Richards 0
Recommended Posts
"Sorry, I can't go to your war...... I'm a woofter".
"Tough shite son... We allow your lot in the service now... Pack y'bags!!"
That should stop some of the excuses.. and drive the Canadian population up some more
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
>
Well that one eye, anyway
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Richards 0
QuoteQuote>
Well that one eye, anyway
Well I guess this means your man Ricky Hatton can serve his country.
Do they serve deep fried mars bars in the mess hall there?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
>
Deep fried everything.. (Mars Bars, Pies, Pizza!!) etc.. is a Scotish thing..... But I never had them served up to me in the mess (I was stationed in Scotland, whilst in the RAF).
Oh and Ricky did alright.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Gawain 0
QuoteRecently, there has been a renewal of the discussion about gays n the US Military. Part fo this was due to a question asked at the Republican Debate in the last couple of weeks.
You know, I have consistently been against the banning of gays, and even against the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. In the military, I often spoke with troops about it, and rarely did they ever disagree with my logic on it.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is still a "banning" per se, because if anyone comes out of the closet, they are discharged.
QuoteFrankly, the policy is flawed NOT because of anything with relation to the individual values. My problem with the policy was never about "gays in the foxhole" or those other arguments.
I have to disagree with you there. The closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
QuoteIt's not the openly gay E-5 in the foxhole that we have to worry about. It's the closeted gay O-8 or E-9 that we have to worry about. And the worry is from an operational security standpoint.
Again, I disagree. One does not ascend to those ranks without being in proper disposition. Regardless of sexual orientation, if one is going to overtly suffer from being sexually frustrated, and they are of that rank, they should have the wherewithal to seek assistance to put it in perspective.
QuoteThis policy needs to change. Our security is at risk. Once people's feelings on gays are taken out of it, and once it is viewed as a security issue, I can see no rationality in continuing the policy. It's a policy that can literally get our brave men and women killed.
Therein lies the rub, how to take people's feelings out of it. How about people's safety? There have been plenty of "hate" crimes in the military with the current policy. Allowing those to shine a spotlight on themselves for what purpose?
Even if the policy is removed, I don't think you would see a mass exodus "out of the closet". The risks you cite do not go away.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
This is a flawed policy when it wastes the talent of Arabic Language Translators such as Sgt Bleau Copas and Petty Officer Second Class Jason Knight. Air Force Nurses such as Major Margaret Wirt. All dismissed under DADT. I read of one case where one Navy Petty officer was taken back to Kuwait several times as a member of the IRR cause his Language Specialist MOS was critical and his Commanders forgot to code his original discharge papers that he was discharged under DADT. Now if his job was so critical, these commanders couldn't care less if he was gay proving that DADT is totally useless. Also with our troops on long deployments is it fair for the ones who are gay, and there are 65,000 of them in the military today, to have to jump through hoops to maintain contact with their loved ones because of DADT. Not only is it not fair It's UNAMERICAN. As a former USAF Vietnam Era veteran I will again be pounding the pavement of Capital Hill in March along with some of my fellow veterans including General Kerr to keep hammering members of Congress to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act and end DADT for good.
I forgot to mention It has cost you and me as taxpayers 363 million dollars to maintain this flawed policy. Enough to armourplate all our vehicles in Iraq or supply body armour to all our fine troops in harms way over there.
I could go on and on. The time is now to take action. If our elected officials are constantly hammered on this they will take action.
The bill is presently in committee in the House and picked up another sponsor this week. When I first worked on the lobby effort 3 years ago we only had 4 co-sponsors. We have 137 today. That's an accomplishment.
Chris
I forgot to mention It has cost you and me as taxpayers 363 million dollars to maintain this flawed policy. Enough to armourplate all our vehicles in Iraq or supply body armour to all our fine troops in harms way over there.
I could go on and on. The time is now to take action. If our elected officials are constantly hammered on this they will take action.
The bill is presently in committee in the House and picked up another sponsor this week. When I first worked on the lobby effort 3 years ago we only had 4 co-sponsors. We have 137 today. That's an accomplishment.
Chris
Stop making sense will ya?
billvon 2,450
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is
>a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
Are women kept out of such roles, then?
>Regardless of sexual orientation, if one is going to overtly suffer
>from being sexually frustrated, and they are of that rank, they should
>have the wherewithal to seek assistance to put it in perspective.
If you prohibited officers from having sex with anyone (including their wives) then I would agree - sexual orientation would not matter. However, current policy requires gays to either a) not have sex with anyone or b) do it secretly. Both are problems, although b) is a much bigger one (due to the possibility of blackmail.)
>a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
Are women kept out of such roles, then?
>Regardless of sexual orientation, if one is going to overtly suffer
>from being sexually frustrated, and they are of that rank, they should
>have the wherewithal to seek assistance to put it in perspective.
If you prohibited officers from having sex with anyone (including their wives) then I would agree - sexual orientation would not matter. However, current policy requires gays to either a) not have sex with anyone or b) do it secretly. Both are problems, although b) is a much bigger one (due to the possibility of blackmail.)
jakee 1,265
Quotehave to disagree with you there. The closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
Do you want women banned from the military?
QuoteAgain, I disagree. One does not ascend to those ranks without being in proper disposition. Regardless of sexual orientation, if one is going to overtly suffer from being sexually frustrated, and they are of that rank, they should have the wherewithal to seek assistance to put it in perspective.
Non sequitur. None of Lawrocket's arguments are in any way related to sexual frustration.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Quote>The closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is
>a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
There are no WOMEN in the 11B MOS
Are women kept out of such roles, then?
YES for the most part, unless you consider pilots and artillerymen, to be "front line"Quote
Medics may be an exception, but they are not attached to Infantry units.
johndh1 0
QuoteThe closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs.
And if that is all that is on their minds as they are nearing possible death in shooting and being shot at, then that says so much more about them than the gays in the ranks - one such thing being they likely think they are much more attractive than the accused probably thinks they are.
I'll bet those same guys would have no problem hooting and wolf-whistling at a pretty girl as she walked by their group, but "...oh, are you lookin' at my ass?!?!"
Roll Tide Roll
Amazon 7
QuoteDo you want women banned from the military?
Most guys who want Gays out also want women out.. especially combat roles.
Being a woman in the military means almost constant harrasment in one way or another.
I just think all the poor macho guys dont want to be hit on...which is what they believe will happen
Personally.. I support setting a standard physically and mentally for a given job role.....and if you volunteer for the job and can make it thru the training... you should be able to serve in that capacity...PERIOD
BUT that would require a major shift in the instructors minds.... who hammer the women recruits far harder than some of the pud pullers who are there and getting a pass because they are out of sight and out of mind.
"This policy needs to change. Our security is at risk. Once people's feelings on gays are taken out of it, and once it is viewed as a security issue, I can see no rationality in continuing the policy. It's a policy that can literally get our brave men and women killed. "
Lawrocket, You couldn't be more on target by the above statement. One of the former Army troops who was discharged under DADT last year, worked with us on the lobby effort, etc was an Explosive Ordinace Disposal specialist and a darn good specialist in IED recognition. In fact he taught our forces in Iraq that were in his unit how to recognize these devices and keep themselves out of harms way. A very softspoken Texan who lives in Austin now. While in Iraq, he made the mistake of confiding in his best and closest friend that he was gay. Well the Army did an investigation and dismissed him under DADT. Here's the real rub of the situation. His commander had to take TWO troops out of his unit and send them to Ft. Irwin, Ca to learn how to do this one seargent's job. Now I'll pose a hypothetical question. How many of our brave men and women were killed in IED attacks afterward cause this expert was not on the job training them how to be safe? We don't know and will never know.
Here is another human side of DADT that no one will talk about but I brought it up in my earlier post. I really hammerd my Congressional Representative last year on. While I was in the Rayburn House Office building on the House offices floor, there was a display in the halls with pictures of every one of our brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some 3,000 plus once smiling faces, someones broter, sister, father, mother, son or daughter and yes if the averages are right some 90 of these could have been gay or lesbian and someones partner. Now what happens when one of our troops get killed whle serving. A representative of the appropriate military unit comes to his or her next of kin's house with the news. Now what if the troop happens to be gay, WHO makes notification to his or her partner? NOBODY cause of DADT. This is not right , it is inhuman and UNAMERCAN and I let my Reps' legislative aid know this.
Just some more thaughts on the issue.
Chris
Lawrocket, You couldn't be more on target by the above statement. One of the former Army troops who was discharged under DADT last year, worked with us on the lobby effort, etc was an Explosive Ordinace Disposal specialist and a darn good specialist in IED recognition. In fact he taught our forces in Iraq that were in his unit how to recognize these devices and keep themselves out of harms way. A very softspoken Texan who lives in Austin now. While in Iraq, he made the mistake of confiding in his best and closest friend that he was gay. Well the Army did an investigation and dismissed him under DADT. Here's the real rub of the situation. His commander had to take TWO troops out of his unit and send them to Ft. Irwin, Ca to learn how to do this one seargent's job. Now I'll pose a hypothetical question. How many of our brave men and women were killed in IED attacks afterward cause this expert was not on the job training them how to be safe? We don't know and will never know.
Here is another human side of DADT that no one will talk about but I brought it up in my earlier post. I really hammerd my Congressional Representative last year on. While I was in the Rayburn House Office building on the House offices floor, there was a display in the halls with pictures of every one of our brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some 3,000 plus once smiling faces, someones broter, sister, father, mother, son or daughter and yes if the averages are right some 90 of these could have been gay or lesbian and someones partner. Now what happens when one of our troops get killed whle serving. A representative of the appropriate military unit comes to his or her next of kin's house with the news. Now what if the troop happens to be gay, WHO makes notification to his or her partner? NOBODY cause of DADT. This is not right , it is inhuman and UNAMERCAN and I let my Reps' legislative aid know this.
Just some more thaughts on the issue.
Chris
QuoteThe closer to the line you get, the last thing anyone needs is a sexual-orientation distraction amongst a bunch of 11Bs
While I understand that, Max, when the shit hits the fan, would you be worried about whether the guy manning the 60 is straight?
QuoteOne does not ascend to those ranks without being in proper disposition. Regardless of sexual orientation, if one is going to overtly suffer from being sexually frustrated, and they are of that rank, they should have the wherewithal to seek assistance to put it in perspective.
Sure they do. Keith Kerr did it.
QuoteEven if the policy is removed, I don't think you would see a mass exodus "out of the closet".
Maybe not.
QuoteThe risks you cite do not go away.
Actually, the risk of losing your career DOES go away, unless the DOD starts re-enforcing the prohibition against fornication.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I really honsetly did not know things were still that backwards
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites