THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a gay never lets his buddies figure out that he is gay, is he gay so far as the Army is concerned?

If a soldier does their job, does it matter that they are gay?

hawkeye10 wrote:

Is it possible that DADT is still the correct policy to balance the right of gays to serve and the nations need for a strong military?

How does it balance the rights for gays? They must live in secrecy and solitude or they loose their job.

How does it serve the nations need? We've lost valuable and well trained individuals that could greatly aid in our defense needs.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Did we vote to integrate blacks into the military? Because we didn't, did it make it any less the right thing to do?
You have assumed it was the right thing to do. Are there any other areas where you recommend you are able to over ride democracy because of your superior intellect ?

The accomplishments of black servicemen and servicewomen in integrated units has well justified this choice. No assumption necessary.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
The end result is going to be the product of rational thought.
Apparently not rational thought about combat. You do remember combat ? The whole reason for having a military and every other reason should be subservient to it ?

The rational thoughts about combat have been laid out already. You want to introduce the irrational thoughts. Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

If a soldier does their job, does it matter that they are gay?

No it doesnt. And it doesnt matter if one is Jewish. Why should either be in your face about who they are ? They are both soldiers and that is the be all and end all. They can save all the other crap for when they are off duty off base.

Quote:

How does it balance the rights for gays?

It is about rights for soldiers. Not homosexuals. That has nothing to do with the profession.

Quote:

They must live in secrecy and solitude or they loose their job.

Clearly you dont know what dont ask dont tell means. It means no-one asks them and they dont tell. As for solitude, you should read some studies that show male homosexuals are the most promiscuous of any group. Many when they are young have several different partners in a week. They may be a lot of things, but they are never isolated.

Quote:

How does it serve the nations need? We've lost valuable and well trained individuals that could greatly aid in our defense needs.

There is one need and one need only : to win combat with the minimum of loses which includes homosexuals and women.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

If a soldier does their job, does it matter that they are gay?

the army is not a job, and the soldier is not the focus of the Armies mission. It may matter, which is why we are having this little pow-wow

Quote:

How does it balance the rights for gays

The rights that gays want are far down my priority list, so maybe it does not matter to me if it does or not

Quote:

They must live in secrecy and solitude or they loose their job

If they want a job they should get a job, serving ones nation is something else, and they are able to do that.

Quote:

How does it serve the nations need

Are you seriously asking how a strong military capacity serves our needs?

Quote:

We've lost valuable and well trained individuals that could greatly aid in our defense needs

We have lost a relatively small number, and as I have already pointed out a great many of them ripped us off, many were not even gay. Not that any evidence will persuade you, you seem to parrot the gay rights literature, and show no ability to hear any other views.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The accomplishments of black servicemen and servicewomen in integrated units has well justified this choice. No assumption necessary.

The heroic accomplishments of black servicemen ( and Japanese) in segregated units makes your statement look foolish. The most decorated unit of WWII was the division of Japanese that fought for the USA in Italy. The buffalo soldier was highly respected by the Indians for their courage and toughness. Black segregated units fought on both sides in Civil War and earned everyone's respect. You dont need to live together to live peacefully, and you dont need integrated units to fight effectively, rather the opposite. Why didnt they split the Gurkhas up into the rest of the British Army ? Why didnt they abolish area recruiting ? Because men fight better when they have more in common with their brothers in arms.

Quote:

The rational thoughts about combat have been laid out already.

But they were ignored.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
If a soldier does their job, does it matter that they are gay?
No it doesnt. And it doesnt matter if one is Jewish. Why should either be in your face about who they are ? They are both soldiers and that is the be all and end all. They can save all the other crap for when they are off duty off base.

Cool idea! This means soldiers can be openly gay off base! A gay solider should be able to be as gay as they like, much like the Jewish soldier is free to be as Jewish as they like?

Great!

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
How does it balance the rights for gays?
It is about rights for soldiers. Not homosexuals. That has nothing to do with the profession.

As you stated, being Jewish has nothing to do with the profession either. We don't fire Jewish soldiers because it bothers Christian soldiers that believe they are going to hell.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
They must live in secrecy and solitude or they loose their job.
Clearly you dont know what dont ask dont tell means. It means no-one asks them and they dont tell. As for solitude, you should read some studies that show male homosexuals are the most promiscuous of any group. Many when they are young have several different partners in a week. They may be a lot of things, but they are never isolated.

Your lack of understanding the situation is showing.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
How does it serve the nations need? We've lost valuable and well trained individuals that could greatly aid in our defense needs.
There is one need and one need only : to win combat with the minimum of loses which includes homosexuals and women.

DADT in no way enhances this need.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The army is more than a job eh? Perhaps an honor? A sacrifice?

In this case, gay soldiers are due more honor, because their sacrifice is greater.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

The most decorated unit of WWII was the division of Japanese that fought for the USA in Italy.

Yes, the 442nd airborne. I am more than familiar. The men in my family were given the choice to go to the camps or fight in the war. Three men in my family served in that unit. It is a story I don't need to be told.

Their success was not because they were segregated from white soldiers. Your idea that sameness makes for good soldiers is only skin deep. You see a bunch of Japanese and think that they were the same, but you fail to understand that they were all different and very dynamic.

Probably a few homosexuals in there too, while we are at it.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How does it serve the nations need
Are you seriously asking how a strong military capacity serves our needs?

No. I'm asking how DADT serves our nations needs.

DADT Not Equal

strong military

Stop trying to switch the ball.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Cool idea! This means soldiers can be openly gay off base! A gay solider should be able to be as gay as they like, much like the Jewish soldier is free to be as Jewish as they like?

Providing they serve in segregated units, why not ?

Quote:

We don't fire Jewish soldiers because it bothers Christian soldiers that believe they are going to hell.

They are punished if they wear the star of David whilst in uniform. Christians are punished if they try to convert others.

Quote:

Your lack of understanding the situation is showing.

If you think this amounts to scoring a point you are seriously in error. You see the way a debate works is you have to state the failings of the other argument, not declare yourself the winner.

Quote:

DADT in no way enhances this need.

I have no experience of it so I do not comment. Clearly you are stupid enough to think you do know about it.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

In this case, gay soldiers are due more honor, because their sacrifice is greater.

Honor is based upon a lot of other things besides sacrifice, not that you will ever know. Gays who serve and follow DADT do sacrifice more, and maybe it needs to be for a little longer. I dont share Ionus's view that it should stay this way.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

DADT not= strong military

That is highly debatable. We had this debate under Clinton and decided that DADT was required because openly allowing gays to serve would harm the military more than we could allow. You have neither shown that we were wrong then, or that the situation has changed.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Your idea that sameness makes for good soldiers is only skin deep.

I dont understand how someone with your lack of qualifications is not running the army. What were they thinking bypassing you and going for experience, intelligence and proven ability ? Your idea that you can put anyone into a unit and it will fight the same is stupid to anyone who knows anything about the military. Clearly this is not you.

Quote:

Their success was not because they were segregated from white soldiers.

Yes, it was.

Quote:

they were all different and very dynamic.

Everyone is different. It is what they have in common that forms the bond.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Everyone is different. It is what they have in common that forms the bond.

Now, apply this to gay and straight soldiers. They can bond. They do bond.

Gay and straight soldiers have plenty to bond on. Just as much as two Japanese soldiers... Just as much as two straight soldiers.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Now, apply this to gay and straight soldiers. They can bond. They do bond.

I agree. But the posibility of bonding does not mean they will. It is far easier for everyone if they leave sex out of it.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

It is far easier for everyone if they leave sex out of it

I have no idea why you keep saying this, it is the sexual POLITICS and the subterranean loyalties that are the main problem when you allow homosexuality into the mix. The actual sex is irrelevant.

We are primarily concerned with combat companies, which are all male and likely will stay that way. They should stay that way because for the same reason allowing Gays to be gay is a problem allowing women in is......they have not needed to deal with the internal sexual politics, the hidden/divided loyalties that allowing gays in will cause and in my opinion should not until we are at peacetime again.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

it is the sexual POLITICS and the subterranean loyalties that are the main problem when you allow homosexuality into the mix.

This is exactly what I refer to when i say they should leave sex out of it. They should leave any sexual differences out of a unit. Sexual differences should not be allowed in the one unit.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

i dont go so far as you, and think in combat support having both men and women and letting them **** away as we do now is ok. It is a problem, it weakens the unit, but in support units this is manageable. In units that routinely go outside the wire and need to keep each other alive on a daily basis this weakness might not ever be justified, but certainly is not currently.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The increased cost of having women soldiers is not justifiable by any increase in the human resource area.

We had to keep changing the PT test to find one women could pass. Some support units also send men to combat units. This means men have to serve more hazardous duty because the women take up spots for men. They serve less than the average male and they cost more in medical. They are weaker and have doubled the number of people it takes to do manual jobs, such as change a truck tyre. In the future we will never conscript women but we may very well conscript men. Sexual promiscuity creates a parallel hierarchy structure to the rank structure.

All this is for a few women.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

All this is for a few women.

you dont mention the constant problem with pregnancy causing a lot of lost time, plus removal from units and sometimes war. Also, for reasons of personal choice and culture women tend to not stay in the military, dont do a career, so training them is less valuable. All for 15% of the force.

You have a point. I still dont think the added burden of women is worth excluding them. Gays I am not so sure about. And for TKO who keeps bringing up blacks that was always a good idea, but was done poorly and too early.

1 Reply

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know