forces? Contrast that with the UK-Prince William just got commissioned at Sandhurst-it speaks reams about the degenerate class that runs this country.
Al-Qaeda? Of course they’ll always be looking for ways to attack us, whether we keep troops in Iraq or not. Maintaining the occupation does not weaken their position, it strengthens it. Every Coalition soldier in Iraq is, willy-nilly, an al-Qaeda recruiter.
They do pay a political price – if they fuck up too badly, they don’t get re-elected. But “fewer”? We have exactly as many politicians as we need – one to fill each elected office, plus a reserve waiting in the wings for their chances and keeping the former on their toes.
That’s not really a godo comparison. The UK royalty does what they do out of obligation or honor, since the country pays millions of pounds a year to keep them in total splendor - and it’s not as if William or Harry is ever going to see combat.
You’re logic is off. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, but we do not have troops there. On the other hand, none of the hijackers were Iraquis and we have lots of troops there. Therefore. having troops in a country prevents hijackers. It’s really simple when you think about it.
I’m of the opinion that if the troops and funding are easily available, the chances of that country getting involved in a war are greater than otherwise. It’s all too tempting for boys to use their toys.
Conversely, to avoid wars, especially non-defensive ones, it would be prudent to minimize the military and make the draft hard to implement.
Yeah, because no one ever siezed one of our embassies and its staff when the military was weakened… 1979 HELLO Tehran… Desert One… Negotiations… Sanctions… 444 days of our people being held hostage… any of this ring a bell?
A crisis which, in case you’ve forgotten, we brought on ourselves by restoring the shah to absolute power in 1953 for our own purposes; which should have taught us some lessons about meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. And a crisis that did not happen because America was military weakened at the time (we could have invaded Iran successfully, I’m sure, but that would have killed the hostages and the end result would have been like Iraq now, only worse), but because the new revolutionary government was one of heedless fanatical religious-national zealots.
All of your arguments in this thread to date are not only misconceived, they are completely irrelevant.
It was siezed because terrorists are terrorists… Did the fact that Carter was unlikely to do anything worthwhile about it enter in to their decision, only they can answer, but, its a good bet. Reagan said (in so many words) that he was gonna bomb the shit out of them untill our people were released and miracle of miracles they were, the day he was inagurated. Some people only respect the judicious use of force and if you are too craven to use it, you can count on it being used against you.
Just like little Billy who gets beat down on the playground because he doesn’t fight back.
.
