THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

that was always a good idea, but was done poorly and too early.

Quote:

The U.S. armed forces are effective.

This can not answered by a yes or no. There are degrees of effectiveness.

Damn that is tupid.

Quote:

Damn that is tupid.

This made me laugh.

It can be answered yes or no, actually.

Not answering yes or no is just weaseling.

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.

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.

Quote:

It can be answered yes or no, actually.

No, it cant. There are many shades of grey between black and white. Have you stopped beating your wife ? Answer yes or no....

An officer writes one of his soldiers a bad report...the soldier claims the report is bad because he knocked him back for sex. Once upon a time the report would be taken as accurate. Now a simple thing like report writing has an investigation. It is an absolute mess. Not as bad as women in the military, but almost.

Would you listen to yourself ? You are quite the little dictator arent you ?

This is exactly the problem. You have done good regardless of the bad. How happy you must be.

You are basing this on your extensive experience. When will you be joining ? Of course you know of zero indications. You know zero about the military.

You have not given anything that is nothing but pigheaded PC thuggery backed up by bigotry in support of yourself. Programs backed by bigotry aren't going to win you much favor with any sensible person.

You have started threads ? WOW !... I am impresssed ! ... How important you are ! You dont care if more people than necessary die in a war, just so long as they do what you say . You sicken me with your hypocracy and bigotry.

Quote:

joe said : What makes you think gays find the company of other gays repulsive?

Quote:

Ionus said : You do. What reason could they have for not serving together ?

Quote:

joe said : What gave you that idea?

Your avoidance of why they dont want to serve together, of why they have to serve with men.

have read your explanations and they amount to they shouldnt serve in their own units because you dont like it. They still get to serve dont they ? They have their 'right' to serve satisifed.

Quote:

then I suppose it is a testament to your heterosexuality that your comments about gay people are so idiotic.

I will let others judge that as you have obvious bias. If you can recall this point was about the necessary level of experience required to know enough about the military to make an informed comment. You and JTT think the necessary qualification is to be a left whinger, demanding things be done your way and any problems can be sorted out by others. It is not your fault if your ideas have problems. They must be instigated anyway.

Quote:

If your argument about "unit cohesion" can only be understood by someone with a comparable amount of service in the military as you, then why did you even bother to post it on this forum?

Is it your assumption that you are the only person on this forum ?

Ionus wrote: have read your explanations and they amount to they shouldnt serve in their own units because you dont like it. They still get to serve dont they ? They have their 'right' to serve satisifed.

No two soldiers are guaranteed to bond. What's your point?

Additionally, what does heterosexuals and homosexuals bonding have to do with sex? I bond with many homosexuals, and none of those bonds are sexual in nature. We talk about movies, sports, politics, family, etc.

Weasel.

You are intellectually dishonest.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, it's ludicrous to suggest that an officer, saints all, could be wrong;

That has already happened. Firemen used to be strong enough to carry another man down a ladder. Now there are women who cant do that, so they have to "man" the hoses

You really don't have much of a grasp of politics. Are plebiscites common in Au to determine federal matters?

The only problem I've seen you lay out to date is that officer's reports might be questioned.

That's lame as can be and you've provide nothing else, save bigotry.

Is your greater fear that the military hasn't the brains necessary to rectify problems?

But you want to keep the bad, the unjustifiable because you see it cause some problems.

No, lad, it's the law, you know the stuff that the military is there to protect.

You evidently did a wee bit of research and found stuff that you didn't like,

stuff that scared the **** out of you,

so now you resort to these childish distractions.

Have you some numbers? Yes or no?

No, Ionus, it's not because we don't like it. How many times does it have to be explained. It's because it is discriminatory.

Quote:

Ionus wrote: have read your explanations and they amount to they shouldnt serve in their own units because you dont like it. They still get to serve dont they ? They have their 'right' to serve satisifed.

you are folks that must be kept apart from us regular people, read, better class of people".