Okay, first for the happy surprise: while I’m going to nit pick and caveat some items, I totally agree with you on the core of this. Yay! I’m thinking we agree more than we think, and get feisty on terminology and the inability to agree on what the things we agree with MEAN.
Obviously, being an American, it goes against my sense of justice to have any obligatory enlistment to the military be a part of any culture, for any group. The fact that only men are made to do this does indeed make it a distinct disadvantage. Now if someone proposed a solution that women should be forced to do so, too, I’d disagree. But rather I’d fight to keep men from having to do it.
Smaller solutions would be better pay (chain it to average career pay at those ages) as well as a system to place men into jobs or schools where they need to be when they finish. Neither perfect solutions, but those would be the compromises.
As for the arguments you’ve heard before:
A. I thought of this instantly, but discarded it for the same reasons you give here. That said, it is not meaningless that men have to go against other men, rather than an opposing group, in order to free themselves from a particular disadvantage. But it does not change the fact that one group of men (those who gain from the cheap military labor) gain from the disadvantage of the rest (those who provide the labor). Even if the former once upon a time had to enlist themselves, they now uphold the status quo due to the benefits they get out of it, and that indeed fits the bill.
B. and C. are just bullshit, who told you these? Numbskulls.
D. I obviously agree with you here, I just argued it with jsroberts 
E. and F. Agreed. Both points I’ve already made, elsewhere in this thread, too.
So the conclusion: if Men’s Rights groups fight for this, I’m all for it, and would support it. If they wanted to additionally fight for Men’s Rights in the workplace that had nothing to do with this (and in nations where there is no forced enlistment, I still can’t think of any workplace disadvantages whatsoever) then I’d still say “hell, no”.
Maybe, when it comes to Men’s Rights, I’d have to adjust my stance to this: I’m with you so long as the target aren’t the more disadvantaged groups, like women and minorities. If the actual target (defined as: the ones we have to fight to make the change happen) are non-men, I still can’t think of any way this could be legit. But at least for this one example of men vs. men, a-okay.
