Don't Ask, Don't TELL

Socrtease said:
Thanks for having my back USF but don't sweat it. Once people get shown they are on the wrong side of history they become nasty, they become insulting, but they don't get any smarter.
Click to expand...

No problem.
We may not always agree; but Dixie is just being a total ass, with this.
He's such a coward that he put me on ignore, so he could ignore my requests for him to validate his dumbass suppositions.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet; when you're asked to validate your suppostions, you instead run like a little chicken shit and put posters on ignore.
Doesn't say much for your integrity or your intelligence.
Click to expand...

Who have I put on ignore?

I have chosen not to reply to much of your 7th grade pussy shit, but I have put no one on ignore. You are not willing to have a discussion, you simply are a troll that thinks he's good at insulting people and thus are not worth bothering with most of the time.

Immie
 
SR_ said:
There is no valid reason in dealing with military readiness, combat effectiveness, or unit cohesion to repeal DADT.

There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY.

There are valid arguments that deal with the negative effects of allowing openly gay individuals serve within small units, especially those that are tasked with actual combat operations.

This entire action on behalf of such a small minority of the population AND the military, that ALREADY had the ability to serve honorably was done to make a few politicians happy in terms of fundraising, and a few activists happy WHO WILL NEVER SERVE ANYWAY.

I dont know why some of you think that anything has been improved or any problem solved. This was just a special interest gift of which there will only be additional costs to EVERYONE and additional problems to the military (which is hardly anyone here).

Bravo... :good4u:

SR
Click to expand...

Unfortunetly; you're just another one of the pinheads that believe their paranoia, or maybe desire, of being butt fucked means you have a valid reason.
If a gay person has been serving and having to lie about his sexuality, has preformed upto the military standards; what makes you think his performance is going to become less?
 
Socrtease said:
The telling point here, is that people who are opposed to the repeal can not empathize with the people that DADT actually affected. There would be no one in the army if single soldiers could not be in relationships with other single soldiers. The need for human companionship AND sex are second only to eating in human drives. During Operation Desert Shield/Storm one of the first orders given in theater was "no sex". It was also one of the first orders violated. In my company we had 4 pregnancies to single soldiers that could have only happened in Kuwait. In my Battalion, we had 14 total pregnancies among single soldiers. Quite of few of them married the soldier that knocked them up in theater, many more took medical discharges. NO ONE was prosecuted for having sex in a combat theater where they were specifically ordered not to have sex. As I have related here once before, my roommate in Germany had sex with the wife of one of the guys in our Platoon. He was a super squared away soldier, who maxed his PT tests, was good at his job and LOVED being in the Army. Matter of fact he just retired this year. He was given an Article 15, which for you non military types, is non-judicial punishment. He was docked two weeks pay, and got two weeks confinement to barracks and extra duty. The CO was nice enough to let that start AFTER he came back from his 30 day leave which he spent with his parents in Germany.
Click to expand...

There are several key points you touch upon. Most of everyone here will not understand why these were done or why they were so important.

The first point you mentioned is that while in theater there was an order, that order being "no sex". Im sure some of the readers of this will glance over it because such an order seems "normal" for a military deployed in a combat theatre. But there was a specific reason why that order was given. Would you like to explain to everyone the importance of this order, and why such an order is given?

The second thing you mentioned was the natural need for humans to have sex. Then you detailed a story about a solider having sexual relations with ANOTHER soldiers wife. Then you detailed that an NJP was given. Would you like to explain WHY such an action is against the UCMJ, and would require punishment.. why such a law exists in the first place.

I dont know why type of unit you were deployed with... but you do denote that a number of females did get pregnant. What kind of unit was this... and do you think that they type of unit you were in holds any type of importance to WHY you had females attached to it?

SR
 
Mojo said:
Since I've "had several", where are they?

Or are insults all you have?
Click to expand...

Are you admitting that you haven't even been reading the posts, on this thread; because they're all right there, in black and white.
Take your medication, go back to page 1, reread the comments, and then get back to us. :good4u:

By the way; calling someone like you a dumbass pinhead is not an insult, it's an accurate description. :awesome:
 
SR_ said:
There is no valid reason in dealing with military readiness, combat effectiveness, or unit cohesion to repeal DADT.

There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY.

There are valid arguments that deal with the negative effects of allowing openly gay individuals serve within small units, especially those that are tasked with actual combat operations.

This entire action on behalf of such a small minority of the population AND the military, that ALREADY had the ability to serve honorably was done to make a few politicians happy in terms of fundraising, and a few activists happy WHO WILL NEVER SERVE ANYWAY.

I dont know why some of you think that anything has been improved or any problem solved. This was just a special interest gift of which there will only be additional costs to EVERYONE and additional problems to the military (which is hardly anyone here).

Bravo... :good4u:

SR
Click to expand...
And there were arguments made for not desegregating the army. Black's weren't brave enough, they would steal, white soldiers would not trust them to have their backs in a combat environment. All the same bullshit arguments now. If a guy you served with proved himself to be a good Marine and then AFTER you found out he was gay, does that make him any worse a marine? Or is it just that all you Jars are so damn good looking that a gay Marine couldn't keep his mind on war when he has all that hot ass around?
 
Immanuel said:
Who have I put on ignore?

I have chosen not to reply to much of your 7th grade pussy shit, but I have put no one on ignore. You are not willing to have a discussion, you simply are a troll that thinks he's good at insulting people and thus are not worth bothering with most of the time.

Immie
Click to expand...

I never said you put anyone on ignore, you fucking dumbass, myopic, bigotted, pinhead.

This is just further proof that you're an idiot.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you admitting that you haven't even been reading the posts, on this thread; because they're all right there, in black and white.
Take your medication, go back to page 1, reread the comments, and then get back to us. :good4u:

By the way; calling someone like you a dumbass pinhead is not an insult, it's an accurate description. :awesome:
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any I regarded as valid.

Care to point them out for me, or restate them in your own words?

Name-calling is "awesome"? Thanks for correcting my erroneous belief that ad-hominem attacks are fallacious.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
If a gay person has been serving and having to lie about his sexuality, has preformed upto the military standards; what makes you think his performance is going to become less?
Click to expand...

I dont think any performance will drop for such an individual. I dont think any performance will be enhanced either. Why would a homosexual somehow turn into a super soldier upon his/her ability to be OPENLY homosexual... which brings us back to my original statement "There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY."

is this somehow confusing to you?

SR
 
"Blacks, women, now gays: Military to adjust again

Two decades after integration of the U.S. military, race riots flared on Navy warships in the Vietnam era. Long after servicewomen were officially placed on an equal footing with men, sexual harassment is still pervasive.

Now the military has a new social challenge: Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the ranks. It is expected that commanders will dutifully implement the policy, and overall it will likely be judged a success, but recent history provides some cautionary lessons..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40774216/ns/us_news-life/
 
Socrtease said:
And there were arguments made for not desegregating the army. Black's weren't brave enough, they would steal, white soldiers would not trust them to have their backs in a combat environment. All the same bullshit arguments now. If a guy you served with proved himself to be a good Marine and then AFTER you found out he was gay, does that make him any worse a marine? Or is it just that all you Jars are so damn good looking that a gay Marine couldn't keep his mind on war when he has all that hot ass around?
Click to expand...

They're probably afraid that they won't be "hit on" and it will ruin their fragile self esteem. :palm:
 
Mojo said:
I haven't seen any I regarded as valid.

Care to point them out for me, or restate them in your own words?

Name-calling is "awesome"? Thanks for correcting my erroneous belief that ad-hominem attacks are fallacious.
Click to expand...

And once again; just because you dismiss them as being "invalid" doesn't mean they were wrong.
It just means that you're an ignorant, dumbass, homophobic, dumbass, pinhead.

And before you try to look down from your hypocritical high horse, you might want to take another look at some of your own posts; because it seems you find name calling insultive, but you don't seem to mind being insultive towards others.

I never knew the Reserves were able to claim someone as big a bitch, as you are.
 
SR_ said:
I dont think any performance will drop for such an individual. I dont think any performance will be enhanced either. Why would a homosexual somehow turn into a super soldier upon his/her ability to be OPENLY homosexual... which brings us back to my original statement "There isnt and never will be any argument that states: The US Military will be BETTER, IMPROVED, STRONGER, or more EFFICIENT because a homosexual can now serve OPENLY."

is this somehow confusing to you?

SR
Click to expand...

And you've provided nothing that would suggest that a "super soldier" would now become less; because he no longer has to hide his sexuality.
 
Socrtease said:
And there were arguments made for not desegregating the army. Black's weren't brave enough, they would steal, white soldiers would not trust them to have their backs in a combat environment. All the same bullshit arguments now. If a guy you served with proved himself to be a good Marine and then AFTER you found out he was gay, does that make him any worse a marine? Or is it just that all you Jars are so damn good looking that a gay Marine couldn't keep his mind on war when he has all that hot ass around?
Click to expand...

There has to be some recognition in the difference between race and sex. Distraction and distrust are not reserved to some mythical fear of being raped... Ive never made that argument and never will.

If I served in combat with a Marine, and AFTER found out he was gay, it would be fine. It doesnt in any way change the brotherhood bond formed by going through these things together. But this example that you give me is based OFF the current DADT policy, meaning, he kept his homosexuality to himself, and only AFTER did he confide IN US, his family, that he indeed was gay. Thats fine.. there was no barrier to our ability to embrace him as one of us BECAUSE he didnt do anything or expect any right to special treatment or differential behavior BECAUSE of the code.

Now, pose the same scenario (as it will now happen), to an openly homosexual individual being INTRODUCED to the unit, meaning BEFORE the unit is put into a combat environment.

The challenges of race are not paramount to the challenges of sex. Are you saying that we discriminate against females since we do not allow them or include them in combat arm units... do you think its because we hate females, or dont trust them, or think theyll steal? or did you think my story was real?

SR
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And once again; just because you dismiss them as being "invalid" doesn't mean they were wrong.
It just means that you're an ignorant, dumbass, homophobic, dumbass, pinhead.

And before you try to look down from your hypocritical high horse, you might want to take another look at some of your own posts; because it seems you find name calling insultive, but you don't seem to mind being insultive towards others.

I never knew the Reserves were able to claim someone as big a bitch, as you are.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that name-calling validates your points?

Since you claim that valid arguments against the repeal of DADT are in this thread, why not produce them?

Please, while you're at it, provide links to my posts that are "insultive (I can't find that word in the dictionary, except as a neologism) towards others".

I am unable to understand your reference to "the Reserves". Do you know something you'd like to share?
 
Immanuel said:
Liar.



Grow the hell up.

Immie
Click to expand...

I apologize; because I was in error.
It appears that I got you and your butt buddy Dixie mixed up; seeing as how you two sound so much alike.
I admit that it's your butt buddy Dixie that has me on ignore; because he's a coward.

There now, do you feel better?
 
SR_ said:
There has to be some recognition in the difference between race and sex. Distraction and distrust are not reserved to some mythical fear of being raped... Ive never made that argument and never will.

If I served in combat with a Marine, and AFTER found out he was gay, it would be fine. It doesnt in any way change the brotherhood bond formed by going through these things together. But this example that you give me is based OFF the current DADT policy, meaning, he kept his homosexuality to himself, and only AFTER did he confide IN US, his family, that he indeed was gay. Thats fine.. there was no barrier to our ability to embrace him as one of us BECAUSE he didnt do anything or expect any right to special treatment or differential behavior BECAUSE of the code.

Now, pose the same scenario (as it will now happen), to an openly homosexual individual being INTRODUCED to the unit, meaning BEFORE the unit is put into a combat environment.

The challenges of race are not paramount to the challenges of sex. Are you saying that we discriminate against females since we do not allow them or include them in combat arm units... do you think its because we hate females, or dont trust them, or think theyll steal? or did you think my story was real?

SR
Click to expand...

You might want to clirify your comment of an "openly homosexual individual", seeing as how you, Dixie, and Immi seem to try to make paint brush arguments.
 
SR_ said:
Now, pose the same scenario (as it will now happen), to an openly homosexual individual being INTRODUCED to the unit, meaning BEFORE the unit is put into a combat environment.

The challenges of race are not paramount to the challenges of sex. Are you saying that we discriminate against females since we do not allow them or include them in combat arm units... do you think its because we hate females, or dont trust them, or think theyll steal? or did you think my story was real?

SR
Click to expand...

How is this person introduced? Does he stand up in the crowd and say "Hello, my name is John Doe and I'm gay"?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And you've provided nothing that would suggest that a "super soldier" would now become less; because he no longer has to hide his sexuality.
Click to expand...

Theres is nothing to provide for this because i havent argued that a homosexual soldier as an individual would be more or less because of the repeal.

The military is not about individuals. It is the effect of the ability of a UNIT that will be compromised... and even this will not be the case for the majority of the military as the majority of the military are not tasked for combat operations.

I do not feel that mechanics, IT, logistics, communications, or garrison activities will be effected at all by introducing an open homosexual into the mix.

But combat arms, meaning, infantry, artillery, armor will be affected, and these categories are also the categories that were overwhelmingly resistant to this change in policy... these parts of the military are ALSO the parts that actually DO THE FIGHTING, and DO THE DYING.. and of which our nations military performances are based upon. Repealing DADT has ZERO positive effect here.. only negatives.. and the reason has nothing to do with an individual.. individuals do not operate in these parts of the military.

SR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top