DADT repeal: Question for Republicans/Conservatives.

[Texanmike]

If I tell you that all of this "diversity" and "individualism" that we are teaching the kids today (in the military) is hurting comradery and you don't understand then I don't know that I can possibly explain it. It doesn't mean we're losing a war tomorrow or anything. It does mean we are losing ground. Our technical superiority is not as far ahead as it was 5 years ago. What happens when our tech is no longer world class?

Mike

Mike

No, you can't explain it because it is not true. I know because I just got home from it. I am there and this bullshit about our military somehow not being as good as it has been in the past is utter bullshit. By a long shot.

I will say again - we have an all volunteer military. That alone says volumes about the current situation in the military. We are able to fight anywhere across the planet, currently embroiled in two wars, carrying our multiple campaigns in many countries and yet we still have an all volunteer force. One that is more capable than ever before.

As far as tech goes - you are blind if you do not realize how far ahead of the rest of the world we are. We have the capability to put an aircraft in the air within the US, refuel it in our airspace, then let it go to hit 180 separate targets ANYWHERE on the entire face of the planet within 12 inches of accuracy and return home without even the remote possibility that it will be shot down. And that is with tech that is 30 years old. I won't even get into the tech in our F-22 and JSF that is public not to mention the volumes about those A/C that are secret. Our tanks best anything that the world has to offer. We have better planes than anyone else by light-years and a war will never again be won without control of the skies. Some of the things that our navy is doing is right out of Star Trek. They are using laser based weaponry and our submarines are completely unmatched. What, pray tell, do you see that ANY other country has that even comes close to our current arsenal?

As always, thank you for your service.

Some of what you said is true. Some isn't. We have one aircraft that can fly anywhere in the world and I don't know what their status is, as of right now. Check your facts.

Mike

 

[JenT]

I repent.

Please disregard my previous posts. They have nothing in them to edify anyone. I haven't been feeling well lately and haven't heard from my second child in the military in a long time...so I'm kind of too aware of this issue. Please forgive me.

And thank you FA_Q2 for serving our country, God bless.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, since you brought it up. I told you the story of how "Odd Todd", the gay dude in my squad got the shit beaten out of him because he couldn't keep his hands where they didn't belong. Well turns out old Todd was HIV positive, which means the guys he got into the fight with had to be tested for AIDS for years, as did the two female medics who came to patch him up. All of this was probably more of a burden on these people than the 52K we would have lost if we had just shitcanned him.

Sounds to me like Karma in action. I think they fucked deserved to get AIDS for beating someone just because they didn't like them.

Well, actually, it was more than that. They didn't beat him up because they didn't like him, they beat him up because he grabbed their crotches. Heck, I consider myself a reasonably tolerant guy, but I'd beat up some dude who touched my junk.

And can we agree that the two female medics who came to patch him up didn't deserve to get AIDS?

 

[Lokiate]

If there was a faggot soldier in my unit and we were in a fire fight and he got severely wounded with blood everywhere.

There is no way that I would risk my life by trying to put a field dressing on his wound and get his blood on me.

If any Soldier of mine refused to help a fallen comrade for any reason other than being impossible to safely reach due to enemy fire, I'd make it my mission to have the mother fucker sent to Leavenworth.

Because there is a high probability that being a Homo he would be HIV positive.

If there was not a medic available and I was alone with him.

People feel the same way about helping/working with Muslim Soldiers. Too risky, you know, they could be terrorists.

I would just let him bleed out and die or shoot him in the head to put him out of his misery.

Either way he would just be another casualty of war and one less Homo infecting the world.

You're a real piece of shit. Stay the fuck out of my Army.

 

[FA_Q2]

If I tell you that all of this "diversity" and "individualism" that we are teaching the kids today (in the military) is hurting comradery and you don't understand then I don't know that I can possibly explain it. It doesn't mean we're losing a war tomorrow or anything. It does mean we are losing ground. Our technical superiority is not as far ahead as it was 5 years ago. What happens when our tech is no longer world class?

Mike

Mike

No, you can't explain it because it is not true. I know because I just got home from it. I am there and this bullshit about our military somehow not being as good as it has been in the past is utter bullshit. By a long shot.

I will say again - we have an all volunteer military. That alone says volumes about the current situation in the military. We are able to fight anywhere across the planet, currently embroiled in two wars, carrying our multiple campaigns in many countries and yet we still have an all volunteer force. One that is more capable than ever before.

As far as tech goes - you are blind if you do not realize how far ahead of the rest of the world we are. We have the capability to put an aircraft in the air within the US, refuel it in our airspace, then let it go to hit 180 separate targets ANYWHERE on the entire face of the planet within 12 inches of accuracy and return home without even the remote possibility that it will be shot down. And that is with tech that is 30 years old. I won't even get into the tech in our F-22 and JSF that is public not to mention the volumes about those A/C that are secret. Our tanks best anything that the world has to offer. We have better planes than anyone else by light-years and a war will never again be won without control of the skies. Some of the things that our navy is doing is right out of Star Trek. They are using laser based weaponry and our submarines are completely unmatched. What, pray tell, do you see that ANY other country has that even comes close to our current arsenal?

As always, thank you for your service.

Some of what you said is true. Some isn't. We have one aircraft that can fly anywhere in the world and I don't know what their status is, as of right now. Check your facts.

Mike

All of it is true. I have personally worked on many of these A/C and have friends that have served with the others. Again, that one liner does not address the fact that we are light years ahead of anyone else. You have failed to even substantiate any of your claims of a failing military or sown anything that indicates we are falling behind. All I am left with is that you are basing this on pure emotion devoid of facts. If not then give me something. At least a logical argument..

So far all I have 'I said so." That is woefully lacking...

 

[Sunni Man]

Body count after an intense firefight.

"Sarge I want to report one casualty"

The sergeant replies, " Who is it ? "

" It was pvt. Gaywad."

" He received a severe head wound and was bleeding profusely."

The Sargent," Did you try to administer first aid ?"

" Of course I did Sarge "

" I put a tourniquet around his neck and tightened it as hard as I could."

" The bleeding seem to stop but he still expired anyway."

 

[Full-Auto]

Body count after an intense firefight.

"Sarge I want to report one casualty"

The sergeant replies, " Who is it ? "

" It was pvt. Gaywad."

" He received a severe head wound and was bleeding profusely."

The Sargent," Did you try to administer first aid ?"

" Of course I did Sarge "

" I put a tourniquet around his neck and tightened it as hard as I could but it didn't seem to help."

" The bleeding seem to stop but he still expired anyway."

Given your love affair with gays, this song is about you...............................


The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe

 

[Lokiate]

Body count after an intense firefight.

"Sarge I want to report one casualty"

The sergeant replies, " Who is it ? "

" It was pvt. Gaywad."

" He received a severe head wound and was bleeding profusely."

The Sargent," Did you try to administer first aid ?"

" Of course I did Sarge "

" I put a tourniquet around his neck and tightened it as hard as I could."

" The bleeding seem to stop but he still expired anyway."

Cool story bro.

 

[Seawytch]

Again, under DADT, only about 600-1200 people a year were discharged for being gay. More people were discharged for being overweight, getting pregnant, or having back problems.

You are comparing qualified individuals to those that could not meet the physical requirements of the job. Apples/Oranges...

No, not at all. For instance, my big problem during my 11 years I was in was my weight after about my fifth year when I started "filling out". I dieted, excercised, etc, but had a difficult time staying under the arbitrary number of 195lbs for my height. Had absolutely NOTHING to do with how I did my job, because my job was essentially order things and keep track of things.

When I creeped up to 196, it had nothing to do with how I did my job, which was always excellent on my EER's.

Now, conversely, if a "standard" is there to meet a requirement, why are the standards different. Why do the men have to pass a much tougher APFT than the women do?

Were you discharged for being overweight?

The weight standards ARE there for a reason. Now, it can certainly be argued that the standards need to have more "wiggle room" than they currently have, but in my 20 year career I only saw ONE person discharged for not meeting the weight standards and he did it on purpose. He had a year to lose the weight and he chose not to because he was being transferred to Alaska. The day he got his orders, he went right to the candy machine.

Oh, and the military has been relaxing the weight standards.

Personally, the only standard that should be different for men and women is the pull-up requirements. Pull-ups are harder for women.

If you can do the job, you should be allowed to do the job, and that includes women in combat.

Well, since you brought it up. I told you the story of how "Odd Todd", the gay dude in my squad got the shit beaten out of him because he couldn't keep his hands where they didn't belong. Well turns out old Todd was HIV positive, which means the guys he got into the fight with had to be tested for AIDS for years, as did the two female medics who came to patch him up. All of this was probably more of a burden on these people than the 52K we would have lost if we had just shitcanned him.

And that story has nothing to do with DADT and allowing gays to serve honestly. Todd was a "dirtbag" and it was a failure of leadership that allowed his behavior to go on to the extent that he had to be "beaten up".

Dirtbags are dirtbags regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you know how many straight people I've seen go to Mast for their sexual behaviors? 1 in 4 women in the military report that they've been sexual assaulted. What's your point and how does it relate to DADT?

 

[AquaAthena]

So far 67% in favor. 33% opposed.

Of course it's only 3 votes so far. Bumping for a few more votes.

As of right now, the yeas have it. My vote of YES make it two votes over the nays.

I am just not in favor of discrimination against our fellow Americans who want to help protect our country and our lives and cause no harm to their fellow soldiers.

 

[JoeB131]

[Were you discharged for being overweight?

No, but it did keep me from re-enlisting a third time. (Although I probably wouldn't have anyway, I was pretty sick of it all at that point.)

The weight standards ARE there for a reason. Now, it can certainly be argued that the standards need to have more "wiggle room" than they currently have, but in my 20 year career I only saw ONE person discharged for not meeting the weight standards and he did it on purpose. He had a year to lose the weight and he chose not to because he was being transferred to Alaska. The day he got his orders, he went right to the candy machine.

Oh, and the military has been relaxing the weight standards.

Well, the sexual conduct standards were there for a reason. It's still a dischargable offense to commit adultery. Bisexuals got thrown out just as fast as homosexuals.

Personally, the only standard that should be different for men and women is the pull-up requirements. Pull-ups are harder for women.

If you can do the job, you should be allowed to do the job, and that includes women in combat.

Why should men and women have different standards at all? For that matter, why lower the standards for age?

And that story has nothing to do with DADT and allowing gays to serve honestly. Todd was a "dirtbag" and it was a failure of leadership that allowed his behavior to go on to the extent that he had to be "beaten up".

No, the man's psychological makeup was such he never should have been in the military. And even then, we didn't want to screw up his life by demanding discharge procedures. Of course, the guys who beat him up all developed "amnesia" after the fight and so did Todd, so "officially", we never knew what started it.

Dirtbags are dirtbags regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you know how many straight people I've seen go to Mast for their sexual behaviors? 1 in 4 women in the military report that they've been sexual assaulted. What's your point and how does it relate to DADT?

Well, I don't think women should be in the military to the degree they are, but that's what happens when you put political correctness ahead of the needs of the military.

 

[Lokiate]

For that matter, why lower the standards for age?

The body deteriorates as it gets older, and becomes more prone to injury. Simple biology.