DADT...it's FINALLY over!!! by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
at the expense of throwing the nation's economy back into turmoil

How does getting rid of DADT do that, exactly? Keeping the Bush tax cuts will certainly help do so, but DADT?

By the way, it's not JUST "Obama", tho' so many like to blame everything on him; military leaders have been in favor of repealing it, and the majority of servicemen as well. How is that Obama's fault?

The way I see it, at least we're making progress. First the Jews, then the Blacks, then women, and now gays. We move slowly, but at least we're moving FORWARD!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:58 AM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Because in order for it to even come up for a vote, the Bush tax cuts had to be reinstated. Get my drift?

Socialist and unashamed about it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:21 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

John McCain is going to go down in history as the George Wallace of the gay rights movement. If there was ever anything good that he did or accomplished, it's all overshadowed by his bigoted obstinacy in the face of reality.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Destroying America

One piece of legislation at a time.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:56 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Destroying America

One piece of legislation at a time.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello,

How do you feel that America is harmed and destroyed by this legislation?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:17 PM

America loves a winner!

I'm not all that worked up about this, either way.

The 'social engineering ' of the military, I don't think is a good idea, regardless.

I just knew it'd tick off some here if I made such a remark.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not all that worked up about this, either way.

The 'social engineering ' of the military, I don't think is a good idea, regardless.

I just knew it'd tick off some here if I made such a remark.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello,

I think segregation and discrimination of soldiers amounts to a greater social engineering project than the restoration of equality.

I think it's clear that the past limiting of female roles and the more recent discrimination against homosexuals is entirely in keeping with social conventions and norms, not as the result of combat concerns.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 1:21 AM

America loves a winner!

We have a volunteer military. If you want to fight, fight. If you can cut the physical requirements, then great. If not, don't ask anyone to make things easier for you.

Men and women should have to run the same obstacle course, carry the same gear, and be able to perform pretty much any task asked of them.

It's the military, not a ruttin scout pack.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 2:01 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

Just so you all know your military is pretty much considered a joke everywhere else. When you stop making Army sign-ups a "get-out-of-gaol-free" card then it will be considered a modern force.

That and the dozen of friendly-fire incidents that inevitably follow an American deployment.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not all that worked up about this, either way.

The 'social engineering ' of the military, I don't think is a good idea, regardless.

Yeah, remember how horrible the military was during WWII, when we started letting blacks serve openly?

Then there was all that "social engineering" by Harry Truman when he desegregated the military by Executive Order. That was a disaster for all involved.

Quote:
I just knew it'd tick off some here if I made such a remark.

In other words, you're talking out your ass, and have nothing to offer but your usual verbal flatulence.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 5:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"That and the dozen of friendly-fire incidents that inevitably follow an American deployment."

Hello,

These are tragic and lamentable. However, virtually any large military deployment in modern times will have this happen. The ability to kill opponents at a distance, combined with the chaotic nature of trying to organize massive quantities of troops, will always breed havoc. War is a messy, confused, bloody business.

Some assorted samples (by no means comprehensive) of Friendly Fire not caused by Americans include...

World War II
______________
(Just in 1939)
6 September - Just days after the start of World War II, in what was dubbed the Battle of Barking Creek, an RAF Spitfire squadron shot down two Hurricane aircraft from another RAF squadron. One of the Hurricane pilots was killed.

10 September - The British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley. After making challenges which went unanswered Triton assumed it must have located a German U-boat and fired two torpedoes. Oxley was the first Royal Navy vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British vessel in the war, killing 52 with only two survivors.

16 October - A Mureaux 115 was damaged by a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 over the Saar Valley.

22 November - A Bloch MB.131 was shot down by a M.S.406 over Aisne

21 December - A Potez 637 was shot down by 2 Hurricanes over Meuse

Six Day War
______________
USS Liberty incident - A neutral American communications ship was attacked by Israeli air and naval forces after being mistaken for the Egyptian vessel El Quseir, killing 34 crewmen and wounding 171.

The day before the Liberty incident, Israeli aircraft bombed an Israeli armored column in the Sinai after it was mistaken for an enemy column.

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus 1974
_________________________________
The Turkish destroyer D-354 Kocatepe was sunk by Turkish warplanes after being mistaken for an enemy ship.

A flight of Greek Nortalas aircraft transports carrying reinforcements from Greece was mistaken for a flight of Turkish aircraft by the defenders of Nicosia International Airport, who opened fire. Heavy Greek casualties were sustained.

Falklands War 1982
_____________________

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident - The HMS Cardiff shot down a British (UK) Gazelle in the Falkland Islands. Killing 4 British solders.

June 2nd a 'friendly fire' incident took place between the SAS and the Special Boat Squadron (SBS). An SBS patrol had apparently strayed into the SAS patrol's designated area and were mistaken for Argentine forces. A brief firefight was initiated during which one of the SBS patrol, Sergeant Ian Hunt, was killed

A Dassault Mirage III was shot down by argentinian Anti-Aircraft fire at Port Stanley while an A-4 Skyhawk was downed near Goose Green. Both aircraft belonged to the Argentine Air Force.

An Argentine A-4 Skyhawk attacked the Argentine Merchant Navy ship ELMA Formosa. No bombs exploded and there were no casualties.

War in Afghanistan (current)
_______________________________
British soldiers in operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, fired Javelin anti-tank missiles at Danish soldiers from The Royal Life Guards, killing two. It is also confirmed from Danish forces that the British fired a total of 6-8 heat-seeking Javelin missiles, over a 1½ hour period and only after the attack was completed did they realize that the missiles were British, based upon the fragments found after the incident.

A British Military Police officer was shot dead by a fellow British soldier while on patrol.

Nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by British Army Apache Helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan July 9, 2008

LCpl Ford, from Zulu Company of 45 Commando Royal Marines, died after receiving a gunshot wound in Afghanistan on January 15, 2007, which was later found to be due to friendly fire. The final inquest has ruled he died from NATO rounds from a fellow Royal Marine machine gun. The report added there was no "negligence" by the gunman, who had made a "momentary error of judgment".

2003 Invasion of Iraq
_________________________

A British Royal Marine was killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

A British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight. The turret was blown off and two of the crewmembers were killed.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Destroying America

One piece of legislation at a time.

Is that the GOP's new slogan?

"Republicans: Destroying America, One Piece of Legislation at a Time"

It's honest, at least. That's a new twist from the GOP.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 5:51 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Just so you all know your military is pretty much considered a joke everywhere else. When you stop making Army sign-ups a "get-out-of-gaol-free" card then it will be considered a modern force.

The military wont take you if you have pending charges or if you are on probation (and you can't deploy with a suspended license). I think your information is out of date.

Quote:

That and the dozen of friendly-fire incidents that inevitably follow an American deployment.

The American military is capable of delivering a tremendous amount of firepower in a short time and under the worst conditions.

If we deploy to a country like Iraq or Iran or Korea and have a dozen friendly fire accidents killing a handful of our own soldiers while in the process of destroying the entire enemy army, the enemy's ability to make modern war, removing their govt, and occupying all their major population centers all in a matter of days (or hours) with little or no casulaties from hostile forces...well I guess we can live with the margin of error and your poor regard for our capabilities.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

If we deploy to a country like Iraq or Iran or Korea and have a dozen friendly fire accidents killing a handful of our own soldiers while in the process of destroying the entire enemy army, the enemy's ability to make modern war, removing their govt, and occupying all their major population centers all in a matter of days (or hours) with little or no casulaties from hostile forces...well I guess we can live with the margin of error and your poor regard for our capabilities.

We "destroyed" an entire enemy army? Which one? WE *disbanded* the Iraqi Army, sending hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers into the waiting hands of terrorist groups and giving them a nice recruiting tool in the process. (Then we paid those same terrorist groups to NOT attack us, and then they used that money to buy weapons with which to attack us anyway...)

Little or no casualties from hostiles? So I guess you consider some 5000+ dead American soldiers either insignificant or as friendly fire casualties, since you certainly don't view them as deaths at the hands of hostiles.

As for your Korea claims, that historically has never been the case. We fought to a hard-won stalemate there, if you'll read your history. And we've only really tried to go into Iran with military force once, and it was a disaster, killing zero "enemy" and a whole lot of Americans in the process. Which I'm sure you view as insignificant.

Keep telling yourself "We're Number One!", Zero. It's what you do. What you DON'T do, and never have, and never will, is actually serve your country or join in the fighting you so gladly cheerlead.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 11:34 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
We "destroyed" an entire enemy army? Which one? WE *disbanded* the Iraqi Army, sending hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers into the waiting hands of terrorist groups and giving them a nice recruiting tool in the process.

We destroyed the Iraqi army not once, but twice.

In 1991 in 100 hours we surrounded and cut off most of the Iraqi troops in Kuwait, then killed most of them as they fled in terror up the highway back to Iraq, while defeating in the field their largest, best equiped and most capable armor units. All with approximately one fifth of the troops they fielded.

In 2003 we accomplished in a couple weeks the complete destruction of the Iraqi army as an organized fighting force, occupied their major population centers, and removed their govt from power. We did all that with a single American mechanized division along with some allied support and smaller American units. The disparity in quantity of forces was massively unbalanced in Iraq's favor, but the quality of the forces and the American technological and air superiority made engagement with American forces a quick path to suicide for enemy units.

Quote:

So I guess you consider some 5000+ dead American
soldiers either insignificant or as friendly fire casualties, since you certainly don't view them as deaths at the hands of hostiles.

I disagree with the premise. The insurgency was simply not the same conflict as the 2003 invasion. The enemy was different as were the tactics and rules of engagement. Never the less we completely defeated the insurgents in every engagement.

Quote:

As for your Korea claims, that historically has never been the case. We fought to a hard-won stalemate there, if you'll read your history.

Our hard fought stalemate was not with Korea, it was with China. US forces were engaged by vastly superior numbers of North Korean troops in the opening days of the intervention. Once the American's fully deployed and launched their counter attack the North Korean army disintegrated in a matter of weeks allowing US forces to penetrate North Korean territory almost unchallenged (after the initial engaement) until the Chinese intervened with more soldiers by an order of magnetude then their existed bullets to shoot at them. It is unlikely the current North Koreans would fare any better without resorting to nuclear weapons and should that be the case our response would be proportionally devestating to their Army given our vast superiority in the number and capability of those types of weapons.

Quote:

And we've only really tried to go into Iran with military force once, and it was a disaster, killing zero "enemy" and a whole lot of Americans in the process. Which I'm sure you view as insignificant.

We have not matched up against Iran. They have a handful of advanced weapon but little in the way of sustainable modern combat. The vast majority of their forces uses equipment that is on par with that fielded by the Iraqis in 1991. We would elminate their offensive abilities (aside from a handful of primitive missile attacks) in the first few days of a full scale conflict. We would then systematically isolate and destroy their major combat formations leading to a rapid and inevitable collapse similar to 2003 Iraq. My warplan would not even call for full invasion. Just crush their ability to disrupt the Gulf, engage them on thier Iraqi and Afgan borders, use Navy and Marines to disrupt their coastal defense and perhaps establish enclaves centered on their port cities, then a naval blockade to stop the flow of gasoline. The govt would collapse very quickly.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 12:00 PM

Of course, you also bought into the prediction that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of a few weeks, and would cost no more than $17 billion, so your "expertise" on such matters is quite well-known, and quite laughable.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 5:32 PM

America loves a winner!

The 'blacks in the military' isn't by any means a similar situation. And most blacks would tell you so.

Of course, gays in the military will undoubtedly piss off the radical Muslims , all that much more. ( Seems they don't even HAVE any gays in Iran! )

So that then will cause s a major dilemma for the Left.

If Mulisms are pissed off, then that means WE'RE the ones who have done something wrong!

And since the USA is ALWAYS the cause of, and not the solution to the problems w/ radical Islam, then we must take steps to show them we're culturally sensitive to their wishes, to show them we mean them no harm. ( well, more harm that we've shown them already ... )

Ahh..the PC wars. Will they EVER come to an end ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 20, 2010 5:46 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Of course, you also bought into the prediction that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of a few weeks, and would cost no more than $17 billion, so your "expertise" on such matters is quite well-known, and quite laughable.

Sure is a hell of a lot more than you know, corn hole.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Men and women should have to run the same obstacle course, carry the same gear, and be able to perform pretty much any task asked of them.

With this I fully agree.

I don't see bringing the military kicking and screaming to reflecting the rest of society as "social engineering", in my opinion.

Dmann, you make a valid point. The poor, non-Caucasians and the incarcerated make up too large a proportion of our military, unquestionably. I don’t think that is what makes our military a bad fighting force, however; I think it’s more the decisions from the top, the lack of oversight and the mentality of those in charge. When it comes to friendly fire, and I would add atrocities as well, I agree with Anthony:

Quote:
These are tragic and lamentable. However, virtually any large military deployment in modern times will have this happen. The ability to kill opponents at a distance, combined with the chaotic nature of trying to organize massive quantities of troops, will always breed havoc. War is a messy, confused, bloody business.

Those sorts of thing has been evident in all militaries throughout history.

Quote:
So that then will cause s a major dilemma for the Left

Stupid statement, ideological absurdity, reflexive need to blame the “left” for everything. That and personal insults seem to be all you ever have to offer. Pity.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:50 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

This is a great thing, and a great step in the right direction. I was really starting to think the rights had stopped marching on. Maybe sometime within my lifetime, I'll be getting married.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:54 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I don't see bringing the military kicking and screaming to reflecting the rest of society as "social engineering", in my opinion.

Of course you don't. Why would you ? But that's not what the military's function is for, to "reflect the rest of society ".

You view the military as some sort of a multi cultural 1st responders organization. Like the U.N. That mindset simply doesn't work. Sectioning off submarine crew quarters has been a disaster. You don't hear it talked about, because that's not what good sailors do. They follow orders. But the same complications are all over the military, and will only increase w/ this latest 'experiment' .

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:08 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
Maybe sometime within my lifetime, I'll be getting married.

Why would you ever want to do that ?

Seriously, unless you're not old enough, you can get 'married' any time you want.

Changing the definition of the word? Not really the way to go.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:10 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
Maybe sometime within my lifetime, I'll be getting married.

Why would you ever want to do that ?

Because I'm in love? I am very sorry for you if that's not something you can understand.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
I don't see bringing the military kicking and screaming to reflecting the rest of society as "social engineering", in my opinion.

Of course you don't. Why would you ? But that's not what the military's function is for, to "reflect the rest of society ".

You view the military as some sort of a multi cultural 1st responders organization. Like the U.N. That mindset simply doesn't work. Sectioning off submarine crew quarters has been a disaster. You don't hear it talked about, because that's not what good sailors do. They follow orders. But the same complications are all over the military, and will only increase w/ this latest 'experiment' .

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

What would you know about it? You never served, corn hole.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The 'blacks in the military' isn't by any means a similar situation.

Maybe you'd care to elaborate. I keep hearing this sentiment coming from the right (and I've never heard anything similar coming from the black community). Maybe you can explain why there are no similarities.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:38 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Just so you all know your military is pretty much considered a joke everywhere else. When you stop making Army sign-ups a "get-out-of-gaol-free" card then it will be considered a modern force.

That and the dozen of friendly-fire incidents that inevitably follow an American deployment.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

Just so you know, everywhere else must be populated by retards like you. "get out of goal free cards"? try telling that to the thousands of people turned down by our military because of misdemeanors.

Post more dumb shit. I love when idiots make gigantic intercontinental assholes of themselves by spouting complete falsehoods. Your statement is so fucking stupid I'm begining to think you are the progeny of a sterile mule friendly firing off inside your mother's twattle. Asshole.....Well, it's true.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
But that's not what the military's function is for, to "reflect the rest of society ".

Why should not all segments of society have equal RIGHTS to fight for our country--in that respect yes, it SHOULD reflect everyone.

I certainly do not view it as a multi-cultural thing, given the disproportionate number of poor, Black, etc., members who join. In that respect I see it as a POOR reflection of our society, given those who avoid it easier are the more well off. But I see the RIGHT to serve as absolutely being something everyone should have.

I also believe everyone has the right to get married, and eventually society will come around to THAT too...so Lili is right; slowly but surely civil rights are marching forward (at least in theory!).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Niki - The military shouldn't be a quota system. It should be as it is, not 'reflect' anything but those who want to serve.

Those who are able to serve.

Marriage is for men and women. Not same sex unions. Sorry, that's the very definition of 'marriage'.

No one's 'civil rights' are being infringed upon here, so that baseless, nonsensical, moot point.

And where as I'd love to give a list of qualifiers which clarified my position, I'll not waste time. With this crowd, anyone who disagrees w/ the extreme far Left wing , is a -

c'mon, we all know the drill by now...

racist, homophobe, hate filled, right wing, fundamentalist bigot...

And I thought we were suppose to do away w/ stereotypes.

Anyway... as per the topic of THIS thread, I guess it's only a matter of time before the military goes all Starship Troopers, and men start showering with women.

Won't THAT be fun ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:13 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That's a truly pathetic response. The more I'm away from here, the more when I come back I realize you have no desire to communicate or discuss--much less debate--anything. I'm coming here less and less, partly as a result of the difficulty in engaging in real discussions with anyone, given you and your ilk are all over the place all the time.

I never said the military should be a quota system; I said EVERYONE should have the right to serve their country. Long ago Jews didn't, Blacks didn't, women didn't. Now they can. Same should be true of every citizen.

As to the "definition" of marriage, per Webster:

Quote:
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union *the marriage of painting and poetry J. T. Shawcross*

I see no mention of man or woman; I see "husband" and "wife", and some gay couples break it down that way. I see "founding and maintaining a family"; many gay couples have adopted, although often they have had to go through single-parent adoptions because, despite the fact that there are millions of children who desperately need love, we haven't gotten THERE yet. But I see nothing about it needing to be "male" and "female". That's your own bias; or your choice to write so as to hopefully get a rise out of someone.

Absolutely civil rights are being infringed upon when you tell people they cannot serve in the military and defend their country!

As to getting away from stereotypes, it is you who suggested them in that thread, I said nothing to stereotype you.

You only dodge. You obviously have no desire to engage in any form of discussion, and you're too lazy and/or cowardly to make even minimum effort to back up your positions. The internet is great for people like you; you can spout any idiocy you want, then refuse to back it up, but keep on spouting it as if it has some relevance or reality.

Your entire purpose in being here is to spout your ideology, pay no attention to anything that might challenge it, and be unpleasant to others. That said, I'm on to more worthwhile activities. Enjoy.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:49 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So someone can't get out of the service by claiming they are gay...

whoopie.

But really... should we set up seperate bathing areas for them?

Or should we allow young, male, Marines to shower with female Marines?

Its the same thing.

Oh I know... send the gay males to shower with the females... hehehe.... can you imagine how many guys would say they were gay JUST to be able to do that?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:56 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Changing the definition of the word? Not really the way to go.

Interesting that a great many laws are being proposed by churches and republicans (and, no doubt, insurance agencies and other financial interests) to change the legal definition to include the words 'male and female' or 'man and woman,' then. The "very definition" of marriage, as Niki so kindly pointed out, involves a close relationship and the creation of a family unit. I have a close relationship with my darling Rachele, and we would like to be a family. I don't give two shits if that bothers you, or anyone else. And you really shouldn't give two shits about what I want to do with my life, since it has no impact on you whatsoever.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:17 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I have a close relationship with my darling Rachele, and we would like to be a family."

Ain't that sweet? (I mean it, its actually sweet... I'm not being an ass)

However. This whole "gay-rights" thing REEKS of the same bullshit that hippies pushed on us when they said "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.."

Now, we have an 80%+ broken family in black neighborhoods.

Look how well thats turned out. Really, walk thru Newark, Baltimore, N.E DC, Detroit.

Then tell me that progressive ideas are good.

Or work.

Or are anything but spoiled white womens (and the men who bow to them) pipe dreams given reality.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Go back to Stormfront, pissant, and take the robe with you, it's stinkin up the thread.

As for the composition of our armed forces, which if you overlook that we ain't even supposed to have a standing army - consider THIS.

The best, most effective, fighting forces in history, are the ones who took ANYBODY, criminals, deviants, lunatics, the poor and desperate, ANY DAMN BODY - case in point, the Foreign Legion, which, since tightening their requirements to only elite-veterans, has become all but a laughing stock these days.

But back when they took in the people the rest of the world did not want, they could whup the ass of forces ten times their size, and you know why ?
Cause nobody fights like a poor bastard with nothin left to lose - one reason why the military rubs it's hands with glee at public policy shoving people in that direction, especially fresh out of high school without any other options.

Of course, that our military leadership is full of idiots who want to micromanage everything, and mired in 18th century tactical doctrine, means making any USE of the personnel isn't gonna happen, especially when they pound out every ounce of independent thought and self-reliance to the point where shooting the radio cripples an american unit and leaves it milling around pointlessly cause there's no one there to hold their little hand and tell em what to do....

Well, that's the fault of the officer cadre, which is also responsible for idiocies like DADT, and mind you, the american armed forces are still very severely RELIGIOUSLY intolerant, which is another goddamn problem altogether, especially since I know some Astaru who woulda loooved to have served, except for the fact that they knew they'd not be welcome - not that some of em don't have their own racial issues, but they'd have gotten over it damn quick when they saw people of color can whup up ass too (in fact many did when they started working with Augustus).

Man, the idea of a platoon of viking type berserkers with assault rifles scares the hell outta me, imagine the reaction of the enemy ?

Anyhow, our army is full of brain-wiped drones commanded by throwback morons using outdated tactics based on junk equipment, and you expect anything but an epic disaster any time we don't have nine-to-one odds on our side ?

Pfftthhh.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:47 PM

America loves a winner!

LiLi, Niki , anyone ...

The concept of marriage( man+woman ) goes back much further than Republicans or Christians, and yes, even further back than Webster's dictionary.

It's not a matter of whether I CARE about you, or vica versa, so don't waste anyone's time w/ that.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niki - The military shouldn't be a quota system. It should be as it is, not 'reflect' anything but those who want to serve.

Those who are able to serve.

Which obviously includes gays, unless you can offer some compelling reasons why gays AREN'T able to serve. They ARE serving, now, and have been longer than we've had a military in this country.

Quote:

Marriage is for men and women. Not same sex unions. Sorry, that's the very definition of 'marriage'.

Whose definition? Yours? Your church's? Christianity's?

Quote:

No one's 'civil rights' are being infringed upon here, so that baseless, nonsensical, moot point.

And where as I'd love to give a list of qualifiers which clarified my position, I'll not waste time.

In other words, you've got nothing. Just what I suspected. You always do this - you say you've got all these ironclad reasons, that will dispel any argument and vanquish any debaters and end all discussion... but you won't share them with us, because we aren't worthy. Suuuuuuuuuurrrrre you do.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So someone can't get out of the service by claiming they are gay...

whoopie.

But really... should we set up seperate bathing areas for them?

We could call them "separate but equal", right?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I have a close relationship with my darling Rachele, and we would like to be a family."

Ain't that sweet? (I mean it, its actually sweet... I'm not being an ass)

However. This whole "gay-rights" thing REEKS of the same bullshit that hippies pushed on us when they said "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.."

Now, we have an 80%+ broken family in black neighborhoods.

Look how well thats turned out. Really, walk thru Newark, Baltimore, N.E DC, Detroit.

Then tell me that progressive ideas are good.

Or work.

Or are anything but spoiled white womens (and the men who bow to them) pipe dreams given reality.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Do you have ANY cites or studies that link "hippies" and their "progressive ideas" to the plight of inner-city blacks and their single-parent families?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
LiLi, Niki , anyone ...

The concept of marriage( man+woman ) goes back much further than Republicans or Christians, and yes, even further back than Webster's dictionary.

And yet you still haven't provided any evidence to back your ludicrous claims that "the very definition" of marriage is one man/one woman.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Changing the definition of the word? Not really the way to go.

Interesting that a great many laws are being proposed by churches and republicans (and, no doubt, insurance agencies and other financial interests) to change the legal definition to include the words 'male and female' or 'man and woman,' then. The "very definition" of marriage, as Niki so kindly pointed out, involves a close relationship and the creation of a family unit. I have a close relationship with my darling Rachele, and we would like to be a family. I don't give two shits if that bothers you, or anyone else. And you really shouldn't give two shits about what I want to do with my life, since it has no impact on you whatsoever.

Facts are stubborn things.

Hopefully one day I'll be able to dance at your wedding. Or at least dance when I hear the news of your wedding! :)

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:48 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anyway... as per the topic of THIS thread, I guess it's only a matter of time before the military goes all Starship Troopers, and men start showering with women.

Won't THAT be fun ? "

Hello,

I think I also saw something similar in the movie Aliens when I was a youth. It seemed like a good idea.

In my opinion, it shouldn't matter who you shower with, or excrete with, or have intercourse with.

Some of the most formidable historic armies gave such little thought to men buggering men that it was hardly worth notice. These same armies had women in the camps bedding down with combat troops as they moved in the field.

These were armies that vanquished the countries of the then known world, confronting every manner of evil that war could offer while campaigning for years at a time through every conceivable terrain and climate.

If we went back in time and told them how squeamish we are about women and gays in the military, they would laugh in our pathetic faces.

With all the horrors of the ancient world, and all the improvements we have made in our living since then, I still commend the ancient soldier for this singular thing: He knew what was important, and what was preposterous, on the fields of carnage.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:32 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is for men and women. Not same sex unions. Sorry, that's the very definition of 'marriage'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kwicko....

Whose definition? Yours? Your church's? Christianity's?

Sounds to me like you are trying to pull a Bill Clinton on him......Whose definition? Really? You gays are hilarious.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:37 AM

KANEMAN

Peg Leg "Go back to Stormfront, pissant, and take the robe with you, it's stinkin up the thread..."

What is wrong with Stormfront? Oh, I see it is a white pride organization. You go back to the NAACP, LaRaza, or ChinkaKinga with YOUR racist bullshit. Saying Stormfront peeps wear robes is like saying those in NAACP wear lip plates and balance jugs on their heads.....

Liberal White Guilt is a crazy thing...hilarious actually.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Lili, I wish you all the best, and will definitely dance at word of your marriage! I know how it feels; tho’ I never intended to marry Jo and stuck by Jim, bad as things were, if I hadn’t had Jim, I would have wished we could marry. For all her faults, she treated me FAR better than he did for the first 20+ of our relationship! As I’ve said before, if I outlive Jim, I won’t have another relationship...they’re too much work and fraught with pain...but if I ever DID, it would ONLY be with another woman!

Well, Raptor obviously bailed, or turned into Kane because he wasn't getting anywhere. Improved the discussion, tho’ the lack of anyone providing cogent argument on the other side is a shame. In this case, maybe it’s because there IS none. The idea that gays in the military will reduce our combat effectiveness is a hollow one, given that, as you said Mike, we’ve HAD gays—-serving long and with distinction, and often known by their fellow soldiers to be gay—-ever since there was an army, and in every army known to man.

Excellently said, Anthony, and a very good point. Sometimes it seems we’ve gone TOO far in one direction with all our “civilizing”, and missed some of the priorities earlier man had, eh? Marriage has taken many forms throughout history and in different places, saying it’s always been “one man and one woman” or whatever is no argument. Then again, no real argument has been provided, only opinion and bias.

As to women’s lib being solely responsible for breaking up the family, that’s bullshit. Obviously those who think so would prefer to have women in bondage, “pregnant and in the kitchen” like they were before, but that it was so peachy keen just ain’t true. Women weren’t ALLOWED to have their own lives, they were to grow up, get married as soon as possible (usually before college), have children and keep house. I can’t imagine a much more constricted, miserable existence. That society brainwashed them into believing that was their place in life only made so many of them trapped in loveless marriages while their husband did whatever he wanted (frequently having relationships outside marriage). Hell, throughout history men’s adultery was CONDONED; women’s, not. Still is in many Muslim countries.

Children of one-parent families have always existed among the poor, when the male disappeared whether they were ever married or not. I’d say “read your history”, but I know that would be fruitless. The difference is that women by themselves who’ve been divorced or deserted aren’t the anathema they were in times of old, and have RIGHTS...something they didn’t have until recent history. Obviously it would be easier for men if they were in power over other races, religions and sexes, but it’s slowly ceasing to be that way (except in our government, but if we last long enough, that will change too).

It would be interesting to see how many two-parent families there would be today if both parents COULDN’T hold jobs...given that our economy has gone steadily downhill for so long, I wonder how many men would have even hung around to support a wife and family? Any guesses?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:53 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Awww Feministic Niki...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I never watch your videos anymore, Wulf; they represent fantasy, not reality, and I can enjoy fantasy on TV, movies, in books--things I choose to enjoy. If you have a point to make, make it yourself please.

I'm also not a feminist...I believe in EQUALITY, that's all.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:40 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I never watch your videos anymore, Wulf; they represent fantasy, not reality, and I can enjoy fantasy on TV, movies, in books--things I choose to enjoy. If you have a point to make, make it yourself please."

Says the hippie who is all about "learning"...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:37 AM