Susan's Place Transgender Resources

They Just Keep Lowering The Standards More And More To Get Recruits
by: Autumn Sandeen
Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:00:00 AM EST

http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=83BC83986E827B168AE5148AD75BACF7?diaryId=8916 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=83BC83986E827B168AE5148AD75BACF7?diaryId=8916)

First the U.S. Army was allowing more people with felony convictions "moral waivers" to join the ranks, now the Army is allowing more significantly overweight people to join. From the Christian Science Monitor:

The waistlines of America's youth are expanding, shrinking the pool of those eligible to join the US military. But an Army program is giving overweight enlistees a second chance - and helping the military with its own expansion.

Oh, the Army, I thought you were talking about 'the gays."

Except with the draft during the Vietnam War, the Army drafted or accepted overweight men. They, along with the other forces who accepted overweight enlistees, just put them in special training units to get into shape before moving them into the regular basic training units. It's not new or news, just widening the field as they lower the standards. Maybe it's time for Congress to reauthorize the draft?

A draft of men, without an equal draft of women will set woman's rights back about 9 decades, at the very least.

QuoteA draft of men, without an equal draft of women will set woman's rights back about 9 decades, at the very least.

See identity politics.

Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2009, 05:10:06 PM
A draft of men, without an equal draft of women will set woman's rights back about 9 decades, at the very least.

True, but the Selective Service System and the Army is not set up to implement a draft of women and train them in such numbers a draft would incur. Women have not been required to register at 18 so they would also need to get the Selective Service Law amended, passed and signed to require all women 18-34 to register and then cross-check that with other federal government databases, eg. SSA.

How many women would actually want to serve? How do you think the draft of women would go down in Congress and with the public? While we and the Army recognize women can enlist and serve in combat zones, I don't see where our society as a whole is ready to require women to register and be eligible for the draft, and then serve if called.

Countries which draft women need to do so because of need for soldiers and there is a longstanding culture and sense of service by both men and women. In the US, I agree, it would be equitable, but it's not realistic. I don't see any politician trying to sell the idea of drafting women into the Army.

Personally, it would get my vote. It's not only doable but certainly be better, more productive and cost-effective to replace all the military contractors currently do the work formerly done by military service men and women.

Quotebut it's not realistic

Then the other side can say it is "not realistic" to give women equal pay and treatment.

I doubt equality will come from those beliefs.

I guess it was not realistic to free the slaves also?

How do you think the draft of women would go down in Congress and with the public?

I don't think it would go down all the well with men either. 

Lowering of standards isn't anything new, schools have done it, fire departments have done it, police departments have done it.  It will continue until there are no standards.

How do you think I ever was drafted.  They lowered the standards of eye sight and ear problems and guess what, I was drafted.  And this is called progress.  Bah.

Sarah L.

QuoteThey lowered the standards of eye sight and ear problems and guess what, I was drafted

Why didn't you tell them about your GID? It got me out.

This was during Vietnam, they needed bodies, any body would do.

Sarah L.

There may be enough liberals to stop the draft in next congress. And libertarians again should explain why their ''freedom-loving friends'' from GOP are first to support this anti-freedom effort.  Many liberal senators and members of the house would vote No to active selective service. And those who vote Yea pay it in the next election.

Considering the reaction to the last draft, this one will have to be structured very differently.  Alternative service has to be offered, and no one can be exempted, more like some Euro nations do it.  Or, like this...

Despite Israel's increasing reliance on technological superiority, military service remains a rite of passage. All 18-year-old men are drafted for three years and will continue to do reserves for about a month a year into their 40s, by which time many will have sons in the army or reserves. Women are drafted for two years.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 07, 2009, 02:58:34 PM
This was during Vietnam, they needed bodies, any body would do.

Sarah L.

Not my body, I had a low number also. 2 letters from the shrinks recommended by the Quakers did the trick on a medical appeal.

Despite Israel's increasing reliance on technological superiority, military service remains a rite of passage. All 18-year-old men are drafted for three years and will continue to do reserves for about a month a year into their 40s, by which time many will have sons in the army or reserves. Women are drafted for two years.
[/quote]

I think that huge majority of Obama supporters are against that model. The extreme right with McCain and Palin would support that but they lost the election strongly because intelligent young voters understood that McCain = returning of the draft.

Odd, since he never said that, and the only person to propose it in recent times is a Democrat.

The proposition from rep. Rangel D-NY had nothing to do with Israeli-like draft.
Obama goverment has to betroy many its core-supporters to do. Many peace-activist endorsed him. Oh. Why would McCain and Obama did not speak about draft. McCain is pro-draft even he tryed to deny it with very poor success. Obama is not pro-draft, he has implying of supporting general national service to both genders.

"National Service" is how Democrats say Draft without using the D word.  Still the same deal, as military service would still get the most people.

I don't see it passing now, but things are changing fast, so who knows about next year, it would take a huge group of people out of the job deal, opening up positions and all that.

Quote from: SomeMTF on January 07, 2009, 04:41:58 PM
I think that huge majority of Obama supporters are against that model. The extreme right with McCain and Palin would support that but they lost the election strongly because intelligent young voters understood that McCain = returning of the draft.

Except that Obama will have to face the reality a draft may be an answer. There is a need for something on the order of 50,000 or more military personnel within the next 3-5 years to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and restore the viability of the Army and Marines to pre-9/11 effectiveness for other possible places and needs.

And this number may not solve things if the departure rate keeps going up. Without involving a lot of money to encourage new recruits and re-enlistments, the draft is the only remaining alternative. Bush created this by not implementing changes to solve this except lowering the standards, where recruits now can have a criminal record (they'll excuse and may erase it), be a HS graduate (they'll give you the GED), and be a citizen (they'll make you one), and now lower physical standards.

The answer to this crosses party lines, but you're right, it isn't acceptable to most Dems and some Reps., and it's not marketable to the public who want us out of Iraq. Bush has left a huge bill to rebuild the military, Reserves and NGs' for both personnel and equipment. Obama will have to tell the people the real price, $~1 Trillion.

Personally I'm not against an Isreali-style draft. I've experienced the draft and served, so I don't have a problem with it. It's long past due in my view to have a draft or alternative national service for all 18-24 year olds where non-military qualified people can still serve in other roles. How else can you get the young to understand and support their country?

And let's not forget Obama doesn't hold to the Democrat ideals, and will easily borrow or use Republican ideas and Republicans to get something done. He wants results wherever it comes from, and is probably the best person to explain this to the American people.

Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2009, 08:47:58 PM
Oh, the Army, I thought you were talking about 'the gays."

I thought it was about Republican Vice-presidential candidates.

That would be a dream for some ''freedom-loving'' republicans. How ever for many democrats those extreme right fantasies are not hard they are unacceptable. For people thinking like this McCain's lose was a real hard to accept. I do not see Obama doing this.

I'm not so much against the draft, as I am the way it has been handled in the past.  If they have a draft again, they can not let the "rich" or "politically connected" avoid the draft.

It must be applied equally to all.

Sarah L.

Also to women and rich. But law like Rangel proposition would die in congress because of republican opposition. So in case draft comes it will have same problems as during Vietnam war.

QuoteIf they have a draft again, they can not let the "rich" or "politically connected" avoid the draft.

Reality check! The rich and politically connected run this country. Power comes from being rich and connected so set your goals.

QuoteThe rich and politically connected run this country.

Unfortunately... :icon_no:

So I do not think that anykind of draft or national service is in Obama's agenda. Actually he was not elected to continue Iraq war but to end it.
And yes. And clear defeat of pro-draft McCain shows where the public opinion is. I do not know other pro-draft senators than McCain R-AZ and Inhofe R-OK.

Quote from: Lisbeth on January 08, 2009, 12:23:44 PM

Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2009, 08:47:58 PM
Oh, the Army, I thought you were talking about 'the gays."

I thought it was about Republican Vice-presidential candidates.

It might be. Joe the plumber may be next.

QuoteActually he was not elected to continue Iraq war but to end it

But determine to get Osama bin Laden and will send more troops to do that.

Personally, I help all I can by convincing every young person I meet to stay away from the military.

They can draft my foot.

QuotePersonally, I help all I can by convincing every young person I meet to stay away from the military.

There are some people that fit the military like a glove. Individuals come in all flavors.

I agree, but if they let me discourage them, then it may not be for them.

I don't judge anyone. If there were no weapons in the military, I'd be happy there myself.  My favorite time was in basic training. After that, it all sucked. I would honestly prefer 3 years of basic traing to one month of time after that. Now that you mention it, I think I could live with 3 months of basic each year, then 9 months of civilian life. But if there's a chance of actually having to kill someone or just watch others get killed, then screw it.

QuoteIf there were no weapons in the military, I'd be happy there myself

My brother went AWOL in basic training after they told him how to fold toilet paper. Some people just do not work under micro disciplined conditions.

Basic went well for me.  I think I need to be free of responsibility now and then.  Also, it is funny because the silly stuff brings everyone together having a few gripes and laughing at it all.

You get people who find a way to retain their individuality within the context of expected conformity.  Like one day someone announced that when we were punished with pushups, we should keep going and not stop at the number we were told to do.  It was actually very freeing. The sarge was laughing inside while maintaining his outside tough look.

I can't believe I'm remembering this stuff.

    If there were no weapons in the military

It would be the Peace Corps.

The latest draft was proposed by Democrats in order to force the issue of budget and getting our people out of the warzones. They also put in place ways that people used to dodge it last time. Including making sure Canada was not an option.


With the economy like it is, they will have plenty of recruits soon. Service is a steady paycheck in unstable times. No draft needed, just bankrupt the country to get recruits.

I say things how they are. I am more against draft and militarism than a real pasifist. Democratic countries has right to selfdefense. However I feel draft and democracy being contradictory to each other in case there are no pure national emergency.

Actually some countries having currently draft would get more effecient defence system without it.

And politicians seem to value using military power without reason rather than diplomacy for example Bush goverment. So the military is sent a harms way without proper reasons.

QuoteNo draft needed, just bankrupt the country to get recruits.

In the absent of morals the people worship the dollar. In order to have someone fight  they have to make you believe in their ideals. What ever happened to people forming their own code of conduct. The poor religious people do the same thing. Education is suppose to make you question things not just become a skilled worker.