It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military readiness my foot... What is Trumps real reason???

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Even though the Pentagon and McMasters were completely taken aback by the tweet...




posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then you didn't read the thread very well, because there were several members commenting in regards to the cost of having trans in the military.

A) Trans people account for something like one percent of one percent of total forces. The total trans population is, at most, just over one percent of the total population of the US. The whole "smaller recruiting pool" argument doesn't wash.

B) there are plenty of people trying to get in to the military that can fill non-combat roles as easily as anybody else. Again, argument doesn't wash.

C) hey, we actually agree on this point.

My What If Game entry - what if the next Charles Whitman is a trans?

The What If Game is as stupid as trying to turn everything into an absolute.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Im saying I would bet dollars to donuts they already do...

If the best sniper on the planet is trans one day, do they not use them???

What about the best anything??

Absolutes are always a bad idea.. it doesn't give you the flexibility to deal with unforeseen variables.


If they are being given watered down roles they should protest...I'd refuse to join!

May be Trump is trying to help them.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The battlefield isn't a safe space.

It's no secret that the trans community suffers from one of the highest rates of depression and suicide of any demographic, do you think the rigors of war is going to help this? For every well-adjusted trans you can find, I can find 9 that aren't.

It's a medical issue as well. They don't allow people who have medical conditions or addictions to serve, and having to cater to soldiers with special needs who are constantly on medications is just detrimental to the effectiveness of the unit as a whole.

Btw, do you know what it takes just to get mail to Mosul? We're not going to send 4 trucks through a war zone so Bobalina can get her hormone pills.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's about making the right people happy though, not the most people.

With his approval rating he's clearly not trying to make the most people happy.

But if you make the right people happy, you get what you want in return.

That's politics.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago

IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!



I think we have our reason. trump has found god..



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago

IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!



I think we have our reason. trump has found god..


He couldn't "wronger"! In America government comes before "god".



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You're both wrong.

In America we worship MONEY!!



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No military personnel work at the PX as cashiers or anything else, it is a commercial operation and is staffed by civilians. While it is true that there are cooks and lots of other logistical positions most of these positions down range are staffed by civilians as well. Companies like KBR, Dyncorp, Haliburton, and Flour operate everything from the PX to repairing helicopters.

I know individuals who wore a uniform next to me on deployment and the following year worked as a civilian making 4 times what they did in uniform and doing the exact same job. In recent years those who do the shooting are being replaced with contractors as well.

As for Transgenders in uniform, it will happen with time just as gay soldiers proudly serve today but there needs to be time to transition, it just cannot happen at the blink of an eye as there are several issues which need to be worked out so for now I agree with the pause, and see that the future policies will allow Transgender individuals to serve.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Washington does things to people. There's no doubt in my mind that he abhors the status quo. HOWEVER, he will have to appeal to some aspect of it to be effectual in any regard. It's just the way of Washington.I don't like the way it "works," but that's the way it "works."

If I were to guess, I would suspect that his banning of transexuals emerged from within the Republican party. Now, there's an outside chance that there's another motivation, but I don't have an inclination as to what it may be.


edit on 26-7-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Meh trump took a big loss with obamacare not getting repealead, he had to do something to cater to his followers.


Im just sad that 2500 people will lose there jobs and benefits, just cause you know there different.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Some say its a distraction and theres something big coming. The idea is he's using this shiny object to distract. Who knows. Maybe Sessions really has something coming and we're all being played. Time will tell.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
If 41% decides they don't like black People (and I bet the real number was WAY higher during segregation) do we ban them???



The lack of perspective in attempts to somehow tie modern day coddling of confused personal choices and the resistance against normalizing those choices with the civil rights plight of African Americans is staggering.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
In America we worship MONEY!!


And your money tells you to trust in god....

Lol.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


I'm not tying it to racism..

I'm tying it to the fact the majority of the military can want the wrong thing..

I'm sure it was 80%+ against segregating the military..

What happens if the same argument is successfully used then??

We never integrate the military...

All the insanely good black soldiers never help win wars..

More American soldiers die..



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

There are 1000 positions that don't touch the battlefield..

Taking these people from logistical positions, will require us taking people from the battlefield to fill those holes.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your argument doesn't really stand up to logic or the numbers.

Less than 1% of Americans ever join the military. 0.58% of Americans are Trans. So we're looking at less than .01% at most of the military possibly being Trans.

Now, I don't don't know how or if this would effect unit readiness. Because I've never encountered a Trans person in the military and I've been around for over 16 years.

I do know that it's mostly the old Generals and Sergeants Major who have an issue with LGTB people in the military and they aren't even likely to ever cross their paths anyway. I have worked with plenty of openly gay service members and there were no issues.

So as long as there weren't any physical reasons a Trans person couldn't perform their duties. I would have no problem. They are people too and it's still an all volunteer force. So I'd know they want to be here.

The cost of transitioning is not relevant IMO, because we spend so much on ridiculous BS anyway. To include breast enhancements for females and I've seen male service members get liposuction.

But like was already pointed out. Going out of the way to cater to .58% of the population isn't really justifiable.

But then again, we have that thing called the Constitution that says we're all equal. So if they meet the requirements they should be allowed to serve.

So in closing, the monetary cost is not relevant. But unit readiness is at the Commander's discretion which is the President. So it is what it is unless the Supreme Court gets involved.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well of course it's all about what somebody doesn't like.

Give me a break.
This is from trump and trump alone and like the #ing Obama tapped my phone tweet of early April we won't ever hear another thing from him about it.
It's meant as a distraction.
But guess what...tonight we're talking about healthcare again and Kushner and the Russians so it didn't really work the way he thought it would.
We see right thorough him and his little games by now.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
He wants this to be a wedge issue for Dems.

They are trying to re-brand themselves and are trying to focus more on the economy now.
Do they now double down on their focus of the economy and jobs leaving, in this instance, Transgenders out to dry so to speak? Or do they abandon the economy to resume their SJ crusade?

It also sounds like you yourself are saying that Transgenders shouldn't try to be anything more than cooks and clerks.
For me, it's a case by case basis. If a woman can carry her 80 lbs of gear while carrying a wounded male soldier and his 80 lbs of gear to safety, then I don't see a problem with her joining. The distraction aspect is real but that's a different discussion. Same goes for currently serving Transgenders.

However, just how combat effective is someone who is trying to transition while actively serving? Recovery and counseling play a part, just as the cost does. Should we then allow overweight people to join with free liposuction?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I don't know why trump has decided to drop his no transgenders in the military policy position, but it sure as hell isnt military readiness...



He didn't drop this position already did he? The group he respects the most, the military brass, requested it.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join