21853
Post by: mattyrm
Alright, I was at work listening to the radio today and there was a 4 hour debate.
Do we give the armed forces enough help when they leave the service?
Here is a link to the news night page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8781382.stm
Nobody is more pro armed forces than me, I did a half career in the RM. I did 6 tours and 10 years in a combat role. Not some pansy REMF unit like the engineers, signals, RLC, almost all of the Navy and the Airforce as a whole. I'm also stunned by the amount of sheer bs I hear when a serviceman is talking about his job "Yeah I was in the RLC but I was a sniper and I saw loads of dead babies and that" or "I joined the engineers but I'm a para-commando in the kung-fu regiment so I got PTSD"
Anyways..
For myself, after 10 years in, I came home from Afghanistan about 5 months before I was due to leave the service. I had 6 weeks RnR which I spent leathered in the USA, I then returned to 40 Commando in Taunton and had a full medical/dental check, and had a long chat with a doctor, who obviously asked me questions about my mental state as well, but signed me off when it was clear that war and death only made me stronger because I am a colossus that straddled the battlefield like a giant of old.
Following that, I attended a week long "adjustment course" which was basically practice for interviews, CV writing class, cover letter writing, a short computer course and such like. We were then presented with a range of courses you could do to help, such as short courses in welding, bricklaying, plumbing, rope access.. whatever it was you fancied getting into, you could also jack your own stuff up, and for example my mate was on the same course, and his wife kept horses and they had a stable, so he actually did equestrian dentistry!
I then had another 5 weeks off, before I went back to camp for one week to hand all my kit in, shake the CO's hand and get a nice letter off him for my CV. I then went on my merry way, but they still paid me for about.. I dunno ten weeks? I think my leaving date was April 22nd but I left the camp for good middle of February and received my last pay check at the end of April. Perhaps Its just the RM that take such good care of their men because of their fighting role, but is it really that different for the rest of the armed forces?
If it isnt, then what the hell are people complaining about, and what more do they want? A hand job off the secretary of defence?! 
So.
Do you think the armed forces need more help? What help do you advise? Do you think that there is much more that can be realistically done?
I'm particularly after ex or serving military personnels opinions, but I'm curious as to what most people think.
In general, I think that there is a lot of froth and anger coming from people that really don't know what they are talking about. People obviously support the armed forces, because they are just young, working class lads who usually join for honourable reasons, but does that mean you should throw endless resources into the laps of people leaving?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Are you talking about your average well-to-do service member or injured/shell-shocked individuals that need more help here?
Personally, I fully support the goverment looking after people that take bullets for them for the following reasons:
1) It's healthy if you can secure them a career outside of the military, good for everyone really.
2) These guys got shot and watched their mates die for you, letting them have it easy for a while after their service sounds only fair.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
What would you have done if you hadn't joined the Royal Marines?
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Emp clearly we agree, of course we should help them, injured and able bodied alike.
My point is simply that both parties seem to be well catered for already. I disagree with the argument that the government is not providing the soldiers with acceptable assistance.
Medium, I would have been an architect or a paramedic. ;-)
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
I know a good number of guys who have came out of the military and couldn't hold down or ever get a job because they've served. A bit off topic a tad, but what they assume is the reason is that well their employer's don't really want to have people who have been trained to kill working for them (been watching a little too much Full Metal Jacket probably). Nonetheless who's going to take on a guy who's been dishonourably discharged for any number of reasons-desertion's a biggee. Meh, admittedly its a lot better than it was though- lot of Falkland's vets became junkies afterwards around here. =/
12061
Post by: halonachos
Sounds like Gulf War syndrome, which is a highly debatable 'disease' in some cases. Studies showed that people in close combat suffered from the same symptoms as members of the Canadian Navy who weren't in the same area and not exposed to anything like the in-combat groups were.
As far as help going out for ex-military I do believe in it, I know several people in and outside of my family who were injured during their service. My grandfather scraped up his left leg when he jumped into a foxhole filled with rocks during Korea and walks with a limp because it destroyed a lot of nerve endings there, my dad was on a ship during the gulf war when a wave hit it and he went down the ladder and busted his elbow. My friend's dad was in Vietnam and was hit with Agent Orange which messed him up, these compared to certain other ones like a guy who blew off his pinky toe in basic and got 100% compensation for it compared to my grandpa who gets around 50% means that we need to revamp the way we look at who needs more help among the military.
People in the Navy are surrounded by metal, which hurts if you hit it. Then you have the fact that the metal ship is moving and waves are also moving the ship back and forth and everything is tight and compact. Ladders are more like stairs that are angled at 70 some degrees which are made out of metal.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
The injured seem to get poor treatment in particular. My best friend from school is infantry now and will do term in Afghanistan in about a year or so. The problem is that some people are becoming battle weary. We've been effectively on a war footing for 10 years and it's really putting a strain on the forces. People who lose body parts and have psycological damage aren't well looked after at all.
It's really quite shameful, my friend has been told he has to buy his own insurance to go into a combat zone. My understanding is that the Americans provide it. Again, my friend is not alone in spending £2-3K in replacement kit because the stuff supplied is sub standard and will probably increase his chances of needing to make a claim on that insurance he has to buy.
The other thing is that the armed forced is a very close knit environment and not a lot like the outside world. Some things are good, the discipline and efficiency. Ex-servicemen make among some of the best employees. But on the other hand, a lot of day-to-day activity is nothing like normal life and adjusting can be difficult if you've been in the army for a long time.
I think it depends on the person. I can't see that they can do a lot more for most people leaving the forces. But the provision for the injured is poor and the way they look after those actually in the forces seems lacking too.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Cool beans, perhaps it's the ones without another game plan that can't adjust when they leave?
42223
Post by: htj
Wait, that's what the RM in your username stands for? Royal Marines? I always thought it was your middle initial and surname! You being a marine is much more interesting.
241
Post by: Ahtman
mattyrm wrote: Medium, I would have been an architect or a paramedic. ;-)
You'd have been a rabble rouser out there rousing the rabble.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I've always been of the opinion that if only the people that actually needed assistance from the VA took it, there'd be plenty of money to take care of them.
It's the leeches that are the problem. I guess it's like any other government entitlement program, really.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out. From what I picked up from my dad they appear to be more self sufficient than other forces. My dad came out and set up a window cleaning business and then expanded into a small cleaning business. I have a mate who was able to pack a bergen and day sack and move to Taiwan at the drop of a hat (was a arty commando who did the commando course).
241
Post by: Ahtman
Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.
Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life. Some people readjust well, some do not. There is mounds and mounds of research dealing with the subject. In the US I know the Marines typically have the hardest time readjusting, statistically. The divorce rate is through the roof compared to other services as well as bar fights and things of that nature. Several of my Marine buddies have talked about how they hated civilian life for a good amount of time because they didn't see it as 'efficient' as Marine life. People wouldn't just do what they were told, there wasn't a clear focus on goals or a sense of homogeneity.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Ahtman wrote:Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.
Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life. Some people readjust well, some do not. There is mounds and mounds of research dealing with the subject. In the US I know the Marines typically have the hardest time readjusting, statistically. The divorce rate is through the roof compared to other services as well as bar fights and things of that nature. Several of my Marine buddies have talked about how they hated civilian life for a good amount of time because they didn't see it as 'efficient' as Marine life. People wouldn't just do what they were told, there wasn't a clear focus on goals or a sense of homogeneity.
From what I've and heard over the years the way US Marines are trained is fundamentally different to Royal Marines. It's likely the "gung ho" aspect has a lot to do with it. It's then a good fighting force, but possibly not great for civie life.
24779
Post by: Eilif
No, we in the USA don't treat our vets appropriately. Especially when it comes to treatment for Traumatic Brain Injuries, one of the most common maladys for returning soldiers.
And no, it's not because of the leeches.
The VA simply doesn't have:
1) Enough mental health facilities
2) Enough TBI specialists
3) An effecitve mechanism for getting Vets approved for care outside the VA. ( can take many months with few options if a request is turned down)
4) A timely or remotely efficient system for getting TBI diagnoses and treatment within the VA system.
Not to mention the lack of effective protocols for active duty soldiers when it comes to recognizing TBI's and getting treatment before a second TBI. Successive TBI's being exponentially worse than the first when it comes to cognitive damage and recovery time.
Too many of our boys (and girls) are getting TBI's and not getting diagnosed, and then coming home and not getting the treatment they need. They deserve much better.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.
Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.
The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.
Ahtman wrote:Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.
Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life.
On the contrary, I find that my ability to coordinate timely and accurate artillery fire helps me out when I...
No, you're right.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Indeed, the US VA bureaucracy is shamefully inadequate.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Monster Rain wrote:Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.
Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.
The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.
Yeah MR has the right of it, I see the scrawny piss ant soldiers whinging on TV and, I can just tell when a guy is swinging it. Some are genuine, some most definitely aren't.
Hardly any RM or SF soldiers seem to struggle with it, its always some REMF who was so behind the front line he had to send his fething laundry forwards.
There most definately are loads of people taking the piss, and sucking resources away from those that genuinelly need it.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
My brother is an ex-RM and he's really well adjusted. More so than when he went in, in some ways. He was a sniper in afghanistan and it didn't bother him at all. He went on to work in a call centre and get into management for a couple of years, and is now heading out to do some other work around Somalia.
I reckon certain people have the right mindset to be a soldier - Matty's posts on here remind me a lot of the sort of cheerful pragmatism my brother displays, as well as that sort of humour that RM mostly seem to have. From what my brother said, ex-bootnecks keep in touch too and look out for one and other.
Definitely, my brother doesn't feel hard done by. I guess with badly wounded veterans it's always going to be difficult. I doubt many people will be satisfied if they are badly wounded in a war, because the government will probably not pay to keep them completely looked after forever. However this is similar to any citizen who gets injured working for the state, I guess.
Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....
But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?
Give 'em a gun and send them over?
Da Boss wrote:Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.
For some, it can be hard to understand, and simply falls under "If you're not for the War, you're for the Other side".
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I reckon if you're gonna declare war, you probably should have some stake in it. Not sure how that could be implemented though.
29408
Post by: Melissia
MrDwhitey wrote:Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....
But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?
Give 'em a gun and send them over?
Da Boss wrote:Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.
For some, it can be hard to understand, and simply falls under "If you're not for the War, you're for the Other side".
That's the position that most republicans took towards protesters of the invasion of Iraq...
42223
Post by: htj
Da Boss wrote:I reckon if you're gonna declare war, you probably should have some stake in it. Not sure how that could be implemented though.
National Service? Greatly increases the chance you're going to know someone involved, if nothing else.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah. Something like that.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
MrDwhitey wrote:Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....
But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?
Give 'em a gun and send them over?
Our 40-80 year old politicians? No.
Their sons and daughters being the first drafted/selected to go over during any "Skirmish" or war? Yes. I think we would have alot more political, peaceful responses if we did that.
But I don't know nothing, don't mind me.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
42223
Post by: htj
Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I also would not be against this. The ONLY reason I haven't joined any of our military branches is because I love Mountain Dew too much, and it deteriorates muscles (ESPECIALLY four bottles a day......) and I really have no personal reason to go into one of them. But I am still thinking of going in, not sure yet.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
htj wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.
Oh sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be military service.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I've argued for the NS to apply to both men and women before-- I'm not totally against it to be sure. The military would need to become become stricter in discipline regardless of an egalitarian approach or not if it started conscripting..
But that's not a bad thing.
29715
Post by: QQ3 Reload
In Finland we have mandatory national service witch I great. Our politicans haven´t been making war pretty much ever since their own sons would also have to go to the front line (though we are next door neigbours to russia so we can´t really pick fight with anyone).
I believe that we wouldn´t even have enought soldiers with out mandatory national servise, this I claim becouse our national servise is optional for women (and compulsory for men). Every year about 500 women start their national servise (half of wich give up, so we have 250 women soldiers) compared to 16 000 men who start their NS. So if going into the army were optional we would propably train only 500 soldiers per year.
By the way I´m doing my national servise next summer.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Monster Rain wrote:Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.
Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.
The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.
Not sure if we're completely disagreeing with each other here, if you're saying the VA is not very good at managing $, too much red tape, and real problems with handling certain types of injuries, I'm inclined to agree with you.
However, I'd be curious to have a better idea who these "leeches" are that you refer to.
For the record, I'm not a VA hater. My Stepfather and Grandfather have both recieved extensive services from them within the past year alone and the VA is a very important resorce for many vets. I just don't think that it, or the current medical services for active personel are prepared for the issues facing the modern soldier/vet, especialy TBI's and other mental injuries.
6094
Post by: Azza007
I would happily serve myself but wouldn't pass the medical. I agree with National Service, shame we got rid IMO.
As for politicians and wars, boxing match between them to solve it, everyone wins. Especially the people.
45599
Post by: RatBot
Azza007 wrote:I would happily serve myself but wouldn't pass the medical. I agree with National Service, shame we got rid IMO.
As for politicians and wars, boxing match between them to solve it, everyone wins. Especially the people.
"In this corner! In the red, white, and green trunks, At 5' 2", weighing in at 167 pounds.... Mahmoud "The Marauder" Ahmadinejad!
And in this corner! In the red, white, and blue trunks, at 6' 1" and 170 pounds.... Barack "The Rock" Obama!
LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUMBLLLLLLLE!"
6094
Post by: Azza007
Just the politicians beating each other senseless, saves lives, money etc. Hell televise it and make money for the countries involved. More than one country per side involved then have teams or royal rumble style match like WWE. I mean whats not to like, everyone will enjoy it.
39004
Post by: biccat
MrDwhitey wrote:But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?
Give 'em a gun and send them over?
Yes, even though it would result in more than a few unnecessary wars. For a little while at least.
The idea of national service however seems precipitated on the idea that war is necessarily bad. But if the incentives against war are too high, you could see a decrease in politicians using it to further our national interests. Which entails an entirely different conversation.
I don't like the idea of national service because I like the idea of a professional volunteer army.
On the opening question, there certainly needs to be some debate about the resources that our servicemen and women receive, but compensation shouldn't be open ended.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
What you really need is somekind of hi tech UN snatch squad and the Kirk / Gorn scenario. Any leaders who start kicking off are grabbed and stuck on an island to fight it out. You want the bloodshed, you do it! At least a thousand + years ago the leaders stuck their necks on the line as well when it kicked off 
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Da Boss wrote:My brother is an ex-RM and he's really well adjusted. More so than when he went in, in some ways. He was a sniper in afghanistan and it didn't bother him at all. He went on to work in a call centre and get into management for a couple of years, and is now heading out to do some other work around Somalia.
I reckon certain people have the right mindset to be a soldier - Matty's posts on here remind me a lot of the sort of cheerful pragmatism my brother displays, as well as that sort of humour that RM mostly seem to have. From what my brother said, ex-bootnecks keep in touch too and look out for one and other.
Definitely, my brother doesn't feel hard done by. I guess with badly wounded veterans it's always going to be difficult. I doubt many people will be satisfied if they are badly wounded in a war, because the government will probably not pay to keep them completely looked after forever. However this is similar to any citizen who gets injured working for the state, I guess.
I'd be interested to hear from other branches then, maybe its just the RM who give you a thorough debriefing, a complete mental and physical medical, and a good few months paid leave to sort your gak out. I never met a RM (and im still in touch with about 12) that has left and struggled, and unlike 90% of the AF we actually do crack the war-ry stuff (the fun stuff!) I found the RM to be extremely helpful all the way through, and even long after my career. Im curious to hear others experiences because im greatful for the excellent training and assistance I have always been afforded.
Ive seen all sorts of fethed up stuff, my unit was responsible for over 400 enemy kills on our last tour. My section alone saw the company interpreter get vaporized by stepping on an IED about 20 feet away, and the shrapnel we picked out the Sergeant Major's face and neck turned out to be bone fragments from the blown in half guy. (I suggested we issue Afghan nationals clown shoes to assist with this problem)
I once found a blokes head on a rooftop when I was point man in Iraq, I got to the top of the ladder and he was looking at me right at me, well, not right at me, he had a bit of a squint by this time. 
We shot the gak out of people, bombed the feth out of everything, called in some 2000lb air strikes, fired javelin missles at people we seen digging IEDs in.. basically ive got hundreds of gruesome (usually funny) stories about war, but ill not bore you with the details cos they only work in an amusing manner down the pub. The point being, sometimes that gak does give you a bad dream, this is totally normal and you get lectured on how to deal with it when you are being briefed before your post operational tour leave. They teach you and train you! Don't drink alcohol to excess, don't take pills, talk about it, speak to your loved ones, speak to your comrades, see the unit medical officer, keep fit, get into a pattern for rising and sleeping, rest plenty, relax etc. I remember one vividly because it was shortly after my first engagement in Iraq and I had a dream that I was asleep on the floor in the desert and some bearded Arab looking guy was clawing through the sand, and he came through the floor and clawed his way through my stomach, with his head sorta, coming out of my guts but I couldn't move?
Anyway's, I woke up, realised it was a dream, and went back to fething sleep. Then the next morning I told my colleagues about the dream, the lads took the piss for a bit, and then we all shared some similar dreams other people had had, and well. That's the end of it. You get the occasional dream. Big fething deal right? Why do people say they can never sleep and then they become alcoholics, start wearing lederhosen and then strangle their wives?
The point of my long winded story is that I don't believe that nightmares feth you up either if you have been properly trained for it. Just as soldiers seem to struggle more depending on their experience's with resettlement when they quit the service, do you think that maybe the issue is training? Would a better trained person settle easier? Is mental fortitude, something that is essential to even passing UKSF training, but not required to drive a truck for the army, helpful regarding leaving the forces?
Are perhaps National Guards and TA soldiers more prone to PTSD than special forces for example?
I'd bet my ass on it.
18410
Post by: filbert
Hmm well I left the Engineers with a month's holiday/pay, a whiskey decanter (empty) and a cheerful handshake.
Having said that, I never had much of a problem adjusting to civilian life - in fact, I relished it. But then again, I was never a particularly green soldier.
I would echo the sentiment expressed earlier reference ex-soldiers thinking civilian life not being as efficient - I remember walking into my first civvy job and being utterly amazed at how unproductive and disorganised it was and how nothing seemed to get done. A small part of me still thinks that; I really do think some companies could learn a lot from Army organisational techniques.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
filbert wrote:Hmm well I left the Engineers with a month's holiday/pay, a whiskey decanter (empty) and a cheerful handshake.
Having said that, I never had much of a problem adjusting to civilian life - in fact, I relished it. But then again, I was never a particularly green soldier.
Yeah thats way worse than us then. As I said, we attended a week long "Introduction to civilian life" course at HMS Drake in Plymouth based all around resettlement. Me and the other guys leaving at the similar time got bused down there and given accomodation, we did Interview techniques, basic computer skills for a few days, cover letters, CVs.. gak like that. Then after about 6 weeks leave, back to our home unit for a good long chat with a doctor, full medical and dental, and steady leave for a bit more. When I had completely handed all my kit in, left and gone home to Boro for good I still had full pay for about ten weeks.
They should do it the RM way across the board.
18410
Post by: filbert
I didn't qualify for any resettlement courses because I only did 5 years.
4713
Post by: efarrer
mattyrm wrote:[
I'd be interested to hear from other branches then, maybe its just the RM who give you a thorough debriefing, a complete mental and physical medical, and a good few months paid leave to sort your gak out. I never met a RM (and im still in touch with about 12) that has left and struggled, and unlike 90% of the AF we actually do crack the war-ry stuff (the fun stuff!) I found the RM to be extremely helpful all the way through, and even long after my career. Im curious to hear others experiences because im greatful for the excellent training and assistance I have always been afforded.
My wife worked for about five years with Canadian vets from WWII and Korea. The one's with the most mental health problems were the air force (ie. Bomber Command) and the least were in "communications".
That seems like it may still be true.
http://articles.boston.com/2008-08-08/news/29269485_1_predators-chaplains-operators
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
mattyrm wrote:The point of my long winded story is that I don't believe that nightmares feth you up either if you have been properly trained for it. Just as soldiers seem to struggle more depending on their experience's with resettlement when they quit the service, do you think that maybe the issue is training? Would a better trained person settle easier? Is mental fortitude, something that is essential to even passing UKSF training, but not required to drive a truck for the army, helpful regarding leaving the forces?
Makes you wonder what happened to those who saw the worst of the WW1 trenches, knee deep in stinking mud fighting off rats and continual shelling on a daily basis before getting into the nasty business of sticking bayonets in people. Of course, some did go mad and we shot them as deserters.
You never really know who will be affected by what. Some people seem to get over it. But then you have people like Audie Murphy, who was a hugely decorated officer, genuine war hero in every sense. But suffered for decades with flashbacks, nightmares and depression and IIRC at times slept with a gun under his pillow which he once held his wife at gunpoint with.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Monster Rain wrote:htj wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.
Oh sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be military service.
Oh yes it does have to be military service, and force draftees to the front lines. That's the incentive for politicians to not start wars.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
I get what you're saying matty, personally I think Aus is pretty decent when it comes to setting up our soldiers (wounded or not) for civilian life afterwards. In fact I was watching something on Four Corners just the other day about an engineer who suffered severe spinal injuries when the better part of a helicopter fell on him. He and his wife both said that his lengthy and difficult recovery would never have been possible without the support of his mates and the Defence Force itself.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Oh yes it does have to be military service, and force draftees to the front lines. That's the incentive for politicians to not start wars.
This sounds less than reasonable.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I thought the idea of national service was to help promote a sense of national unity and keep importance defense positions filled. Never heard the idea that the point of National Service was to learn that war is bad.
21678
Post by: Karon
The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.
There would most likely be huge Riots over us starting a war if we were required to serve in the event of a conflict (sup, Vietnam)
It would be even worse today...if it was like that, we would never have another War.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.
I don't think that is ever been the reason for a national service program. Well, ever may be a bit much. There is a difference between national service and a draft, such as WWII and Vietnam. National Service is everyone serves and always in place, a draft is an "Oh gak" moment and they start forcing people in. Israel and Finland don't do it because it makes people hate war, or at least that isn't the explicit reason. You don't need to be a soldier to have a distaste for war.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Well A) as one of those 'REMF signal' fellas, you're welcome for those phones/internet/satellite link things that make modern warfare possible, and
B) I also do not understand people that freak out about such stuff. We had a couple birds in my unit what flipped out because they *saw* a dead body. I mean... comethef on. This was regular army, not reserves or anything. Maybe it's my natural unflappability, and the fact that I was only signals because a case of goddamn Osgood- Schlatters kept me from joining combat arms as I had originally intended, but I found the whole war situation grimly amusing. My second trip to Iraq, every single person in my platoon had a laptop. Every single one. It was nuts.
As to stuff when I got out - GI bill and that was it. Which reminds me, I need to get on that. The VA could use a little bit of sharpening up from what my friends 'were injured have been passing along, but overall, it's not like we are being spit on in the streets like my dad got. I think soldiers now a days have it pretty all right.
42223
Post by: htj
Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.
There would most likely be huge Riots over us starting a war if we were required to serve in the event of a conflict (sup, Vietnam)
It would be even worse today...if it was like that, we would never have another War.
Unpopularity doesn't often stop wars, Vietnam being a notable exception. Case in point, the commencement of the current war Britain is involved in saw the largest organised protest in British history take place against it. It was huge, but it didn't do a damn thing. I'm in favour of service, but I don't think that it will achieve the results you suggest here. As to rioting, well, it seems clear that our government is happy just to let them tire themselves out by this point.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Ahtman wrote:Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.
I don't think that is ever been the reason for a national service program.
Agreed.
National service usually has to do with an urgent defense need (Israel), preservation of Neutrality (Switzerland pre 1950's) or a tradition of national unity and service to the country ( Ireland).
4402
Post by: CptJake
I for one am glad that the US armed forces are volunteer only.
Forcing a class of people to join, be it the kids of politicians or some other group you have an issue with is just wrong. You don't like your representative? You get to vote every twpo years for a new one. Don't like your senator, every six. Don't like the President's decisions? Every 4.
As for helping our troops? In the US I think we do a pretty good job. There are all kinds of benefits and programs to help veterans and service members leaving the service. Not all trooprs take advantage of all the programs, and you will always have some poor trooper who seems to need more than he is getting, but overall, we actually do a darned good job. And again, if you DON'T think so, vote for the politician that supports what you want done or call/write your current rep and voice your opinion, and get others to do the same.
Every single US enlisted trooper on active duty has either joined up during time of war, or re-enlisted at least once during time of war. They know what they are doing. They are not victims, and most (as in a huge majority) despise being considered as such.
42223
Post by: htj
What do you mean a class of people? Surely it would be universal?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.
A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.
In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.
And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.
22627
Post by: Grabzak Dirtyfighter
I thought the military took very good care of me when I got out. You can get up to 48 months of GI bill now and the new one pays your tuition as well as a living stipend that is currently ~$1400 a month, and if my credit wasn't so damned bad I would have access to a VA home loan as well. they also set me up with a work study job when I started school answering phones at a local vet rep office, which when added to the GI bill gave me ~$2200 a month untaxed income. And if you were to get hurt VA disability is for the rest of your life, even if you get a job or become filthy rich, that check will be coming every month. I think the people who take advantage of that disability are huge scum bags, but its nice to see the men and women coming back hurt getting something in return.
42223
Post by: htj
@CptJake. Ah, I see what you're saying there. I'm not proposing that National Service will solve all war, nor do I suggest sending draftees (even politicians ) to the front before the trained, professional soldiers. I'm just a proponant of national service because I believe it gives one a respect for one's country and an understanding of service to your fellow man.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids. I know my wife and I do.
My wife (currently deployed) and myself have a combined 35 years active duty time. We have an enlisted (infantry) son, a son on an Army ROTC scholarship in college, and would not be surprised if our daughter decides to serve in some way. No, I don't think all service has to be or even should be military, some folks are just not cut out for it. I also don't think it should be forced. Encouraged, yes. Compulsory, no. Of course, that is just my opinion. You can't force appreciation and respect for country and service to fellow mankind. Sometimes I feel respect for country is actively discouraged, but that is another topic.
And again, back to the OP topic, I do think, here in the US, we do a darned good job taking care of our troopers and veterans. There is always room for improvement (and sadly always individual cases where frankly the system fails), but you can track programs over the last 10 years and see that we HAVE improved and continue to look for ways to improve.
Jake
241
Post by: Ahtman
CptJake wrote: punish the political class.
Politician isn't a class. If you mean Upper Class and Rich, of which most politicians are, then yes.
CptJake wrote:If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population.
That is a ridiculous. I'm not even sure how one comes up with that as a definition of fairness.
42223
Post by: htj
CptJake wrote:I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids. I know my wife and I do.
Oh, I agree! I just think too many fail to do so.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ahtman wrote:CptJake wrote: punish the political class.
Politician isn't a class. If you mean Upper Class and Rich, of which most politicians are, then yes.
CptJake wrote:If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population.
That is a ridiculous. I'm not even sure how one comes up with that as a definition of fairness.
What is your definition of fair? In mine, if you have an army of 100 people and a popualtion of 1000, the 100 would be representative of the 1000. If 10 of the 1,000 were your 'rich', I would expect 1 of the 100 to be from the 'rich'. Look at the charts I posted. The upper class is already more represented than the lower class. To be fair, the lower class would have to be compelled to serve in a much greater proportion than they currently do.
Do you see compelled service as a way to punish a class of person? I am very much opposed to that. If you don't see it that way, what is your intent for forced service? I'm honestly curious.
24779
Post by: Eilif
CptJake,
Interesting charts, I had no idea the military fairly well represented in the middle and upper class. I also resonate with your ideals of instilling the value of service in one's children, whether it be military, social, govt, etc.
I do disagree though your charts and their division of what is "middle class". Not surprising since the charts are created by the "Heritige Foundation" an uber-conservative organization beloved by Rush and Hannity! Interesting that the differences are all in percentages of around 2% or less, which any statistician will tell you is statistically insignificant and well within the "margin of error".
I've dealt a bit with median incomes and the actuality of poverty in my previous employment. While it's by no means the cutoff for poverty, a solidly middle class is much more accurately placed at the 50k per family rather than the 40k that the charts above portray. Moving the middle class line over to 50 knocks two of the bar graph segments down and changes the numbers significantly.
The Govt has a very screwed up mesure of povery , mostly since it reflects ratios of food expenses to housing expenses from the 60's and not current realities. Of course the difficulty in getting any elected official to fix that standard when would make it look like more people "became poor" on their watch explains pretty clearly why we still have the measure we do.
29408
Post by: Melissia
CptJake wrote:And again, if you DON'T think so, vote for the politician that supports what you want done or call/write your current rep and voice your opinion, and get others to do the same.
No such politician runs for office. Sure, they talk a big deal, but they never actually do it. Especially nowadays with all the politicians who used to be in bed with the military now instead deciding they want to have a tea party.
241
Post by: Ahtman
CptJake wrote:What is your definition of fair?
If you are talking about pressing adults of a certain age into service you would, you take people of that age regardless of economic station. I suppose the irony of your sense of fairness is that it would be anything but fair, as it makes it less about citizens being called to duty and more about economic factors. Are you between 18-30? Hey guess what, you get some free training. Or at best a blind lottery so that the decisions aren't based on political and economic factors.
CptJake wrote:Do you see compelled service as a way to punish a class of person?
You keep using the word 'class' in such a way to make me think you really don't understand what it means. I don't think national service is a punishment generally speaking, assuming it is blind to anything other than the nationality and health of the person. If you start trying to base it on things like (parent's) income brackets or (parent's) employment then I think you start running into problems.
29408
Post by: Melissia
CptJake wrote:I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids.
There's a difference between believing that parents ought to be good parents and believing that they will be.
16064
Post by: Tauzor
Matt you pansy RM .. fancy a beer ?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ahtman wrote:CptJake wrote:What is your definition of fair?
If you are talking about pressing adults of a certain age into service you would, you take people of that age regardless of economic station. I suppose the irony of your sense of fairness is that it would be anything but fair, as it makes it less about citizens being called to duty and more about economic factors. Are you between 18-30? Hey guess what, you get some free training. Or at best a blind lottery so that the decisions aren't based on political and economic factors. CptJake wrote:Do you see compelled service as a way to punish a class of person?
You keep using the word 'class' in such a way to make me think you really don't understand what it means. I don't think national service is a punishment generally speaking, assuming it is blind to anything other than the nationality and health of the person. If you start trying to base it on things like (parent's) income brackets or (parent's) employment then I think you start running into problems.
In your 'blind lottery' IF it was done fairly, as in every one had an equal chance of getting picked, my example is spot on. Take a basic statistics class. More poor people would serve than do now, less middle and upper class would serve than do now, because when every one has an equal chance, the population picked would end up very closely mirroring the population picked from. Right now, as the charts I posted show, the population that actually serves does not mirror the US population, the middle and upper income people are over represented and the lower income are under represented. In a truly random draw, where every one has an equal chance of being picked, that would not be the case. Period. In a truly random and fair draft, the results again, should mirror the population they are drawn from. Of course then you would have other issues. To serve right now you MUST meet certain physical, educational, pshychological criteria and must NOT have engaged and been caught in certain criminal behaviors. Assuming you maintain those standards, your Random Every One's Chance Is Equal goes out the window. If fat boy, or dope smoker, or convicted of a crime, or ADHD sufferer gets picked, they are disqualified from serving. So the actual elgible population shrinks quite a bit. The armed service in the US is too small a percent of the population to force everyone between 18-30 to even be trained let alone actually serve, so I am not sure what you meant by that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:CptJake wrote:I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids.
There's a difference between believing that parents ought to be good parents and believing that they will be.
I don't disagree with that at all. Which is why I also stated in the same post: Sometimes I feel respect for country is actively discouraged, but that is another topic.
241
Post by: Ahtman
CptJake wrote:Take a basic statistics class.
Considering your poor argument, that is a bit of an odd thing to say as well as inappropriate. Fairness, which is a fools errand at best, is not about matching arbitrarily chosen qualifiers. You aren't convincing, and your position is still fairly naive.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Read my example, and try to understand what I am saying. If you take a random number of a larger population, be it colored beads or people, statistically the group chosen will closely mirror the larger population in the proportions of its make up.
If I have 1,000 beads, 900 which are red and 100 which are blue and randomly pick out 100, I should end up with about 90 red and 10 blue.
Same with people. If I randomly pick X people from a population of Y(X), my group of X should have a simialr ratio of the population that makes up Y(X). That can be based on race, economic standing, hair or eye color. left vice right handedness, what ever.
If you are NOT randomly selecting, what is your method you consider fair?
Why is my arguement poor. What have I stated incorrectly?
And again, what is your criteria of 'fair'? How do you choose who you want to make serve in the military?
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:Read my example, and try to understand what I am saying. If you take a random number of a larger population, be it colored beads or people, statistically the group chosen will closely mirror the larger population in the proportions of its make up.
In a theoretical vacuum that is generally true, though you are still constrained by you ability to approach a random sample. This means not only randomizing the selection process, but randomizing the encoding of all relevant coded units with selectable variables. In other words, you can't just take a list of people, number them alphabetically, and then select using a random number generator. If you want a true random sample you have randomly generate individual units to be coded, and a variable to code them with; and the procedures use to generate either cannot be the same as either each other, or the selecting procedure.
Its really tedious, and really complicated, especially in terms of generating each procedure.
CptJake wrote:
If I have 1,000 beads, 900 which are red and 100 which are blue and randomly pick out 100, I should end up with about 90 red and 10 blue.
If you can select them at random, yes, but that's actually pretty difficult. For example, if you're blindly pulling blue beads out of a hat, and most of the blue beads happen to be near the top, the probability of selecting a blue bead increases relative to the actual composition of the population.
This is just an example of course, but the point is, as above, that randomization is not only hard, in theory, but even harder in practice. The procedure I outline above isn't even used by the AMES database because its would be ridiculously expensive over a population of ~35 million (basically, males 18-35) and even then you'll end up with a sample that isn't representative of the larger US population.
Anyway, the issue is that the notion of a "fair draft" is closer to "what the government can get away with" than "what is statistically fair", which has been demonstrated throughout history.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I don't disagree. I'm just trying to point out that the folks who want to draft the kids of the rich would have to accept that the kids of the poor are going to also be elgible to be drafted. And because there are more poor kids currently choosing not to serve in proportion to the number of poor kids in the country, you will see an increase of poor kids serving via a draft than you do today in a volunteer force. I strongly suspect that those who advocate a draft do not realize that, or would choose to manipulate the draft in some way to keep that from happening.
Right now serving is a choice. Which, in my opinion, is what it should be. You can look at percentages of the population in various ways to see who actually enlists (say by economic bracket or race for example). There seems to be a misperception that this group called 'the rich' or 'the kids of politicians' don't pull thier 'fair' share, or that they are under represented. That just isn't true at this point.
Compelling folks to serve who do not want to, again, in my opinion, hurts the military. I'm against that. When I see that the reason given tends to be what amounts to 'force this group in as punishment', it frankly disgusts me, especially when you actually look at the numbers and see that, for example, out of 535 members of congress, 121 are military veterans, and several have children on active duty (as of 2007 at least 9 had kids who served in Iraq, the number has risen since then but I can't pin it down).
Right now, folks join who want to join. That is good. There has not been a problem getting kids to enlist. Interestingly, amongst combat units, re-enlistments are at historical highs.
When folks claim that who is serving is somehow not 'fair' but then will not define 'fair' I think that is crap. Generally the folks who claim it is not 'fair' do not have an accurate idea of who is actually serving. Again, I think that is crap.
I never argued a perfectly random way to draft troops could be implemented, I argued that it would be what I consider 'fair'. I also pointed out some of the consequences of that (more poor would serve than do now).
I don't think a draft is politically possible in our country at this point, and I am glad of that.
But again, when someone complains that the current demographic make up of our troopers is somehow not 'fair' to some group, I call BS.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
From speaking to friends in and retired from the ADF they are treated and compensated quite fairly.
34168
Post by: Amaya
CptJake wrote:
I don't think a draft is politically possible in our country at this point, and I am glad of that.
It isn't. Imagine the outcry from parents when there 18 year old daughter gets drafted. Image trying to go into the ghetto (Much worse than it was during the Vietnam drafts) and trying to force gangsters to serve.
The military in America isn't in a bad place as far as who joins up. Right now it's primarily people who either want to serve their country or realize that it can be a relatively easy and steady paycheck (depending on your MoS).
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:
But again, when someone complains that the current demographic make up of our troopers is somehow not 'fair' to some group, I call BS.
I think most arguments to that effect deal with demographic variance across MOSs. For example, I recall that Blacks and Hispanics were significantly more likely to serve in combat roles than Whites, though I don't remember if that controlled for poverty and AVSB scores.
46915
Post by: Private_Joker
Everyone knows a conscript army is fairly useless in terms of moral and teamwork anyway. Your more likely to get the job done with 50 voluteers then 100 people who don't want to be there.
But then again I look at some of the youth running around and start to think National service would be a better option, mainly just to keep them off the street. Anyway a wise soldier once said to me that the US army is there to seperate the insane out of society and keep them occupied with a rifle.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Private_Joker wrote:Everyone knows a conscript army is fairly useless in terms of moral and teamwork anyway. Your more likely to get the job done with 50 voluteers then 100 people who don't want to be there.
But then again I look at some of the youth running around and start to think National service would be a better option, mainly just to keep them off the street. Anyway a wise soldier once said to me that the US army is there to seperate the insane out of society and keep them occupied with a rifle.
Whoever told you that was an idiot. The last thing we need is nut jobs in the military. Civilians don't understand how PC the military has gotten... If you are a whacko you will be filtered out.
4402
Post by: CptJake
dogma wrote:CptJake wrote:
But again, when someone complains that the current demographic make up of our troopers is somehow not 'fair' to some group, I call BS.
I think most arguments to that effect deal with demographic variance across MOSs. For example, I recall that Blacks and Hispanics were significantly more likely to serve in combat roles than Whites, though I don't remember if that controlled for poverty and AVSB scores.
Absolutely wrong, in the specially case of blacks. Even during the Vietnam War, only 34% of blacks who enlisted enlisted in Combat Arms. Combat Arms, infantry and Armor in particular, are very, very short on black soldiers and officers, who tend to go towards support branches. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA402652 Note that in that paper he does not differentiate bretween Infantry and Armor and Air Defense Artillery. If you did that, the numbers are even worse. Though that is about officers, it holds true for enlisted. In fact, since 9/11, the numbers of blacks enlisting at all has decreased quite a bit, though over the last year or two it has gone up some as the economy has tanked. 2005 numbers: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY05%20Army%20Profile.pdf and http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP32Adamshik.pdf and the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05952.pdf Some by year info at links here: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp including the 2010 http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY10_Army_Profile.pdf So, "The Minorities do the dying" is as much a myth as "The Poor do the dying". http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf gives break outs of deaths by race. From a site that bills itself as 'liberal' (what ever that means) U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,477 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army from http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
46
Post by: alarmingrick
I remember hearing a story on NPR about US Army members getting out and saying they had a problem.
Uncle Sam said 'Nothing to see hear' and then the Soldiers were getting into fights(family and nonfamily),
turning into serious drinkers and commiting suicide. since they had started drinking, they laid it all off on it
instead of why they were drinking, PTSD.
i say do whatever it takes to help them to be whole and complete. they risked life and limb. they've earned it.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Private_Joker wrote:Everyone knows a conscript army is fairly useless in terms of moral and teamwork anyway.
You're absolutely correct. Everyone knows that the British lost WWI and the Allies lost WWII.
This post contains a factual error. See if you can spot it.
39004
Post by: biccat
Albatross wrote:This post contains a factual error.
It's got to be this part. The post doesn't actually contain a factual error.
This post contains a factual error. See if you can spot it.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Albatross wrote:Private_Joker wrote:Everyone knows a conscript army is fairly useless in terms of moral and teamwork anyway.
You're absolutely correct. Everyone knows that the British lost WWI and the Allies lost WWII.
This post contains a factual error. See if you can spot it.
And Isreal was conquered in 67
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Laughed out loud and almost spilled my drink....
Using decade old data from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
I retired after 22 years at the sharp end of the stick. I now work for a company that does a great deal of statistical work, most of it for the DOD and the Human Resources command of the US ARMY.
Adjust the "Middle Class" number for those decade old base calculation figures by $20k and what do you have?
Cherry picking numbers out of obsolete statistical databases and modifying the base to make some statement to support their agenda is what the Heritage Foundation is legend for.
Tell you what, there have to be some combat troops in these forums still on active duty. By combat troop I mean your job starts with an 11 or a 19 or you are in the teams. Lets hear from them on what the make up of the current combat troops are.
I know what it is because I live 4 miles from Fort Knox. I attended the graduation ceremonies and my church hosted the kids 2 weeks before graduation when the Armor School was still here and now that it has left and been replaced by an active duty combat brigade I am surrounded by neighbors who are the platoon sergeants, 1st sergeants, and commanders of those combat troops. The majority of the troops recruited are from poor families, they are married and trying to support families in these hard times and they are bone tired of 10 years of watching their friends die in a never ending war that NOBODY cares about unless one of their family members is in it.
The "Heritage Foundation" is rich white people and their kids do not die in these never ending wars but they sure make some pretty slides.....even if they are a pack of lies when compared to the ground truth.
Soldiers whine because none of you pampered children give a gak. Your President goes on vacation. Your congressmen chose their parties over their oath of office. And when a soldier's contract is over, they stop loss him like a slave in Roman times and tell him he has to stay in and fight or go to jail. Those same politicians tell him he has to sleep and shower next to a man who is sexually attracted to other men and to ignore his christian background. Never mind the fact that if that same homosexual (you can call him gay if it makes you feel better) is much more likely to infect everyone in his squad if he gets splatted by a roadside bomb because he had unprotected sex with his "husband" before he deployed.
We would love a draft that would let everyone have an equal chance to die in a road side bomb, sleep next to another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more, and die for a country of people who obviously do not give a damn if we live or die and then change the retirement plans we signed up for 10 or twenty years earlier so they can give more money to members of the Heritage Foundation.
If you have picked up that I was one of those combat troops that you asked about why they whine so much good for you, you are not stupid enough to get out of the draft that is coming in two years.
Of course if you have a pimple on your butt (Rush Limbaugh) you can avoid it, or if you are politically connected you can get 7 deferments in a row (Guess which Vice President that was), or if your daddy is big in politics and you are a big enough coward you can skip the 3 year waiting list for the Texas air guard and then choose to train in the only fighter aircraft guaranteed to never be deployed outside the United States and then not show up for any drills (and then get elected President) and the list could go on. What do all of these cowards have in common? They are all members of the Heritage Foundation... and the draft for the Viet Nam war was a joke because all of the rich people who wanted their kids safe got them out of it
The draft for World War two was the real thing. No deferments except for those who really qualified.
World War II lasted half as long as this war. Nobody went on vacations. People went to jail for war profiting. A president's son was in the 2nd wave on Omaha Beach. We nuked another country (twice) to end the war sooner. That's because there was a draft and there was a real incentive to win the war quickly.
I hope when they cut the DOD budget in half we get a real draft. I bet we get out of the sandbox then....and then you will know why the troops whine so much.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Those same politicians tell him he has to sleep and shower next to a man who is sexually attracted to other men and to ignore his christian background. Never mind the fact that if that same homosexual (you can call him gay if it makes you feel better) is much more likely to infect everyone in his squad if he gets splatted by a roadside bomb because he had unprotected sex with his "husband" before he deployed.
We would love a draft that would let everyone have an equal chance to die in a road side bomb, sleep next to another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more, and die for a country of people who obviously do not give a damn if we live or die and then change the retirement plans we signed up for 10 or twenty years earlier so they can give more money to members of the Heritage Foundation.
And it was going so well till that point.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
LOL, touche
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response to who do you send in a war when you use a draft.
In a real war you send ALL of them, you nuke the enemy populations just to get their leaders, you bomb their cities to dust, you make it so painful the war ends because anything is better than the war....
That's what a war is when a country is serious and not just exchanging the blood of it's troops for money for their rich.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Read the fine print, the data is not a decade old, unless data from the Defense dept from 2006 and 2007 counts as ten years old in some weird way.
And I was commissioned as an armor officer. Been in combat units. Have an 11b son. Other son an an ROTC scholaship to a military college. Wife still active duty though obviously not combat arms. And since where you live seems to make a difference to you and defines your ability to have an opinion, I live right outside Ft Stewart and close to Hunter.
Find more recent data that contradicts what I posted. Heck, find ANY data that contradicts what I posted.
For what it is worth, here is a left leaning source (a paper by a Berkeley economics guy) that also uses the Heritage data. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/ugrad/theses/ryan_moffett_thesis.pdf Seems to be pretty widely accepted data.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
So you"been" a armor Officer, I was always a combat troop in a combat unit, not just "assigned" in a few. We had cooks assigned.
I live next to combat troops, NCO's and officers who agree with me and bitch to me about the current conditions. Did you stay an Armor Officer and stay in combat units. make it to retirement?
The base data for that Heritage was from the 2000 census that Heritage used to "determine" medium income for the average family was it not?
As for the data... I will. By the way with you Fort Stewart location would you agree that Hispanics exceed the general population ratios in Combat arms or were you too far away to notice?
46
Post by: alarmingrick
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Never mind the fact that if that same homosexual (you can call him gay if it makes you feel better) is much more likely to infect everyone in his squad if he gets splatted by a roadside bomb because he had unprotected sex with his "husband" before he deployed.
i'm with MrDwhitey on this. you asume the Gay soldier was allowed to get married. and notice how their Ass is in the same sling that his squad is in?
Do you think they're going to all bust out of a closet and come runnin' for you? seriously?
i have to tell you before and after that little 'Gayrade' of your's, you're pretty spot on in my opinion. Just remember that there are thousands of Gays/Lesbians
who would love the ability to fight and die for this country. but due to Bassackward thinking of homophobes they can't even work as translators.
as you were....
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
"Since FY83, the percentages of Whites and Blacks in the Active-Duty Army have steadily decreased, while the percentage of Hispanics has increased (from 4% to 10%)."
www.armyg1.army.mil/ hr/docs/.../HispanicsThenNow83-03.ppt slide 4
Open source, looking for more
Automatically Appended Next Post: "According to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future project, these patterns continued at least through the first two decades of the volunteer force among high school graduates. Enlistment was higher among blacks and Hispanics than among whites, among men from single-parent households, among those whose parents had lower levels of education, and among those who did not plan to attend college.47 "
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=72&articleid=526§ionid=3615
39400
Post by: briurso
mattyrm wrote: Alright, I was at work listening to the radio today and there was a 4 hour debate.
Do we give the armed forces enough help when they leave the service?
Here is a link to the news night page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8781382.stm
Nobody is more pro armed forces than me, I did a half career in the RM. I did 6 tours and 10 years in a combat role. Not some pansy REMF unit like the engineers, signals, RLC, almost all of the Navy and the Airforce as a whole. I'm also stunned by the amount of sheer bs I hear when a serviceman is talking about his job "Yeah I was in the RLC but I was a sniper and I saw loads of dead babies and that" or "I joined the engineers but I'm a para-commando in the kung-fu regiment so I got PTSD"
Anyways..
1. thanks for your service mate 2. I think we should bend over backwards for the men and women that serve our countries (im american)....I have medical problems and was never able to serve... and i think that the people
that serve are the real superheroes in life.
4402
Post by: CptJake
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:So you"been" a armor Officer, I was always a combat troop in a combat unit, not just "assigned" in a few. We had cooks assigned.
I live next to combat troops, NCO's and officers who agree with me and bitch to me about the current conditions. Did you stay an Armor Officer and stay in combat units. make it to retirement?
The base data for that Heritage was from the 2000 census that Heritage used to "determine" medium income for the average family was it not?
As for the data... I will. By the way with you Fort Stewart location would you agree that Hispanics exceed the general population ratios in Combat arms or were you too far away to notice?
No, it was not. The zip code/economic data came from that, and they applied the 2006 and 2007 enlistment numbers to the areas.
Here are the 2010 stats for races. http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY10_Army_Profile.pdf Look for yourself at what races are in combat arms. By the way, I have already posted that.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
alarmingrick wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Never mind the fact that if that same homosexual (you can call him gay if it makes you feel better) is much more likely to infect everyone in his squad if he gets splatted by a roadside bomb because he had unprotected sex with his "husband" before he deployed.
i'm with MrDwhitey on this. you asume the Gay soldier was allowed to get married. and notice how their Ass is in the same sling that his squad is in?
Do you think they're going to all bust out of a closet and come runnin' for you? seriously?
i have to tell you before and after that little 'Gayrade' of your's, you're pretty spot on in my opinion. Just remember that there are thousands of Gays/Lesbians
who would love the ability to fight and die for this country. but due to Bassackward thinking of homophobes they can't even work as translators.
as you were....
My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids. We kick out intravenous drug users because they have a higher risk for aids, we do not and did not in the past attempt to rehabilitate them. So who do we no make an exception for gay males who ARE a higher risk population for aids. You ever been at ground zero of one of yours bleeding all over the place and everyone trying to keep him alive in a bad situation? How do you think the thought of the one bleeding all over his squad trying to keep him alive is going to play out to the rest of that squad when they are wiping the blood off of them and they later find out he came up positive for aids? It will happen.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
I looked at your chart. The percentage of minorities was 2 points short of doubled in the last 10 years. You will notice they did not chart the economic backgrounds of the recruits, it would have been painful.
Don't get me wrong , I love those troops but this war will never end as long as poor families are fighting it. I know the troops, they are patriotic, they are family men but those who run this country do not care for them.
You know that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.
Yes they can and they often are, but their chances of catching aids is way lower than a homosexual male. Their changes of wearing a condom are also way higher. Ask the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Automatically Appended Next Post:
25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.
Would you consider that a significant enough risk factor and what do you think that stat will do to the Army health care system?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM males having sex with males in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.
They army will filter out those who have it when they enlist.
They will not be able to stop the behavior of unprotected sex with very highly infected populations both in America and overseas where the laws prohibiting gay sex means nobody in the local populations goes to get checked.
The gap in time between infection and detection means when someone gets hit it kills a squad.
That is my problem with aids and gays. A moral man would use protection but I think you have to agree that is not the statistically average young gay man, at home in America or deployed far away. Automatically Appended Next Post: snip
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, while Latinos make up 9.5 percent of the actively enlisted forces, they are over-represented in the categories that get the most dangerous assignments -- infantry, gun crews and seamanship -- and make up over 17.5 percent of the front lines.
These worries have been exacerbated during the recent conflict in Iraq. As of Aug. 28, Department of Defense (DOD) statistics show a casualty rate of more than 13 percent for people of Hispanic background serving in Iraq.
snip
Another tactic suspected of targeting Hispanics is an executive order signed by U.S. President George W. Bush in July 2002, expediting naturalization for aliens and non-citizen nationals who serve in active-duty status during the administration's ''war on terrorism''.
snip
Department officials strenuously denied that the order was targeted at the Hispanic population.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0922-02.htm
Last post good night all, no malice intended. I was overboard with you CPT, I apologize.
6094
Post by: Azza007
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:I looked at your chart. The percentage of minorities was 2 points short of doubled in the last 10 years. You will notice they did not chart the economic backgrounds of the recruits, it would have been painful.
Don't get me wrong , I love those troops but this war will never end as long as poor families are fighting it. I know the troops, they are patriotic, they are family men but those who run this country do not care for them.
You know that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.
Yes they can and they often are, but their chances of catching aids is way lower than a homosexual male. Their changes of wearing a condom are also way higher. Ask the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Automatically Appended Next Post:
25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.
Would you consider that a significant enough risk factor and what do you think that stat will do to the Army health care system?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM males having sex with males in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.
They army will filter out those who have it when they enlist.
They will not be able to stop the behavior of unprotected sex with very highly infected populations both in America and overseas where the laws prohibiting gay sex means nobody in the local populations goes to get checked.
The gap in time between infection and detection means when someone gets hit it kills a squad.
That is my problem with aids and gays. A moral man would use protection but I think you have to agree that is not the statistically average young gay man, at home in America or deployed far away.
Are you saying that gay males are immoral? Thats what I just picked up from your statement, and I have to say that came across as offensive to me, having quite a few gay friends, none of whom I would call immoral.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It's like it's 1982 all over again.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Ahtman wrote:It's like it's 1982 all over again.
"Hard to say I'm Sorry" by Chicago is a number one hit?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Monster Rain wrote:Ahtman wrote:It's like it's 1982 all over again.
"Hard to say I'm Sorry" by Chicago is a number one hit?
In my heart it is MR, in my heart.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Didn't you guys know? Aids is the only debilitating blood borne disease that one could ever contract from someone bleeding all over them.
Honestly there are so many things wrong with NoI's gay-rade that it's hard to pick a place to start.
39004
Post by: biccat
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.
The latest liberal crusade on AIDS is not to identify risky behavior and inform people of their increased risk, it's to make the case that AIDS affects everyone and targetting efforts in those communities most affected is racist and "homophobic."
Unfortunately, this doesn't actually do anything to reduce the prevalence of AIDS in gay and urban (mostly African-American) communities where AIDS is booming.
AIDS is a predominantly gay disease, and if you're going to insist on spending government money on the issue, gay communities should be informed that their way of life (particularly as to promiscuity and safe sex) is dangerous. Interestingly, lesbians tend to be far less promiscuous than gay men. Other physical differences also reduce the chance of AIDS transmission.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I'm in full agreement that people should practice safe sex and be educated further on the subject.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.
However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissinve an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.
Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...
another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more
When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilised society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.
29373
Post by: Mr. Self Destruct
I can see the point of your concern with AIDS, but homosexuality isn't immoral.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I will warrant that NOI is a man of faith. Only people that think your sexuality is a "life style choice" can show such distaste.
I mean, I'm a manly man, but disliking gay people is ridiculous. You might as well dislike people with brown hair.
And you know how I know it? I LOVE women, and women love me.
I'm a slave to my sexuality, it demands I try to sleep with women. If im walking down the street and a hot woman bends over to pick a coin up, something in my brain demands I check her ass out. When anti-gay people say "Oh nobody is really gay, its just a lifestyle choice" I find it offensive, because even though I like gay people, I'm not gay myself. And if you claim its just a "lifestyle choice" and not that you are biologically wired to find men attractive, your basically saying
"Matty likes woman, but he could happily go for some cock as well"
Its stupid. Some men find men attractive, big fething deal. Its not like they are pretending they like smoking bloke because they want to needlessly annoy people. 
Oh yeah, and how did my "should we really spend even more money on the armed forces or are they treated adequately already" thread turn into this?
16387
Post by: Manchu
General reminder in this controversial thread: Please remember that discussion requires the courtesy of all who choose to participate -- and that courtesy, or at least not being rude, is a requirement of using Dakka Dakka.
Thanks.
29408
Post by: Melissia
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more
So why are gay men of "obvious low moral character" then?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
mattyrm wrote: Oh yeah, and how did my "should we really spend even more money on the armed forces or are they treated adequately already" thread turn into this?
It was this or religion vs. atheism or conservative vs. liberal google wars.
I find this to be a refreshing change of pace.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Howard A Treesong wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.
However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissinve an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.
Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...
another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more
When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilised society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.
This, seconded. Your posts leave me wondering how someone can pretend to be approaching this from an objective angle, when your comments are literally saturated with what seems to be homophobic disdain and disgust.
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote:another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more
So why are gay men of "obvious low moral character" then?
I thought he was referring to all draftees being "obviously of low moral character." Especially because of the "and has not but fethed another male" clause.
Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.
11029
Post by: Ketara
biccat wrote:
Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral."
Well. Depending on you personal belief in the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.
If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.
However, in the same way we've progressed from the Aztecs ritually sacrificing people to the Gods, and occasional cannibalism in Africa, I'd hope we've progressed (or are progressing) from homohobia. Using the justification that something has been done before for a period of time in the past, and has nothing inherently wrong with it, justifies both of those things as well, after all.
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.
Yeah, and it was also the prevailing attitude that slavery was okay for about that long too. Same with using women as chattel and beating one's wife. Heck even murdering one's wife was okay as long as you had even a flimsy justification in many places. Still is. A moral stance has to be held on its own merits, tradition alone is worth less than nothing.
39004
Post by: biccat
Ketara wrote:If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.
I don't have a problem with people finding blacks, homosexuals, Republicans, or Frenchmen immoral. This is not a problem in need of correction.
But when someone engages in positive discrimination it's our duty as individually moral human beings to reject the behavior we find objectionable.
When discrimination turns to violence, then it's time for the government to step in and stop the behavior. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Yeah, and it was also the prevailing attitude that slavery was okay for about that long too.
Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
biccat wrote:
Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.
Its 2011, what the hell has s few thousand years of idiocy got to do with it? Flat earth, black bile yellow bile, women voting.. thats a ridiculous argument frankly. I think I could make a cast iron case that it most definitely is wrong to call people who are homosexual immoral. Its very obviously silly.
As far as I'm concerned It's flat out fething stupid is what it is. And its all thanks to the stone age gift that just keeps on giving, be it witch burning, never ending wars or suicide bombs, yes you guessed it, its organised R.....
Oh wait ive said that before.
Yeah its just dumb!
5534
Post by: dogma
Ketara wrote:
If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.
That's true, though one could argue that bayoneting babies for the purpose of consumption is right, or at least not wrong, under a far smaller set of circumstances than hate and denigration on grounds of sexuality. Notably, most people have little problem hating and denigrating pedophiles, but would only consider the consumption of infants not wrong under something like Donner Party circumstances.
39004
Post by: biccat
mattyrm wrote:As far as I'm concerned It's flat out fething stupid is what it is. And its all thanks to the stone age gift that just keeps on giving, be it witch burning, never ending wars or suicide bombs, yes you guessed it, its organised R.....
Most people who have been killed due to morality are those who reject the majority moral position, not those who embrace it.
Is discrimination based on morality any better than discrimination based on sexual orientation?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
biccat wrote:When discrimination turns to violence, then it's time for the government to step in and stop the behaviour.
All discrimination based on arbitary things like colour and orientation are wrong, discrimination in such cases should be stopped well before it becomes violent. Extreme discrimination can involve all sorts of non-violent behaviour such as smearing a person false allegations and subjecting them to a verbal and written abuse, organising boycotts again them, refusing them custom on the basis of skin colour or orientation, sacking a person from a job, refusing to employ someone based on their colour, refusing all sorts of basic rights that are the norm for others and a whole multitude of non-violent forms of harassment.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:
AIDS is a predominantly gay disease, and if you're going to insist on spending government money on the issue, gay communities should be informed that their way of life (particularly as to promiscuity and safe sex) is dangerous.
Well, really only as to promiscuity and safe sex, though more the latter than the former. There's also historical issues arising from negative social pressure that have created a higher than average rate of HIV infected homosexual and bisexual men. Then there's matter of poverty to consider, as the rate of HIV infection is much higher amongst relatively poor MSM than amongst relatively wealthy MSM.
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.
Okay, so if someone took your family and enslaved them, forcing parents and children and siblingsd and nephews to work in a coal mine (or worse, as prostitutes), you'd say that's not morally wrong?
39004
Post by: biccat
dogma wrote:Well, really only as to promiscuity and safe sex, though more the latter than the former. There's also historical issues arising from negative social pressure that have created a higher than average rate of HIV infected homosexual and bisexual men. Then there's matter of poverty to consider, as the rate of HIV infection is much higher amongst relatively poor MSM than amongst relatively wealthy MSM.
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity. There's even a subculture dedicated towards getting infected with HIV. There is a limited amount of resources we can dedicate to providing education and information about HIV, it should be put to where it will do the most good.
My personal opinion is that problems arise because men in general are idiots and having two men in a relationship is simply a recipe for disaster.
Melissia wrote:biccat wrote:Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.
Okay, so if someone took your family and enslaved them, forcing parents and children and siblingsd and nephews to work in a coal mine (or worse, as prostitutes), you'd say that's not morally wrong?
I would say it's morally wrong. But I think others could hold the position that it isn't morally wrong. And more imporantly, I don't think there should be any punishment for such a belief. It's when you act on those beliefs that there is a problem.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Then wouldn't you try to stop them from thinking that, to prevent them from trying to kidnap your family?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Monster Rain wrote:I find this to be a refreshing change of pace.
It is the 7up of threads. AHHHHHHH, refreshing.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity.
And heterosexual culture isn't?
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:Then wouldn't you try to stop them from thinking that, to prevent them from trying to kidnap your family?
How do you know who has those thoughts?
How do you propose changing their thoughts?
How will you prevent them from having those thoughts in the future?
How do you know that your position on this is absolutely correct?
What other thoughts should we stamp out?
What if you have thoughts that other people find objectionable? Automatically Appended Next Post: rubiksnoob wrote:biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity.
And heterosexual culture isn't?
It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.
When AIDS reaches the same pandemic level in the straight community as it is in the gay community, we can talk.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
As interesting as this subject is, maybe can you start a thread elsewhere?
241
Post by: Ahtman
biccat wrote:It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.
It isn't for a lack of trying though.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The supposed prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the GBLT community is actually quite overblown, due to the hateful propaganda of many conservative extremists. biccat wrote:How do you know who has those thoughts?
People who hate homosexuals frequently spout that hate or reveal it in other ways. biccat wrote:ow do you propose changing their thoughts?
Through conversation, usually. biccat wrote:How will you prevent them from having those thoughts in the future?
Through repeated conversation, usually. biccat wrote:How do you know that your position on this is absolutely correct?
Because the alternative, nihilism, leads to the idea that nothing is morally wrong. I am convinced that my ideas are morally correct until I see a reason to believe otherwise. Subjectivism can kiss my pale white arse. biccat wrote:What if you have thoughts that other people find objectionable?
I would convince them that they are not. Homophobes are dangerous to society at large, often attacking not only homosexuals but even heterosexuals they mistakenly believe are homosexuals, as an expression of their hatred. Sometimes the attack is a sexual assault, in fact, and many outed lesbians are afraid to go out alone for this very reason. I also dislike it when homosexuals do the same thing back towards heterosexuals, too
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Ahtman wrote:biccat wrote:It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.
It isn't for a lack of trying though.
Exactly. HIV is simply more easily contracted by gay men, it's not because they are more promiscuous. Simply, HIV spreads more easily through anal sex than vaginal. http://www.science20.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women. US researchers applied a series of carefully calculated equations in different scenarios to study the rate at which HIV infection has spread among gay men and straight men and women. They used figures taken from two national surveys to estimate how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what proportion of gay men have insertive or receptive anal sex, or both.
They then set these figures against accepted estimates of how easily HIV is transmitted by vaginal and anal sex to calculate the size of the HIV epidemic in gay men and straight men and women. The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year. This is a rate almost three times that of gay men.
But to end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have rates of unprotected sex several times lower than those currently evident among the straight population. This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors.
Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.
5534
Post by: dogma
Melissia wrote:The supposed prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the GBLT community is actually quite overblown, due to the hateful propaganda of many conservative extremists.
By population, even estimated population, the rate of HIV incidence is much higher in the LGBT population than in the heterosexual population. Though I imagine that, if you were to control for poverty, the strength of the relationship would fall off significantly.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:By population, even estimated population, the rate of HIV incidence is much higher in the LGBT population than in the heterosexual population. Though I imagine that, if you were to control for poverty, the strength of the relationship would fall off significantly.
For the latter: Indeed it would, as I've seen plenty of articles about comparing the difference between heterosexuals of various economic classes and the level of infection with various STDs (college papers are fun if you choose an interesting topic), and this is pretty much the result I saw. But for the former, I was merely making the statement that, to many conservatives, AIDS/HIV is a "gay problem", and in fact is often thought of as "god's punishment to gays", this despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications. The main reason that the homosexual community suffers more from it is actually likely due to the small size of the population more than anything, and even then, the most estimates I've read put the infection at about ~5% of the population at most. Unlike certain conservatives that try to claim that all or most homosexuals are infected. For example, it was once reported (falsely) that 70% of homosexuals are infected with HIV/AIDS, based on mangled, poorly done research on suicide victims which wasn't actually about homosexuality or HIV/AIDS. It was only reported on because conservatives wanted to jump on it to use as a weapon in their war of hatred. edit: I read PFOX as FOX, thus the edit tor remove that reference. PFOX is not affiliated with FOX news, it's an organization trying to promote "ex-gay awareness" or some other crap.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity. There's even a subculture dedicated towards getting infected with HIV. There is a limited amount of resources we can dedicate to providing education and information about HIV, it should be put to where it will do the most good.
First, bugchasing isn't exclusive to LGBT individuals, and exists specifically because it is taboo; ie. as a result of HIV/AIDS education.
Second, a lot of American sexual culture, in general, is focused on anonymous, or relatively anonymous, sex and promiscuity.
Third, if you're going to target specific communities due to their rate of HIV incidence, it is important to understand why the rate is so high, otherwise you run the risk of wasting resources. Claiming that the LGBT community has a higher rate of HIV incidence because of the current state of the LGBT lifestyle ignores many other contributing factors, two of which I noted, in general, above.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
This has gone OT, however being a master of skilful debate I shall merge the two topics seamlessly.
If you were injured in a war, and the government gave you a prosthetic limb, would you be happy with the assistance you received? And would it be morally wrong to insert said limb into a man's arse if he consented to it?
5534
Post by: dogma
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.
Sex education is also an issue, particularly among poor MSM (WSW is less of an issue due to differences in sex drive, and obvious physical distinctions). I mean, if heterosexual education is controversial, I shudder to think what would happen if a public school tried to educated people about homosexual intercourse. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:
But for the former, I was merely making the statement that, to many conservatives, AIDS/HIV is a "gay problem", and in fact is often thought of as "god's punishment to gays", this despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications. The main reason that the homosexual community suffers more from it is actually likely due to the small size of the population more than anything, and even then, the most estimates I've read put the infection at about ~5% of the population at most.
Ah, that clarifies your point. And yeah, I've heard that argument before, particularly looking to a time when homosexuality was even more taboo than it is now.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, parents these days don't like teenaged pregnancies but don't want to do anything to stop it.
39004
Post by: biccat
Howard A Treesong wrote:Exactly. HIV is simply more easily contracted by gay men, it's not because they are more promiscuous. Simply, HIV spreads more easily through anal sex than vaginal.
The study referred to in your article isn't a survey of promiscuity, it's a study based on estimates of promiscuity. Further, even if the study is correct, it doesn't explain why HIV infections are more prevalent in blacks than in whites (and not just in percentages, but in absolute numbers).
However, lets assume that promiscuity rates are similar between gays (meaning homosexual men) and straights. Does that mean we should accept the same rate of promiscuity between gays and straights and simply accept that gays are more likely to get HIV? Or should we encourage gays to be less promiscuous because they're more likely to get the disease if they engage in risky behavior?
Howard A Treesong wrote:Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.
Yes, it's all about feeling superior. Reducing infections has nothing to do with it.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
7889
Post by: marxlives
Wow that is alot if support you got there for exiting the RM. I know State side we have a problem with MOS' tranfering over into the civilian world. Like in the military you could have a title that would suggest you were a water safety engineer, but thats not the same as someone who has a degree in managing many gallons of drinking water with a background in biology and chemistry at plant. Also the private sector is very cut throat and competitive.
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications.
See the link above.
Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009*
Male-to-male sexual contact 529,908
Heterosexual contact** 198,820
It's possible that some of those male-to-male reports may be due to Triple AIDS.
(note that this doesn't distinguish between "gays" and "straights," but rather transmission type).
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:See the link above..
Worldwide, 85% of AIDS/HIV transmissions are heterosexual.
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:biccat wrote:See the link above..
Worldwide, 85% of AIDS/HIV transmissions are heterosexual.
AIDS in Africa seriously distorts the statistics. There are a lot more problems - particularly rape, denialist theories, and leaders ignoring the issue - that need to be addressed there before you can start addressing the issue of safe sex. If people don't accept the association between unsafe sex and death they're not going to use condoms.
In the US, however, AIDS education should be directed towards those communities that would most benefit from the effort.
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
Here's a novel idea... don't be promiscuous and the epidemic would end fairly soon.
5534
Post by: dogma
Phototoxin wrote:Here's a novel idea... don't be promiscuous and the epidemic would end fairly soon.
Considering that behavioral changes of that magnitude are nearly impossible to engineer without oppressive restrictions, its a really bad idea given the nature of governance in the developed world. Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:
The study referred to in your article isn't a survey of promiscuity, it's a study based on estimates of promiscuity.
How do you think HIV incidence and prevalence are studied?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Melissa, the argument you're making about the total number of cases being predominantly heterosexual is really really poor, statistically. It's an abuse of statistics.
Gay men are a higher risk group than straight couples or lesbians. This is a fairly indisputable fact. If we are unwilling to consider the risks potentially posed by this (in terms of say, donating blood) then we are being silly.
However, for gay men in the military, it'd be an easy fix. A blood test every now and then, with anyone found HIV positive being discharged from duty, would probably sort it out nice and quick. It'd also protect soldiers from their heterosexual comrades! How fair is that!
There'd still be a risk of infection, but it would be drastically reduced. You're never going to completely erase the risk, though.
39004
Post by: biccat
dogma wrote:How do you think HIV incidence and prevalence are studied?
Mandatory reporting.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Howard A Treesong wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.
However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissive an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.
Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...
another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more
When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilized society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.
I'm back.
1. My as you put it "thinly veiled contempt when using commas" referred to the fact that Congress doesn't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage. Congress and the President blesses gays joining the military and making Christians have to live with them without giving the christian soldiers the choice to leave the military while at the same time denying gays the right to get married in churches. So that's my reference to husbands which you missed. What congress can force on the military they themselves will not tolerate. We call them folks hypocrites where I come from. The Service chiefs were asked what they thought. They then fired the Army and Marine chiefs for disagreeing. The marines picked another chief who still disagreed and the canned him and picked a navy guy to represent the marines so they could all vote yes.
2. As to that how did you put it "When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilized society." It is amazing how anyone that disagrees with the gays in the mlitary line is homophobic. Even calling someone homosexual is bad, we have to use the word gay, why is that?
For you information I had nothing against gays (since you prefer that term) in my first army assignment. We had 2 black guys sleeping together in the early 70's in a room in 3/8 CAV and no one cared plus there was no aids then. Then we had a really long field exercise where there were 20 of us in a GP medium and the guy on fire watch (a closeted gay) decided to stick a part of his body into the mouth of a new kid just assigned as he was sleeping in his sleeping bag. The kid woke up, screamed and went into shock. Everyone else woke up. It got ugly. Even after that nobody went after Huggy and Suger, the two gay black dudes after all it was a white dude that did it. It took a few more months of increasing favoritism and both of them staying off the duty roster for resentment to begin to build and everyone was wondering what was going on. Then the SDO caught Huggy and Suger and the troop first sergeant all naked in the supply room and that was that. After that there was resentment against homosexuals, I do not think the term "Gay" was in use then.
If you missed the point of this homophobic guy with his head up his ass let me make it simpler for you. When its a all male combat unit they may go down to the ville and play around with the same women when they are in garrison but you can not afford favoritism in the ranks due to sex in a combat unit when one guy decides which of the other guys is going out first and has the best ticket to die because the guy choosing and the guy not selected are having sex with each other.
If you have still missed the point the biggest fear of the Combat arms leadership is not that the troops will despise and kill the gays but that unit cohesion will suffer to real or imagined favoritism between guy buddies.
It is not the only problem, my point about aids is also valid even if someone wants to call me homophobic. and yes we do kick out anyone that has a permanent communicable disease, but those numbers will be small compared to aids.
If you want to see what the end result of forcing gays into combat line units ask the Dutch Army who was the first to do so.
The Dutch leadership had a meeting of their Senior commanders and NCO's when the civilian leadership made the decision. They asked if anyone had a problem with the order. Several did and were escorted from the meeting are removed from the service. The fear had begun. The religious soldiers who do form the backbone of most combat units were allowed to end their service contracts. If you disagree that folks of strong moral convictions form the backbone of combat units you have never served in one. That backbone leaving the Dutch army accelerated the decline.
By the time they were picked for UN duty in the Balkans nobody trusted anybody else and unit cohesion had been destroyed. Officers would not go down to the units, Sergeants would not check the outposts and nobody thought they could trust their life to anyone else.
Politics had destroyed the Dutch Army.
I have talked to Dutch officers, they confirm privately what General Sheehan said publicly http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html
That is why the Dutch peace keepers turned over 7000 people in their care to be massacred without a fight. They gave up their weapons, their combat vehicles and their respect. If you don't believe me read the book by the commander of the Dutch troops or the report the Dutch government commissioned. That same Dutch political leadership resigned after the study came out. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8618244/Dutch-state-to-blame-for-Srebrenica-deaths-court-rules.html
None of this is politically correct but it is true, which I guess makes it worse.
By the way I do not want gays in combat arms units, but it is not because you think I despise gays, my gay boss read your remarks at lunch and had a good laugh over it. She is where I got the husband remark from on an earlier conversation on the fecklessness of Congress and the Defense of Marriage Act. Our company accepts her "Husband" but the state and the federal government does not, the same government that is OK with gays in the ranks....
I do not want them in the ranks for the same reason I do not want women there. Young people away from home will do stupid things, I was young once myself. We segregate the sexes and keep women out of combat units because adding sex to the calculus is just stupid and dangerous.
It is just as stupid and dangerous to put gays there but it's not politically correct to say so is it? If its OK for gays why not women on combat units? Ask your members of congress that question and ask yourself if we would have fired several service chiefs for refusing to put women in combat units permanently and if not then what's the difference.
The answer is you can be hypocritical as long as you are politically correct.
But if you are not politically correct it does not matter if you are right.
As for your civilized society I am no longer a member of.... I killed people for 22 years so feckless souls whom have never risked their life on anything can lecture me and my buds on what affects the unit cohesion that our lives depended on and those whom we trained who are still in.
I would rather be with them and their uncivilized life than with those who, how did that go?
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Thank you NoI, you gave me the energy at 2:10 am to exclaim "Oh my God he went there" very loudly. 
Please note I politely disagree with most of what you've said.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Gay soldiers are allowed to serve in the UK military and I think we can all agree that those guys are pretty damn effective.
241
Post by: Ahtman
The answer is you can be hypocritical as long as you are politically correct.
But if you are not politically correct it does not matter if you are right.
Having to say something this ridiculous as this as part of an argument should be your red flag that you are on the wrong side of it.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
As a combat veteran myself, though I didn't kill people for 22 years, I feel like I should mention that I'm very much okay with gay people serving.
Believe it or not, they are already.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:Mandatory reporting.[/url]
Reporting is mandatory, but the CDC only uses certain types of HIV screening in its statistics.
To ensure the validity of the data, CDC includes HIV infection data from states and dependent areas that have conducted confidential name-based HIV infection reporting for at least 4 years to allow for stabilization of data collection and for adjustment of the data in order to monitor trends. Therefore, CDC’s 2008 HIV Surveillance Report, published in 2010, includes data from 37 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005 [3]. (In the list below, these 37 states and 5 dependent areas are shown in bold.)
The difference is accounted for using a number of estimation statistics, at least in that particular report. Even comprehensive reports involve adjusting the raw data according to the variance found in the two-part STARHS-BEDS test, and again due to variance in testing rates (Blacks, MSM, are much more likely to get tests than most groups) if the data is being normalized.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Rather than gays not being allowed to serve, perhaps we should stop homophobes from serving. They seem to be the ones with the problem after all. And homophobia is a choice
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
mattyrm wrote: This has gone OT, however being a master of skilful debate I shall merge the two topics seamlessly.
If you were injured in a war, and the government gave you a prosthetic limb, would you be happy with the assistance you received? And would it be morally wrong to insert said limb into a man's arse if he consented to it?
Indeed, seemless!
Yes, i would be happy. And only if he's a Christian conservative. they make mistakes, go to " God can cure me of the Gay" camp and all is forgiven. otherwise, you're just an immoral pagan.
and wouldn't that last bit make one hell of a Christmas card?!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Asherian Command wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.
Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...
34168
Post by: Amaya
Behold the death of freedom.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
NOI, ridiculous macho bs followed by a needless "man in the arena" quote.
Your entire post was satire right? Made me lol. Well done.
And who goes into shock when they get tea bagged?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
CptJake wrote:Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.
A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.
In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.
And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.
Those charts are bs in several ways.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Macho bs indeed. Women do serve in the army but aren't shagging all the men and destroying unit cohesion. Gay men in the British and other armies don't shag the other men and destroy unit cohesion.
Boasting that you've spent 22 years killing people doesn't rationalise why it's immoral to be gay. Notice that in his page of blather he didn't address that once.
even calling someone homosexual is bad, we have to use the word gay, why is that?
No, there's nothing wrong with the term. I tend to use gay because it just sounds a bit less clinical. Either is fine.
Anyway, there's something I find a bit difficult to believe that you show your gay boss that you spend time at work on a wargames online forum saying that gay people like them are immoral, and the response is to laugh along with you. They probably pity you.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Melissia wrote:Asherian Command wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.
I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.
Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...
Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big? Equipping and training, benefits... The military is NOT a fricking jobs program and should not be used as such. Way, WAY too expensive, and my taxes are high enough.
Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:CptJake wrote:Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.
A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.
In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.
And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.
Those charts are bs in several ways.
So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
CptJake wrote:
Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military.
I don't buy this, have you seen how many fething idiots serve in the military?
SEAL Team Six are tough guys, SF operational detachment delta are tough guys, but for every AFCC or Ranger or force recon operative you have 200 regular soldiers, sailors and airmen, and normal people can and do fill these roles adequately. Not everyone can serve in elite formations, but almost everyone can serve in something of great usefulness.
Sure 99% of people cant serve in SF or Spec ops or even regular infantry (although frankly Ive little admiration for them, I met very few regular army infantry or USMC that impressed me, as the best usually end up applying for more elite branches) but almost everyone could work as a clerk, driver, radio operator, chef, storeman, armourer, engineer, medic etc etc
Im undecided on the whole national service argument, but I certainly wouldn't write it off for the reasons you stated.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?
39004
Post by: biccat
whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?
Considering 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian, it seems relevant. We have a voluntary military. If you make the military an environment that is not amenable to Christians, you're cutting out a large percentage of potential service members.
4402
Post by: CptJake
mattyrm wrote:CptJake wrote:
Then, there is the tiny little fact that will come and kick your idea to the curb, one I've already brought up. Due to physical, psychological, criminal and education standards, everybody cannot serve in the military, even if we all gave up every dollar we earned to fund it. Unless you also propose getting rid of standards, which then would further destroy the military.
I don't buy this, have you seen how many fething idiots serve in the military?
SEAL Team Six are tough guys, SF operational detachment delta are tough guys, but for every AFCC or Ranger or force recon operative you have 200 regular soldiers, sailors and airmen, and normal people can and do fill these roles adequately. Not everyone can serve in elite formations, but almost everyone can serve in something of great usefulness.
Sure 99% of people cant serve in SF or Spec ops or even regular infantry (although frankly Ive little admiration for them, I met very few regular army infantry or USMC that impressed me, as the best usually end up applying for more elite branches) but almost everyone could work as a clerk, driver, radio operator, chef, storeman, armourer, engineer, medic etc etc
Im undecided on the whole national service argument, but I certainly wouldn't write it off for the reasons you stated.
Disagree all you want. But then show facts or figure to prove me wrong. I can show studies backing up my point.
Our organization recently released a report citing Department of Defense data indicating that an alarming 75 percent of all young Americans 17 to 24 years of age are unable to join the military because they failed to graduate from high school, have criminal records, or are physically unfit.
From: http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_Fat_to_Fight-1.pdf
And: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,90736,00.html which rips the stats a little, but cannot refute them, and gives some detail into numbers of kids who do not meet current standards to enlist. Including:
the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.
-a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.
-a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.
Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.
Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.
Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.
That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.
The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.
So, again, you can 'feel' that I am wrong. Back it up. I NEVER stated everyone has to pass an Airborne/Ranger qualifying physical let alone the physical tests needed to get into elite units. I stated there are a LOT of people who clearly do not meet the current standards to enlist in the US Army. I think the facts will back me up. But please do post the studies that contradict all the ones I have seen.
Jake
21853
Post by: mattyrm
whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?
Absolutely.
Ever heard about rockbeyondbelief.com ?
The US military looks almost like an enormous aggressive Christian organization, the stories ive read on that website are staggering, but basically the devout Christians are vocal, and the agnostics have to keep their mouth shut and not rock the boat. I always found the Jesus stuff annoying when I was living with the Americans in Kabul and its definitely a contributor as to why I left the military.
Is also why me and my American missus live here, there are several things that alarm me about the USA, and a possible addiction to Jesus juice is one of them.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
biccat wrote:whitedragon wrote:Wait...is Christianity the only religion in the US these days? Is that the reason why NoI's arguments focus on that particular denomination?
Considering 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian, it seems relevant. We have a voluntary military. If you make the military an environment that is not amenable to Christians, you're cutting out a large percentage of potential service members.
Not all christians are so adverse to homosexuals, just because you open the armed forces to gay people does not make them "not amenable to christians".
I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?
What about teaching some bloody tolerance instead of pandering to prejudice? There used to be a time when military units were racially segregated, now they aren't. I can't see this is different.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Howard A Treesong wrote: There used to be a time when military units were racially segregated, now they aren't. I can't see this is different.
It isnt.
29408
Post by: Melissia
CptJake wrote:Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big?
Ahem.
"National services should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces".
Not all of the proposed national service is in the military. Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...
It worked in the Great Depression to some extent.
39004
Post by: biccat
Howard A Treesong wrote:I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?
Did I say that? No, actually I didn't.
I'm not taking a position on the issue of gays in the military because I don't think it's a civilian issue. Neither is race or sex integration. These are issues that the military needs to decide on in order to provide the best functioning military possible.
Lets assume a few things. 1) The military is religiously representative ( ~75% Christian). 2) Christians are representative of American thoughts on homosexuality (~50% don't find it socially acceptable).
If you allow homosexuals into the military, you're creating an environment that 37% of the population would not be interested in participating in (I suspect the number is higher). Is there going to be a surge of patriotism from gays and gay sympathizers to fill this void left by conservative Christians who will refuse to serve because of homosexuals in the military? I doubt it.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Melissia wrote:CptJake wrote:Are folks crazy? Who would pay for a military that big?
Ahem.
"National services should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces".
Not all of the proposed national service is in the military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Melissia wrote:Hell, at this point, it'd be a great way to deal with the unemployment problem...
It worked in the Great Depression to some extent.
Ahem.
Since all branches of the military are at their allowed end strengths, and in the process of shedding personel as they downsize over the next few years, either the military will not work for your jobs program, or you intend to grow it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:I like how the solution to the fact that some christians take such a dislike to homosexuals as to not want to work alongside them, is to bar gay people from areas of employment in which the christians are currently already in large numbers. You know, in case the christian make a fuss that they have to, horror of horrors, work near a gay person. Why are we placing the right to maintain some religious bigotry over the right of another person to have equal opportunities to employment and to fight in their own country's armed forces?
Did I say that? No, actually I didn't.
Yes you did, in fact, your statement made AFTER this pretty much expands on saying exactly this. As an aside, military research says that 73% of military personnel were okay with the presence of GBLT personnel. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote:Since all branches of the military are at their allowed end strengths,
In case you weren't paying attention-- and you weren't, shame on you-- the proposed national service wasn't just a military service.
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:As an aside, military research says that 73% of military personnel were okay with the presence of GBLT personnel.
What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?
Melissia wrote:In case you weren't paying attention-- and you weren't, shame on you-- the proposed national service wasn't just a military service.
We could just hire people to dig holes and then have others fill them in. Or better yet, run through town breaking windows. It's the Paul Krugman theory of economic success.*
* If not successful, then it wasn't enough. Repeat with more broken windows.
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:We could just hire people to dig holes and then have others fill them in.
That's basically how you make roads, except the ones filling it in are doing it with various forms of concrete and asphalt. And there's plenty of places where public works such as sewage systems, water lines, storm overflow lines, etc need renovation or repair. biccat wrote:What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?
The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.
39004
Post by: biccat
Melissia wrote:The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.
I have no doubt that the military will discipline those who refuse to accept the change. And I agree that military discipline is going to overcome most of the vocal objections.
What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term? How many will take the option to retire early rather than stay and train the next generation of soldiers? How many people will simply refuse to serve because of the presence of gays in the military?
And that doesn't even start to address the issue of military culture that NeedleOfInquiry raised.
The military is not the place for social experiments. I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Ah, but your forgetting Biccat- the bonus in recruitment from people who previously didn't want to serve with a bunch of unreasonable homophobic biggots could easily bring numbers right back up!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Also the bonus of regaining likely a good portion of those lost skilled (IE, not basic grunts) soldiers who were discharged for DADT can't be discounted as well. Lots of Arabic and Farsi translators were lost in the last few years, much to the military's chagrin.
At class right now so I can hardly get back into the heated debate, lol.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:What about the other 27%? What impact will that have on combat effectiveness?
The military is currently, right now, training its soldiers to prepare for the repeal which will begin to take place in September 20th. Military discipline will take over, as it usually does-- those that lack discipline will be punished or discharged, as they should be, as the military is no place for undisciplined people.
Yeah she's right Bic, good soldiers can deal with gak they dont like. That's why the military works. You cant have a democracy when your dealing with large military formations, how would you expect to get anything done if you let individual soldiers deviate from the plan?
Take me for example.
There were a great many orders I didn't want to follow, but I still did. gak, the ROE alone used to do my fething nut in. They were harsh out in Afghanistan! First few weeks in Iraq were like the wild west, and then all of a sudden its "don't fire if they are running away from you" and all this gak. If it was down to me Id have happily set my minimi up outside the mosque on a Friday and brassed up everyone that attempted to leave.
The point is, If your a professional soldier and you hate gay people, you will get the job done anyway's. If your a sniper and it just happens that on weekends your spotter likes wearing ass-less chaps and a string vest, your going to do the job anyway. You might not share a shower with him afterwards, but gak. A jobs a job, and you would absolutely get it done. If you wouldn't, because you think "Ah maht catch AIDs offa them they're binoculars!" then you shouldn't be in the military.
Oh and for the civilians amongst you, I meant this minimi
Not this one.
39004
Post by: biccat
Da Boss wrote:Ah, but your forgetting Biccat- the bonus in recruitment from people who previously didn't want to serve with a bunch of unreasonable homophobic biggots could easily bring numbers right back up!
Pardon the bias, but in my experience the activists who oppose programs like DADT (and most likely to be influenced by the change) don't seem to be the most outwardly patriotic or likely to serve in the armed forces.
I'm sure there will be some who choose to serve because of the DADT repeal, but it's unlikely to be a substantial number.
Also, I like how you assume anyone who doesn't accept your position is an "unreasonable homophobic biggot." Automatically Appended Next Post: mattyrm wrote:Yeah she's right Bic, good soldiers can deal with gak they dont like. That's why the military works. You cant have a democracy when your dealing with large military formations, how would you expect to get anything done if you let individual soldiers deviate from the plan?
I agree. Which is why I think that the numbers of people who leave in protest will be minimal. But what about those who choose not to join or leave early?
mattyrm wrote:Take me for example.
Happily.
I always found the Jesus stuff annoying when I was living with the Americans in Kabul and its definitely a contributor as to why I left the military.
Do you think other people might feel the same way about homosexuality in the military?
29408
Post by: Melissia
You're far more likely to run into a religious nutjob than a gay pride nutjob, statistically speaking.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
biccat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Take me for example.
Happily.
Aww.. I didnt mean it that way you big lug.
And your against gays in the military!?
39004
Post by: biccat
mattyrm wrote:And your against gays in the military!?
We're not in the military
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:You're far more likely to run into a religious nutjob than a gay pride nutjob, statistically speaking.
Tragically that is indeed the case.
 I'm not gay, but gay people don't annoy me for precisely that reason. If your a straight man, they don't harass you and force their "gayness" onto you. Gay people being gay doesn't affect my life a jot, so why dislike them? They can screw whoever they like, it has no bearing on me enjoying my life.
Now, do devoutly Religious people afford me that same luxury? No. They go on and on and on and on. They try and force their rules onto me, hence my militant atheism. Devout Muslims want to ban beer for feths sake! 
Some Religious people even have the fething gall to knock on my bloody door when I am sat watching TV and minding my own business and they pester me with this gak! Gay people dont do it. There is no "prize" for "converting" people to being gay. Sadly, Religion doesnt work that way.
The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of "Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?" Is the day that I have disdain for gay people.
Ok im done now.
11029
Post by: Ketara
mattyrm wrote:[
The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of 'Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?'
I need to pay someone to march up to your house and do that now, just for the reaction.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Biccat: I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobic biggot. Just that the change to the law would drive out the homophobic biggots, and that's gotta be a good thing!
I'm being slightly tongue in cheek here, because I don't honestly believe that I'm going to change the mind of someone like NoI.
29408
Post by: Melissia
mattyrm wrote: The day a bloke in a shirt and tie, with a copy of er... PRIDE magazine under one arm, knocks on my door while im watching TV with a hangover on a Sunday and when I answer it tries to give me a copy of Breakfast at Tiffanies and says something along the lines of "Do you know that you could be sucking balls today?" Is the day that I have disdain for gay people. Ok im done now.
Hm. I should get a friend of mine to do that as a practical joke. Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term?
How many do so because they're racist,r or because they don't want to serve alongside muslims or jews, or because they don't want to serve alongside people of different socioeconomic classes? I'm not sure people who leave early for those reasons are really worthy of serving in the military anyway. biccat wrote:The military is not the place for social experiments. I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.
DADT is already falling into disfavor, that's why it's being repealed. Heck the military likely would have repealed it already except that it doesn't have the power to do so as it's a congress-enforced law. As for DoMA, don't get me started on that trash produced by a bunch of worthless clowns who lie about wanting to strictly follow the constitution and then go and make laws that not only violates it but does so in a way that is a 180 degree turn from what the constitution actually says.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Well calling me an 'homophobic bigot" sure won't. I corrected your spelling by the way....
Can one be homophobic and not be a bigot I wonder? I see you use the terms as if they are one. If the correct term is to be "gay" then if you think I hate gays then should not the term now be "gayphobic"? Perhaps the happy gay term is for use to say its OK and the homo term is only to be used for folks who are to be called against that form of lifestyle?
The bigot part.... my Korean wife, my oldest daughter in law (Moroccan) and my soon to be second (a pacific islander) all disagree with you.
My gay boss does not think I am homophobic or gayphobic as I think would be the correct slang now.
I do not think gays should be in combat arms units, sorry but I been there and I bet most here shouting what a bigot I am have not. The army is for combat, not nation building or social experiments Congress will not try at home, otherwise the Defense of Marriage Act would have been repealed. Many civil rights civilians have, soldiers do not for combat efficiency and unit cohesion. Shall we allow the disabled in combat arms if they want it bad enough or does the right of the soldier to have the best chance of survival come into play?
I am for gays getting married, but in their hearts, and in the shadows, most religions are not.
As for the gays in the military, how the organized religions feel about this can be summed up by the remarks for slide 11 that the army is presenting to Chaplains. For background an Ecclesiastical Endorsement is required by the Department of Defense for Military chaplains, this Ecclesiastical Endorsement is a certification by an agent of a specific religious body that an individual is permitted to minister in the name of that Church or denomination. Some examples are Muslim, Jewish, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the various christian groups like the Catholic church, Methodist, Lutherans and even Wickim.
Serving chaplains have made two contracts, one with their endorser to represent a faith group and one with the US Army to serve as an officer and Soldier.
It is very important to note that the loss of endorsement relieves the chaplains of their obligation to represent the endorsing faith group but does not automatically relieve a chaplain of their military obligation.
If an Endorser pulls a chaplain’s endorsement the chaplain has four ways to address the contract made with the Army:
1. Seek another endorsement
2. Change branch
3. Retire if eligible
4. Voluntary separation if eligible (owes no time to the Army)
So when a major religion pulls their Ecclesiastical Endorsements over this the Chaplin on active duty is given a choice of
a- Change his religion
b- No longer be a man of God but he can be some other type of soldier
c- Retire if eligible and not stop lossed
d- Get out if he has been in long enough for his service obligation and not stop lossed
Chaplains are a big deal in the military.. They marry us, they give us comfort in times when we need it, they go in places you would not and they often bury us. Take your cheap shots at me but leave them alone.
If the above is being briefed do understand at least one of the major groups has likely given Uncle Sam notice.
It's a big deal, even if it's not politically correct.
This concludes my part of why soldiers complain so much for today. Have at it
241
Post by: Ahtman
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:This concludes my personal feelings with the flimsiest of justifications as I hide behind a uniform and pretend that makes my opinions are fact and that I speak for soldiers when I only speak to my own failings as a person
I see.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Comparing gay people to those with disabilities?
WE HAVE A KEEPER.
Seriously, how is a gay person less effective in the field if they have went through the same training?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Thanks for correcting my spelling!
Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it
As to your arguments about Chaplains and religion in the military, I'm sorry to say I'm just completely unsympathetic.
Can you point me to the bit in the Bible where Jesus is all "Killing people is cool, but keep those damn gays outta my sight!"? I was raised Catholic and I never heard it mentioned in mass, oddly enough. If your religion requires you to discriminate against others then I'm intolerant of it and have no sympathy for you, especially in a State run body like the military. And that's not politically correct, either.
Your arguments about combat effectiveness aren't so strong either, considering your allies the British allow gay soldiers to serve and they're still pretty effective.
Oh, and I've never been to war. I'm actually from a namby pamby neutral country and everything.
Oh, and by the way. You don't sound like a terrible guy to me at all. Probably on the low end of the bigot spectrum. But we're all bigots in some ways- I don't particularly like Irish Travellers based on my experience. The difference is, I wouldn't try and deny them any rights I claim myself. And while service in the military isn't a right, per se, I think it's foolish to stop those who want to serve because others are so blinkered, intolerant and reactionary that they can't deal with it.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Ultimately, you are seeking to curb the rights of, and discriminate against homosexuals though, based upon their choice of sexuality. Your reasoning is that christians do not like to work alongside them.
The flaws in your reasoning are thus:-
1. Being christian does not preclude one from believing in gay marriage. Christians believe and disbelieve what is convenient for them most of the time, homosexuality can easily be another of those things.
2. By saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, due to a higher HIV risk, this is equivalent to saying that black people should not be allowed in the police force because more criminals are black out of the population statistic (this is the case here, at least). A statistic for a generality is not something which one may use to discriminate against an individual. Otherwise you're not a democracy. (no doubt dogma will now interject with an exact definition of a democracy, and how somehow it could be, but that's more of a personal opinion that statement, than a fact most likely). The second you start dividing people into what they can and cannot do based upon, colour, religion, caste, sex, gender, or sexuality, you have ceased to make everyone an equal citizen. You have instituted a system whereby you are discriminating against a grouping of people, and favouring another. You have, in effect, made homosexuals a second class citizen.
3. Saying that gays should not be allowed in the military because a lot of military members may be christians and not like them is stupid. Sorry. Not only have you failed to provide any statistic indicating that they dislike homosexuals (see point 1), you have failed to give any kind of evidence to back up the reasoning that people will leave the military early or not join because gays are present. None whatsoever, beyond, 'I'm a military man, therefore I know more about this than a bunch of civvies'. Which fails considering we've had the likes of mattyrm, who is also ex-military, who disagrees with you. Empirical evidence is handy, but is not the be all end all. I do not need to contract cancer to study the symptoms of it, or hold an opinion on it.
4. I don't get why you keep going on about people saying you need to say gay instead of homosexual. I can't remember reading it anywhere in this thread, and I've never heard of it anywhere.
5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic.
6. Having a disability impairs one from serving. Being a homosexual does not. A homosexual can shoot a gun as well as anyone else. And STD's are not limited solely to homosexuals. I would hope regular blood tests are the norm in your military. If not, you are forced into a position whereby you're scared any time anyone bleeds on you, because anyone CAN have an STD. Being gay has nothing to do with it. In short, your choice of sexuality does not impair your capacity to serve.
7. You claimed that relationships in the military can cause bad judgement calls on officers, favoritism, and so on. However, women may serve in the forces. Why is this not a barrier to all women from serving? Or, to flip it on its head, all men? This is a problem not limited to simply homosexuals.
There is more, but I tire of this. Your line of thought is bizare, and genuinely seems to be an attempt to discriminate against gays for poorly thought out reasons, with the fallback defense of you possessing secret knowledge due to having served in the military, or having a gay boss. Sorry. I'm not buying.
5470
Post by: sebster
biccat wrote:The military is not the place for social experiments.
Where in fethety feth is the 'social experiment' in treating people equally regardless of sexual preference?
EDIT- Whoops, turns out the word filter doesn't catch 'fethety', if you get my meaning.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:
What I worry about is the non-vocal objections. How many servicemembers will simply walk away after a few years of service rather than serve long-term? How many will take the option to retire early rather than stay and train the next generation of soldiers? How many people will simply refuse to serve because of the presence of gays in the military?
They likely would have had the same issues with DADT. It isn't as though homosexuals are only now being admitted.
biccat wrote:
The military is not the place for social experiments.
Given that the military is a unique type of society, there really is no other option except the exploration and implementation of policy in the military.
biccat wrote:
I think that in 10-15 years homosexuality will be widely accepted and laws like DOMA and DADT would naturally fall into disfavor.
According to the military's own internal inquiries, that is already the case.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Medium of Death wrote:Comparing gay people to those with disabilities?
WE HAVE A KEEPER.
Seriously, how is a gay person less effective in the field if they have went through the same training?
To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit. Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely, but hey you get your punch line and they suffer, so what?
I never compared gays to disabled, just their effects on combat unit effectiveness. If this seems like a false argument then why do we not let disabled serve in combat units now or have woman in the combat squads?
Take a reading comprehension course some time.
241
Post by: Ahtman
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting someone in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life
So combat units are now made up of zero people? New people are put into combat units all the time. You can't replace3 injured or dead soldiers with nothing.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion
Except we know that it doesn't because other modern military forces have done so and are still effective.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely
Apparently we are also going to ignore the part of the study that said that all other parts didn't care and that Combat Arms historically are the least likely to ever want any kind of change (for a myriad of reasons, one of which is that you can still be basic infantry with an abysmal ASVAB) and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. When they integrated blacks into the unit they were saying the same thing but the unit got over it. It always does.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Actually, homophobia is highly un-Christian going by the actual values espoused by Christ in that old little book (IE, love god, and love all people, unconditionally). Just sayin'. NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion
Gays and lesbians have served in the US and other nations militaries-- and in fact, openly in other military organizations-- for some time. This hasn't happened yet.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Melissia wrote:Actually, homophobia is highly un-Christian going by the actual values espoused by Christ in that old little book (IE, love god, and love all people, unconditionally). Just sayin'.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion
Gays and lesbians have served in the US and other nations militaries-- and in fact, openly in other military organizations-- for some time. This hasn't happened yet.
He would claim the Srebrenica massacre was the result of it, without any evidence or sources that say so.
Of course he has spoken to many Dutch officers in the "know"! Who are we not to trust him?
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Da Boss wrote:Thanks for correcting my spelling!
Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it
Lucky I do not value your opinion just as you do not value mine. a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe
What are you talking about?
The homophobic-gayphobic is my point. I do not support gays in combat arms so I am you use the term homophobic. People who support gays are called what? The term gay is used to make it sound better. I can remember when gay meant happy, not a description of a sexual preference.
As to your arguments about Chaplains and religion in the military, I'm sorry to say I'm just completely unsympathetic.
And that does not surprise me either. I bet you have a support the troops sticker somewhere around along with some other stuff that has a saying on it that you really don't endorse or care about. The majority of the combat troops did not want this. There's an IG investigation being released soon that goes into some of the shenanigans that were done to the study but again I am sure you do not care.
Can you point me to the bit in the Bible where Jesus is all "Killing people is cool, but keep those damn gays outta my sight!"?
Raised Catholic but obviously never paid attention. The quote is "Thou shall not murder" Legal killing was OK, Ever read your Old Testament?
The second part (keep those damn gays outta my sight!
would be the
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
I was raised Catholic and I never heard it mentioned in mass, oddly enough.
Yes, I do find that strange.
If your religion requires you to discriminate against others then I'm intolerant of it and have no sympathy for you, especially in a State run body like the military. And that's not politically correct, either.
You meant government ran body?
Your arguments about combat effectiveness aren't so strong either, considering your allies the British allow gay soldiers to serve and they're still pretty effective.
Funny you should mention that, my respect for the British efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not as high as yours. How many times were Brit troops pulled out because they refused to risk themselves to pacify an area and American troops had to be brought in?
Oh, and I've never been to war. I'm actually from a namby pamby neutral country and everything.
Glad to know your experience on what affects the unit effectiveness of combat units is based on the politically correct crowd who never show up when the bleeding starts.
Oh, and by the way. You don't sound like a terrible guy to me at all.
LOL, you never knew me when I was young.
Probably on the low end of the bigot spectrum. But we're all bigots in some ways- I don't particularly like Irish Travellers based on my experience. The difference is, I wouldn't try and deny them any rights I claim myself. And while service in the military isn't a right, per se, I think it's foolish to stop those who want to serve because others are so blinkered, intolerant and reactionary that they can't deal with it.
Let them serve, just not in combat arms. It will affect unit leadership and cohesion. Could you send your girlfriend/lover/wife out to die when you could send someone who does not like you anyway to draw fire while the rest of the squad retrogrades?
An honest answer there. Its the number one reason why women have not been allowed in combat units and there is such a strict fraternization policy between leaders and troops in combat units. You DO know there is one , right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting someone who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life
thanks for catching that.
So combat units are now made up of zero people? New people are put into combat units all the time. You can't replace3 injured or dead soldiers with nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely
Apparently we are also going to ignore the part of the study that said that all other parts didn't care and that Combat Arms historically are the least likely to ever want any kind of change (for a myriad of reasons, one of which is that you can still be basic infantry with an abysmal ASVAB) and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.
The President's adviser to Gay and Lesbian groups quoted a number to a San Francisco newspaper that pulled numbers from a question that had 6 levels of responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and added four of the groups together to get the often quoted 60% of the Armed forces figure Congress voted on before the study was officially released. If he had taken the 4 groups starting from strongly disagree to the center he would have got exactly opposite numbers.
That was for the combined armed forces - Air Force, Navy, Army, etc.
The two that provide the combat arms units that would have to fight in ground combat, the Marines and Army, when their numbers were considered alone it was a far different story. So Congress said leave it up the the chiefs. Obama then fired the Army and Marine chief so he could get all yes votes by appointing his men in. The newly appointed Marine chief still said he would vote no. He was canned and they appointed a Navy guy to be the marine chief and that's how Obama got a unanimous vote from the service chiefs and an outgoing sec of defense.
That's another reason why soldiers complain
When they integrated blacks into the unit they were saying the same thing but the unit got over it. It always does.
Neither of us was around when they integrated blacks but its not the same thing because I don't think there was sex involved, do you? Automatically Appended Next Post:
He would claim the Srebrenica massacre was the result of it, without any evidence or sources that say so.
Of course he has spoken to many Dutch officers in the "know"! Who are we not to trust him?
Yes I did , and I did include the links to the court case finding the Dutch army responsible for it which include the downloadable official Dutch government report and the link to General Sheenam's congressional testimony before the President ordered his to go back the next day and retract it.
You could also read the book by the Commander of Dutch Ground troops but I suspect you are not going to do any of these things. Not politically correct.
So what is your explanation why the Dutch army gave their equipment, weapons, and combat vehicles, along with 7000 people they were supposed to protect?
By the way have you talked with any Dutch officers or men who were in the Dutch army at that time?
7926
Post by: youbedead
Woman have been serving in the Isrealy army for a while now and They haven't fallen apart at the seams yet, in fact I seem to recall that they have a fairly good military. Same thing with russia.
5470
Post by: sebster
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit.
Problematically, that's just you making gak up. You have no evidence that it will impact unit cohesion, you just like to believe and then declare it as a fact.
Standing against this are the large number of militaries who have been allowing openly gay soldiers to serve for many years, and have not noticed any negative impact on unit cohesion.
Your 'concern' is nonsense, and you need to give it up.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Ketara wrote:Ultimately, you are seeking to curb the rights of, and discriminate against homosexuals though, based upon their choice of sexuality. Your reasoning is that christians do not like to work alongside them.
The flaws in your reasoning are thus:-
1. Being christian does not preclude one from believing in gay marriage. Christians believe and disbelieve what is convenient for them most of the time, homosexuality can easily be another of those things.
2. By saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, due to a higher HIV risk, this is equivalent to saying that black people should not be allowed in the police force because more criminals are black out of the population statistic (this is the case here, at least). A statistic for a generality is not something which one may use to discriminate against an individual. Otherwise you're not a democracy. (no doubt dogma will now interject with an exact definition of a democracy, and how somehow it could be, but that's more of a personal opinion that statement, than a fact most likely). The second you start dividing people into what they can and cannot do based upon, colour, religion, caste, sex, gender, or sexuality, you have ceased to make everyone an equal citizen. You have instituted a system whereby you are discriminating against a grouping of people, and favouring another. You have, in effect, made homosexuals a second class citizen.
3. Saying that gays should not be allowed in the military because a lot of military members may be christians and not like them is stupid. Sorry. Not only have you failed to provide any statistic indicating that they dislike homosexuals (see point 1), you have failed to give any kind of evidence to back up the reasoning that people will leave the military early or not join because gays are present. None whatsoever, beyond, 'I'm a military man, therefore I know more about this than a bunch of civvies'. Which fails considering we've had the likes of mattyrm, who is also ex-military, who disagrees with you. Empirical evidence is handy, but is not the be all end all. I do not need to contract cancer to study the symptoms of it, or hold an opinion on it.
4. I don't get why you keep going on about people saying you need to say gay instead of homosexual. I can't remember reading it anywhere in this thread, and I've never heard of it anywhere.
5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic.
6. Having a disability impairs one from serving. Being a homosexual does not. A homosexual can shoot a gun as well as anyone else. And STD's are not limited solely to homosexuals. I would hope regular blood tests are the norm in your military. If not, you are forced into a position whereby you're scared any time anyone bleeds on you, because anyone CAN have an STD. Being gay has nothing to do with it. In short, your choice of sexuality does not impair your capacity to serve.
7. You claimed that relationships in the military can cause bad judgement calls on officers, favoritism, and so on. However, women may serve in the forces. Why is this not a barrier to all women from serving? Or, to flip it on its head, all men? This is a problem not limited to simply homosexuals.
There is more, but I tire of this. Your line of thought is bizare, and genuinely seems to be an attempt to discriminate against gays for poorly thought out reasons, with the fallback defense of you possessing secret knowledge due to having served in the military, or having a gay boss. Sorry. I'm not buying.
I will not call you bizarre, just uninformed with a low reading comprehension level.
Item 1. Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.
Item 2. Mixing HIV and combat vs blacks and crime is particularly stupid in essence. Could you not do better ? In case you never got it soldiers do not get all the rights you do, more proof you are clueless and imposing your values in a place they do not work. If you believe in so strongly sign up and put you life where your mouth is.
Item 3. Let them in the military, but not combat arms. Did you read the study , no you did not obviously. Is you ex military ex combat arms? I will bet not. 1 in 20 in the Army are combat arms.
Item 4. My point is when folks dis those who do not subscribe to the gay life style they are called homophobic , the word gay is only for those who support the gays I guess. You are probably too young to remember when gay only meant happy. Gay for the homosexual lifestyle is a marking word but you are too young to know that. Ask your parents....
Item 5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic. Really....... But I guess disagreeing with anything the gay movement wants does make someone homophobic, is that your argument? Give me an example of something the gay movement wants that you disagree with and then tell me what you will be called when you say you are against the movement on that.
Item 6. Being gay does not impair you from serving. Serving in a combat unit harms unit cohesion just as assigning women to a combat unit would.
Example - Squad leader is dating a member of the squad (woman or gay does not matter). Squad leader has to send a man out to draw fire. Does not send his girl friend/boy friend. Picked man refuses to go. That's a real problem and destroys a unit.
But it gets better - suppose squad leader is NOT dating but guy picked thinks he is, same problem or he picks the gay guy who won't go because he thinks the squad leader hates gays and does not go.
That's the reason that fraternization can get you charged in the military and removed from command. But not having anything to do with the military you would not know that.
Item 7. See item 6 and it is a problem but not in combat because they are all males and not open practicing gays. You will note women are not members of ground combat units and that is the biggest reason. When they lifted the ban on gays they should have lifted the ban on women in combat units, the damage is already done. You will note Congress did not, you should ask your congressman why they didn't.
Surprised I said that? The gate is open, don't be shocked by what happens in the next 10 to 15 years. You will get a politically correct army, but it will not be able to fight and it will be broke on health care costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:NeedleOfInquiry wrote:To respond, letting some one who is disabled in a combat unit endangers troops, a fact of life, putting gays in combat units does the same by destroying unit cohesion, the same as putting women in a combat unit.
Problematically, that's just you making gak up. You have no evidence that it will impact unit cohesion, you just like to believe and then declare it as a fact.
Standing against this are the large number of militaries who have been allowing openly gay soldiers to serve for many years, and have not noticed any negative impact on unit cohesion.
Your 'concern' is nonsense, and you need to give it up.
Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units. Keep beating that politically correct line, maybe the next army we fight might believe it, we know the Serbs didn't.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Needle: You claim he's just making it up, yet you provide no source for your own arguments. Fascinating. I think it's you that's making things up, in fact, to cover for your own sexual insecurities. Allow me to demonstrate with some links and pertinent quotes: http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030010 Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_cohesion.html Whereas some heterosexuals might refuse to cooperate with known homosexuals, many factors will discourage this and promote teamwork: effective leadership; military norms, roles, regulations, and disciplinary options; and external threats and challenges.
(that one's even from 1996, quite old) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/study-military-gays-dont-_n_111296.html "Everyone was living a big lie _ the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
(Don't Ask, Don't Tell actually disrupts unit cohesion, because of the dishonesty it requires) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-12-column12_ST_N.htm Despite some outlandish claims (including one charge that the Bible will be banned), chaplains should not be affected by a new policy. "Don't tell" never did apply to conversations with a chaplain, which are "privileged communication." And good chaplains can preach and teach, true to their beliefs — respecting rights while challenging what they believe is wrong. They also teach commandments — loving neighbors, judging not, not casting stones, the golden rule — that help the troops serve together.
(letter from a chaplain) http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-“don’t-ask-don’t-tell”-repeal/#.Tl8XT2-pURI “Forcing our men and women in uniform to lie about who they are goes against the core religious tenets of all major faith traditions. Telling the truth is an American and a religious value,” said HRC Religion and Faith Program Director Harry Knox. “Not only does ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ harm our national security, it also fails to live up to the moral standards to which we aspire.”
(petition from a wide variety of Christian organizations) Yeah, I'll just leave these here. Perhaps you'll be enlightened.
7926
Post by: youbedead
You have yet to explain how the Israeli military is being destroyed by the inclusion of gays and women in combat units. It still is functioning despite this.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Comparing a conscript army to volunteer army is foolish. Of course Israel has to accept gays, otherwise they'd be getting conscripts claiming to be gay in order to avoid service.
5534
Post by: dogma
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Of course we will ignore the study the DOD did that revealed 70% of combat arms units in the Army and Marines said letting gays in combat units would effect the unit effectiveness adversely
That's incorrect. First, there is no question related to the differentiation between combat arms, and other military personnel that features the word "effectiveness". Second, no response in the entire section features a negative response rate of 70% or above. Indeed, the nearest equivalent to effectiveness, "task cohesion", returned a negative response rate of 57.5% in the Marine combat arms, and 47.5% in the Army combat arms.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.
No you didn't. You got basic statistical figures completely wrong.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The President's adviser to Gay and Lesbian groups quoted a number to a San Francisco newspaper that pulled numbers from a question that had 6 levels of responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and added four of the groups together to get the often quoted 60% of the Armed forces figure Congress voted on before the study was officially released. If he had taken the 4 groups starting from strongly disagree to the center he would have got exactly opposite numbers.
That was for the combined armed forces - Air Force, Navy, Army, etc.
Only one question in the entire survey has 6 possible responses, and it not only relates to retention, not effectiveness, but 62.5% of respondents indicated that the repeal of DADT would not effect their career plans.
There are a number of questions you might be referencing, but because of the nature of the possible responses (there are only ever 4) it is difficult to reasonably combine anything other than the "equally positive and negative" response with the "negative" response.
Though, funnily enough, when asked about effectiveness in crisis or combat, the negative responses drop off markedly.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I have read the entire study and that is not what it said. I suggest you read it. Really.
If you literally only look at that single document that is true, but if you look at all related documents produced with that one you will find what I am referring to. Essentially you are turning in a book report with only one source, and according to Dogma, you still got some of the info wrong.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
CptJake wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
Those charts are bs in several ways.
So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?
1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”. 2. Their five divisions are not quintiles. For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented. It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.
5470
Post by: sebster
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units. Keep beating that politically correct line, maybe the next army we fight might believe it, we know the Serbs didn't.
No, they haven't affected unit cohesion. You're relying entirely on the wild speculation of US general John Sheehan over the events as Srebrenica. This is despite around a dozen official reports studying the none of the countless reports . Not one report ever discussed acceptance of homosexuals in the army as a cause of the failure. What happened at Srebrenica is a grave issue. The policy of placing troops in a region with little effective strength, in the hope that their presence alone would be enough to dissuade murder was an absolute disaster, and the way this played out in Srebrenica in deploying Dutch troops with no support weapons, and denying them access to air support was almost criminal. The reasons for the failure of the operation have been studied seriously, and have revealed many uncomfortable truths about what is actually required to effectively maintain the peace in an area, and who needs to be in control to make that troops are deployed properly. General Sheehan's decision to wander into the issue years late and make it absolute some entirely random non-issue was treated with bafflement and absolutely dismissed. General Sheehan took the time to read into the issue further, and recognised that fear of gay people had nothing to do with anytihng, and instead recognised the issue was "the rules of engagement...developed by a political system with conflicting priorities and an ambivalent understanding of how to use the military."" General Sheehan was honest enough to recognise when his pet issue had caused him to completely misread a situation, now please do the same yourself. Automatically Appended Next Post: Amaya wrote:Comparing a conscript army to volunteer army is foolish. Of course Israel has to accept gays, otherwise they'd be getting conscripts claiming to be gay in order to avoid service.
I believe that's what was happening, back in the 80s before the ban was lifted. Seriously people, Israel was smart enough on this issue in the goddamn 80s. Australia made it okay to bang dudes and serve in 1993. Canada beat us by a year, in 1992. Studies in both countries have reported no decline in military performance. In fact, more than 20 countries now have gay soldiers openly serving in the army and not one has reported any kind of reduced performance. And yet here we have people in the US thinking for some special reason they'd be totally unique and the it'd be a disaster for them. It's fething ridiculous. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”.
2. Their five divisions are not quintiles.
For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented.
It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.
It's the Heritage Foundation. bs charts is pretty much what they do. EDIT - In fact, if you look at the chart on page 2 of this report; http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf, from the Defence Department, you'd see that the middle class is over-represented, while both the lower and upper classes are under-represented. So basically, the Heritage Foundation was bullshitting. Again.
15594
Post by: Albatross
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Actually they have affected unit cohesion when those gays were allowed to server in combat units.
I believe the OP, mattyrm, served in a combat unit with an openly gay man. They didn't seem to mind too much.
29227
Post by: shakey787
Hi
Im Ex Army my self, Ex EOD (IEDD none of your RE CMD nonsense )
I've had several friends who i served with either lose their lives or sustained horrific injuries,
I agree with the OP in many ways due to the fact l know the military has supported these men and their families in many ways, I myself after leaving the military received much support in preparation for civilian life.
As for PTSD i think if i have any its from some of the extra carricular activities i took part in whilst not on tour!!!
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kilkrazy wrote:CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Those charts are bs in several ways.
So I am sure you will post better charts or statistics right?
1. They don’t define a “Neighbourhood”.
2. Their five divisions are not quintiles.
For example, the so-called Quintile 5 contains 73.5% of the income distribution. As it contains only 25% of the recruits, the upper classes are actually massively under-represented.
It’s obvious that the chart has been crudely massaged in order to present a biased picture of the data.
Your issues are addressed in the report, which details the methodology. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf
Your issue with income distribution in Quintile 5 is interesting. Are you saying that 73.5% of the population is in that quintile? Obviously not. Do you think 25% of the population comes form that quintile? If so, then they are correctly represented. If less than 25% of the population is in that quintile, but 25% of recruits come from it, they are over represented.
Again, feel free to post actual figures or a study that contradicts this one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:It's the Heritage Foundation. bs charts is pretty much what they do.
EDIT - In fact, if you look at the chart on page 2 of this report; http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf, from the Defence Department, you'd see that the middle class is over-represented, while both the lower and upper classes are under-represented.
So basically, the Heritage Foundation was bullshitting. Again.
Read the report you linked to:
Data show that patterns in recent years are simply reinforcing this trend (Figure 3). More
recruits are coming from families in the mid-scale and upper socioeconomic strata, while
fewer are coming from families with lower earnings.
Which by the way used Heritage data. But older Heritage data than the report I showed graphs from. Your report was done in 2005, and the one I posted from was done in 2008. The chart in yours used 1999 data Source: Heritage Foundation; distribution of 1999 recruits minus distribution of 18-24 year old population
Mine used 2005 and 2006 data.
You can hate Heritage. Show me stats that support your position. Otherwise you are bullshitting. Again.
11029
Post by: Ketara
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I will not call you bizarre, just uninformed with a low reading comprehension level.
Why thank you. To be called as such by someone with such a low level of comprehension of basic statistic compilation and analysis....well, let's just say I don't particularly rate your own skills too highly. Nonetheless, you've taken an entirely logical rebuttal to your points, and started off with ad hominems. I recommend learning common courtesy, you'd be amazed at how far it can get you in life.
Item 1. Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.
Those Christians you know make up the vast amount of the army? My word. You know a lot of people. I know a lot of christians of many denominations, and most of them have difficulty agreeing on things like what day to worship, and whether or not converting others is good or not. For all your christians to share such a mono-mind is not a compliment to your association of friends.
Item 2. Mixing HIV and combat vs blacks and crime is particularly stupid in essence. Could you not do better ?
It's a perfectly legitimate comparison, based upon the removal of one chosen grouping from a job field due to a generalisation about that grouping. If you cannot see that, you need to learn what the word 'analogy' means.
In case you never got it soldiers do not get all the rights you do, more proof you are clueless and imposing your values in a place they do not work. If you believe in so strongly sign up and put you life where your mouth is.
We're not talkign about the rights of soldiers, so much as the rights of people to become soldiers. And to be frank, even if we were, you'd be wrong even then, becoming a soldier does not suddenly mean one gives up the right to fair treatment between sex, gender, race, sexuality, etc. I've yet to read of anything in the US army doctrine saying you give your superiors the right to be racist or sexist.
Item 3. Let them in the military, but not combat arms. Did you read the study , no you did not obviously. Is you ex military ex combat arms? I will bet not. 1 in 20 in the Army are combat arms.
Have you skipped the bit where Matty pointed out where he served? So you lost your bet. For someone who accuses me of having low reading comprehension, you appear to fail to remember what's been posted within the last few pages of this discussion.
Item 4. My point is when folks dis those who do not subscribe to the gay life style they are called homophobic , the word gay is only for those who support the gays I guess. You are probably too young to remember when gay only meant happy. Gay for the homosexual lifestyle is a marking word but you are too young to know that. Ask your parents....
No, this is probably just a phenomenon over where you live. Age has nothing to do with it. Gay hasn't been used in the traditional sense here in a long while, and homosexual is accepted as interchangeable.
Item 5. Having a gay friend does not insure one against being homophobic. Really....... But I guess disagreeing with anything the gay movement wants does make someone homophobic, is that your argument? Give me an example of something the gay movement wants that you disagree with and then tell me what you will be called when you say you are against the movement on that.
Wanting equal rights and opportunities for all does not translate into meaning you support everything. For example, if the gay community wanted a law passed that the PM, or deputy PM had to be a gay person, I would oppose it. If they proposed a law to deny straight people from serving in the military, because it would 'destroy unit cohesion', I would oppose it. In the same way I'm opposing your ideas now.
Item 6. Being gay does not impair you from serving. Serving in a combat unit harms unit cohesion just as assigning women to a combat unit would.
Then surely the logical choice would be to make up combat arms of exclusively women or gay men? There are many different ways of looking at an issue, and 'BAN THE GAYS!' is neither the most productive, nor the fairest route to take.
Example - Squad leader is dating a member of the squad (woman or gay does not matter). Squad leader has to send a man out to draw fire. Does not send his girl friend/boy friend. Picked man refuses to go. That's a real problem and destroys a unit.
And you believe those bonds of friendship forged between soldiers of a combat unit are somehow less than those of a superior having a bit on the side with a private?
I would invite thought from the other military men who have posted so far on that one.
But it gets better - suppose squad leader is NOT dating but guy picked thinks he is, same problem or he picks the gay guy who won't go because he thinks the squad leader hates gays and does not go.
Why has this not happened in our military, or anyone else's?
You're drawing a massive hypothetical here, applying it across the entire US army, with no evidence.
That's the reason that fraternization can get you charged in the military and removed from command. But not having anything to do with the military you would not know that.
I'm a postgraduate student in War Studies. I hang around with a number of army bods. But then again, being a condescending plonker over the internet, 'you would not know that'.
Item 7. See item 6 and it is a problem but not in combat because they are all males and not open practicing gays. You will note women are not members of ground combat units and that is the biggest reason. When they lifted the ban on gays they should have lifted the ban on women in combat units, the damage is already done. You will note Congress did not, you should ask your congressman why they didn't.
See the little flag? I'm not American. I come from a country where gays serve openly and no unit cohesion is lost. Thereby pretty much refuting this strange idea you have of gays denigrating combat performance.
Surprised I said that? The gate is open, don't be shocked by what happens in the next 10 to 15 years. You will get a politically correct army, but it will not be able to fight and it will be broke on health care costs.
It didn't break the army when black men could join, I doubt allowing gays will do what that couldn't. As for health care costs, the US spends so much on defense unnecessarily, I find that hard to believe.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Funny how needle ignored my post. I think I'll expound upon one of those quotes: April 28, 2010
Dear Senators and Representatives:
On behalf of our organizations, representing a diverse group of faith traditions and religious beliefs, we urge you to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (MREA) this year. This long-overdue aw will repeal the unjust and unwise Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law, which prohibits lesbian and gay Americans from serving openly in the military.
We write because we strongly believe this policy of government-sanctioned discrimination is morally wrong and entirely contrary to the teachings and values of our faith communities.
Since DADT was adopted, more than 13,500 lesbian and gay service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. Their selfless service has been rewarded with humiliation, and their discharges fray the fabric of our communities. An estimated 66,000 lesbians and gays now serve in our armed forces, and are compelled to live dishonestly and in fear of termination for reasons unrelated to their performance. As faith leaders, we deal routinely with the damage such discrimination and fear imposes on our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers and their families. We believe the laws of our country should reflect the highest regard for integrity and care for our neighbors as we care for ourselves. Repeal of DADT will finally allow all service members to contribute their talents and skills to our country openly and honestly.
We urge you to recognize in law what the majority of Americans – Republicans, Democrats and Independents of many faiths – have recognized in their hearts: this discriminatory law is unjust and wrong and must end this year.
Sincerely,
Alliance of Baptists
American Conference of Cantors
American Friends Service Committee
Central Conference of American Rabbis
DignityUSA
Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of
Christ)
The Episcopal Church
Equal Partners in Faith
The Fellowship
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Interfaith Alliance
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lutherans Concerned/North America
Metropolitan Community Churches
More Light Presbyterians
National Black Justice Coalition
National Council of Jewish Women
Other Sheep: Multicultural Ministries with
Sexual Minorities
Rabbinical Assembly
Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International
The Sikh Coalition
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness
Ministries
United Church of Christ, Wider Church
Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of
Church and Society
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Unity Fellowship Church Movement
Women of Reform Judaism
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Da Boss wrote: Your reasoning for why you are not a bigot is a bit all over the place. I mean, a gay racist is still a bigot even though they're not a homophobe. And your whole "homophobic-gayphobic" tirade isn't making much sense to me either, though it's late and I haven't had enough sleep, which may have to do with it
Yeah, I never agreed with the "I married one" argument either. Men like women. I think you could be racist but still marry a black woman.
For example, I hate Muslims, but I happily take attractive ones to bed.
Oh and gingers, Ive got round a few attractive one's, and lets be honest, everyone with sense hates them.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Those Christians I know do not have such a ....flexable faith and they will leave and they are the core of most combat units. You would not know.
Honestly, I know plenty of US soldiers, I worked hand in hand with them numerous times, and we lived togteher in Kabul. The majority of them were the same wishy washy Chrsitians that you get over here in England. You know, the good ones. The ones that don't have ultra aggressive beliefs and never shut up about Religion. I think I have only met one or two American soldiers that were topped up to the brim with Jesus Juice like NOI appears to be.
The majority are kinda like me, they have Christian written on their dog tags, but they don't seem to give that much of a gak. If the majority of the US armed forces was like you, we would be in serious trouble.
Not that I think of myself as a Christian anymore, but I'm not boring enough to go get my dog tags changed.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Take a reading comprehension course some time.
If only the sky wizard had imparted his knowledge to me. Perhaps I could understand your devine perspective.
Urethra.
5394
Post by: reds8n
This appears to be descending into little more than an exchange of barbed insults and digs at each other.
..I'm sure there's a moral or lesson here. Somewhere.
|
|
