On 7/27/21 10:51 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>
> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976. Rather
> than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
> offering better financial incentives and other perks.

https://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-e1_e5_2021

Base pay for an E1 living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall is
currently $1782.92, which is in excess of $10.00 per hour. That is the
entry level pay for a member with no training and no experience. An E3
over two years of service, still living in the barracks and eating in
the chow hall, makes over 2200/month. Sorry, military pay is not bad
these days.

On 7/27/21 11:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 8:51 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy
> rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>
>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>
>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>
> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>
> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like
> you, Hansen.  In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the
> nation since 1865.

Once more you demonstrate your own lack of knowledge.

On 7/27/21 11:17 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:07:54 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2021 8:51 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
>> chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>
>> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>>
>> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like you,
>> Hansen. In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the nation since 1865.
>
> The Gnome never served in the military. He knows nothing about it.
>
> This is obvious.

Very obvious!

I *LOVE* the fact that my elaborating on Hansen's name and disreputable
profession bugs him *so much* that he always feels the need to change the
attribution. I win!

On 7/27/2021 9:48 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>
>> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>>
>> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like you,
>> Hansen. In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the nation since
>> 1865.
>
> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point

If you can't get the small, easy details right, Hansen, you sleazy stupid
cocksucker, why would anyone trust you on the "main" point? We don't, and never
will.

On 7/27/2021 10:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 11:05 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 8:30 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>    |
>>>>>>>>    | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>>    | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>>    | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>>     a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>>     rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>
>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>
>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as we
>>> are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be drafted.
>>
>> Your belief is irrational and patriarchal and stupid and wrong.
>
> Why is your opinion of importance to me?

Oh, but we know that it is! That's why you reflexively argue with me.

I'm both more intelligent and smarter than you, and you know it. That alone
wouldn't necessarily mean I beat you in every argument, but I *do* beat you in
every argument, largely because of being smarter and more intelligent, and it is
beyond obvious that my opinion is important to you.

On 7/27/2021 10:10 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 11:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 8:51 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
>> chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>
>> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>>
>> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like you,
>> Hansen.  In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the nation since
>> 1865.
>
> Once more you demonstrate your own lack of knowledge.

Once more you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.

You really are this stupid. You don't get, and never will, that whenever you
start with "Once more..." followed by some lame insult, you're conceding defeat.
You have nothing meaningful to say — because you're defeated — but for some
irrational reason, you feel a need to say something anyway. In so doing, you're
conceding defeat. You really are willfully and *aggressively* stupid.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:19:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/27/2021 10:10 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 11:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:51 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
>>> chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>
>>> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>>>
>>> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like you,
>>> Hansen.  In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the nation since
>>> 1865.
>>
>> Once more you demonstrate your own lack of knowledge.
>
>Once more you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.

All of which means Rudolfo has surrendered and assumed his
'I'm triggered' position.

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>
>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense.
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>> defending our nation.
>>
>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>
> I disagree, but only to a point.
>
> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
> drafted.

Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.

Finally.... since they should free up men who might otherwise be tied down
to rear areas they are serving a vital function even if they never spend a
day on the front lines.

Yes, it's still discriminatory based on ability but necessary if you are to
survive and achieve victory.

Further, I've seen NO valid argument for NOT including women in the draft,
though I've seen a lot of people try to invent some.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:8YVLI.27184$sI4.11949@fx40.iad...
> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>
> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976. Rather
> than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
> offering better financial incentives and other perks.

Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot of
people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.

Now, I agree that in the normal course of events there should not be
conscription, but we're talking emergency conditions.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:kNWLI.37632$Yv3.11135@fx41.iad...
> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>
>> Since 1973
>
> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
> military that the nation needs.

Fine, then eliminate the draft. UNTIL then, women should be subject to the
draft.

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZZWdnQ2DMJwpoJ38nZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/27/21 10:51 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>
>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976. Rather
>> than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>
> https://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-e1_e5_2021
>
> Base pay for an E1 living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall is
> currently $1782.92, which is in excess of $10.00 per hour. That is the
> entry level pay for a member with no training and no experience. An E3
> over two years of service, still living in the barracks and eating in the
> chow hall, makes over 2200/month. Sorry, military pay is not bad these
> days.

Sure.... if you were only working 8 hours a day 5 times a week.

I would regularly spend 12 hours a day working for 7 days a week for months
before getting a day or 2 off then getting to do it all over again.

So on a per hour scale... it sucks. Then you figure that even your hours
"off" really aren't your own time. Your subject to standing watches,
performing additional assignments, and filling in when and as needed by your
command.

On the upside, other than taxes most of that money was disposable income in
that you could spend pretty much all of it and still keep a roof over your
head and have food to eat.

It is however a wonderful platform for the right person to jump out of
minimum wage and get a job, skills, and a possible career. You can join at
20 and retire at 50 with full pay for the rest of your life if you can hack
the military that long. If not you can do 3-4 sock away most of your income,
max out your GI benefits and attend a good college or trade school that will
set you up to learn something that is highly marketable.

On 7/27/2021 10:10 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 11:17 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:07:54 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:51 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
>>> chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>
>>> Since 1973, Hansen, you stupid cocksucker.
>>>
>>> The nation needs defending mostly against seditious cocksuckers like you,
>>> Hansen.  In any case, the military hasn't been used to defend the nation
>>> since 1865.
>>
>> The Gnome never served in the military. He knows nothing about it.
>>
>> This is obvious.
>
> *SLURRRPPPPP*!

Get the fuck out of here, you sloppy queer.

On 7/27/2021 10:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:8YVLI.27184$sI4.11949@fx40.iad...
>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>
>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976. Rather than
>> forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>
> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot of people
> quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.

There is never any such situation, scooter, you dumb drunken queer.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>> defending our nation.
>>>
>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>
>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>
>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>> drafted.
>
>Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.

I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
ways around it.

Did it make for a better Army? Of course not.

>Finally.... since they should free up men who might otherwise be tied down
>to rear areas they are serving a vital function even if they never spend a
>day on the front lines.

Modern war has no 'rear areas' to speak of and no front lines.

>Yes, it's still discriminatory based on ability but necessary if you are to
>survive and achieve victory.
>
>Further, I've seen NO valid argument for NOT including women in the draft,
>though I've seen a lot of people try to invent some.

On 7/27/21 1:05 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>
>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>
>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>> drafted.
>>
>> Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>> combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>> it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>
> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
> I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
> was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
> Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
> company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
> formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
> the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
> course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
> ways around it.

I saw the same double standards in my world, at least to the extent that
the chain of command was less likely to come down on a woman performing
in a substandard manner. The funny thing was that when the chain of
command let a woman slide, the first people to complain were other
women. In our world, except for physical stuff, like hanging a
Sidewinder on an F 15, or rolling an engine into the Aircraft engine
bay, the women had little trouble keeping up.

At Bitburg I was a flight-line expediter and one of my better load crews
was run by a woman.

On 7/27/2021 11:08 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 10:51 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>
>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>
> https://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-e1_e5_2021
>
> Base pay for an E1 living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall is
> currently $1782.92, which is in excess of $10.00 per hour. That is the
> entry level pay for a member with no training and no experience. An E3
> over two years of service, still living in the barracks and eating in
> the chow hall, makes over 2200/month. Sorry, military pay is not bad
> these days.

And our military is adequately staffed. If the military needed
to increase enlistments, it could so so by increasing financial
incentives rather than resort to involuntary servitude. That's
how the free market works.

On 7/27/21 11:48 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>
>> Since 1973
>
> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
> military that the nation needs.

Today they do not, but that doesn't mean that next year, or 30 years
from now the need will not arise.

On 7/27/2021 11:19 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 1:05 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     |
>>>>>>>>>     | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>>>     | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>>>     | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>>>      a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>>>      rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>>> drafted.
>>>
>>> Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>>> combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>>> it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>>
>> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
>> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
>> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
>> I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
>> was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
>> Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
>> company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
>> formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
>> the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
>> course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
>> ways around it.
>
> I saw the same double standards in my world, at least to the extent that the
> chain of command was less likely to come down on a woman performing in a
> substandard manner. The funny thing was that when the chain of command let a
> woman slide, the first people to complain were other women. In our world, except
> for physical stuff, like hanging a Sidewinder on an F 15, or rolling an engine
> into the Aircraft engine bay, the women had little trouble keeping up.
>
> At Bitburg I was a flight-line expediter and one of my better load crews was run
> by a woman.

You were booted out of the air force for misconduct more than 30 years ago. You
don't have a clue.

On 7/27/21 12:47 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZZWdnQ2DMJwpoJ38nZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 7/27/21 10:51 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>
>> https://www.militaryrates.com/military-pay-charts-e1_e5_2021
>>
>> Base pay for an E1 living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall
>> is currently $1782.92, which is in excess of $10.00 per hour. That is
>> the entry level pay for a member with no training and no experience.
>> An E3 over two years of service, still living in the barracks and
>> eating in the chow hall, makes over 2200/month. Sorry, military pay is
>> not bad these days.
>
> Sure.... if you were only working 8 hours a day 5 times a week.
>
> I would regularly spend 12 hours a day working for 7 days a week for
> months before getting a day or 2 off then getting to do it all over again.
>
> So on a per hour scale... it sucks. Then you figure that even your hours
> "off" really aren't your own time. Your subject to standing watches,
> performing additional assignments, and filling in when and as needed by
> your command.
>
> On the upside, other than taxes most of that money was disposable income
> in that you could spend pretty much all of it and still keep a roof over
> your head and have food to eat.
>
> It is however a wonderful platform for the right person to jump out of
> minimum wage and get a job, skills, and a possible career. You can join
> at 20 and retire at 50 with full pay for the rest of your life if you
> can hack the military that long. If not you can do 3-4 sock away most of
> your income, max out your GI benefits and attend a good college or trade
> school that will set you up to learn something that is highly marketable.

Those who served any length of time at all would know that retiring,
even at 30 years of service does not get one "full pay". Sort of causes
me to wonder.

On 7/27/21 12:55 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 10:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
>> news:8YVLI.27184$sI4.11949@fx40.iad...
>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>
>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot
>> of people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>
> There is never any such situation, scooter, you dumb drunken queer.

Really?

On 7/27/2021 11:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 11:48 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>
>>> Since 1973
>>
>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>> military that the nation needs.
>
> Today they do not, but that doesn't mean that next year, or 30 years from now
> the need will not arise.

There will never be a need for a draft for actual defense of the country. The
only reason for one would be if not enough people volunteer to go fight in some
ill-advised, doomed-to-fail foreign adventure like Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:19:44 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/27/21 1:05 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>>> drafted.
>>>
>>> Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>>> combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>>> it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>>
>> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
>> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
>> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
>> I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
>> was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
>> Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
>> company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
>> formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
>> the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
>> course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
>> ways around it.
>
>I saw the same double standards in my world, at least to the extent that
>the chain of command was less likely to come down on a woman performing
>in a substandard manner. The funny thing was that when the chain of
>command let a woman slide, the first people to complain were other
>women. In our world, except for physical stuff, like hanging a
>Sidewinder on an F 15, or rolling an engine into the Aircraft engine
>bay, the women had little trouble keeping up.
>
>At Bitburg I was a flight-line expediter and one of my better load crews
>was run by a woman.

My company had a few team chiefs and some did okay. Nothing
outstanding.

On the other hand, when I first arrived the then company commander was
having an affair with one of the female 1st lieutenant platoon
leaders. Not the sort of thing to improve morale over all!

On 7/27/2021 11:25 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/27/21 12:55 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 10:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8YVLI.27184$sI4.11949@fx40.iad...
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976. Rather
>>>> than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>>
>>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot of
>>> people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>>
>> There is never any such situation, scooter, you dumb drunken queer.
>
> Really?
>

Yes.

On 7/27/2021 11:26 AM, Scout wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>
>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>
> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a
> lot of people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
> Now, I agree that in the normal course of events there should not
> be conscription, but we're talking emergency conditions.

If the unlikely even an emergency occurred, Congress could enact
a new conscription law. The remote prospect of such an emergency
does not require the current selective service registration requirement.

On 7/27/21 1:27 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:19:44 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/21 1:05 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>>>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>>>> drafted.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>>>> combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>>>> it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>>>
>>> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
>>> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
>>> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
>>> I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
>>> was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
>>> Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
>>> company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
>>> formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
>>> the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
>>> course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
>>> ways around it.
>>
>> I saw the same double standards in my world, at least to the extent that
>> the chain of command was less likely to come down on a woman performing
>> in a substandard manner. The funny thing was that when the chain of
>> command let a woman slide, the first people to complain were other
>> women. In our world, except for physical stuff, like hanging a
>> Sidewinder on an F 15, or rolling an engine into the Aircraft engine
>> bay, the women had little trouble keeping up.
>>
>> At Bitburg I was a flight-line expediter and one of my better load crews
>> was run by a woman.
>
> My company had a few team chiefs and some did okay. Nothing
> outstanding.
>
> On the other hand, when I first arrived the then company commander was
> having an affair with one of the female 1st lieutenant platoon
> leaders. Not the sort of thing to improve morale over all!

Yeah I saw something similar happen at another assignment.