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.

 

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
It's gonna "swing" at night within the dormitorium: Poppers for everybody iiyaah ah these americans...*Big up

Actually, it's not like we didn't know there was a good percentage of gays in the u.s mil. already, it's common knowledge really.

I have seen a post somewhere on ats about Mr "Jesus is back" Obama being an ex homosexual or a bi (?) that would make sense after this decision, i think this theory fits well. It need a lil' deeper investigation but we're onto smtg i feel

Not sure the "cold heads" will implement this new directive in my country though (and not sure i wanna them to do so.)

Obama ...a new era *Preach

[edit on 14-1-2009 by themaster1]




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 

It possibly prevents other gays from joining with other jobs in the military in which they might have to tell other people they're gay. Haven't you thought about that? One huge myth is that gay people will make the military men uncomfortable, but, people aren't uncomfortable with women being lesbian, so why shouldn't gays be in the military? I fail to see how it would accomplish nothing, except partisan bickering from conservatives.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I don't see exactly the point of what Obama is doing.

Under UCMJ homosexual behavior will still be illegal and grounds for expulsion from the military. So what he's doing is more lip service than anything.

If the UCMJ is altered there will be morale and camaraderie issues. One silly example is displays of pornography. Often in combat units there are displays of porn, sometimes in tanks or other vehicles. I can only imagine the reaction to some young new private as he posts some gay porn in his vehicle or b hut.

Combat arms units are very heterosexual and testerone driven. The vast majority of these combat personnel are from the Southern US, especially Texas. Open homosexuals will find themselves in an extremely hostile environment in a combat arms unit.

Now Support units are a whole other universe. Obama could probably alter UCMJ in favor of allowing homosexual personnel into Support Units. It would basically be the same policy that is already applied to female personnel.

Now if the military goes full coed, males and females together in coed showers, then Obama could do what ever he wants at that point. There are a number of soldiers who feel if someone openly gay can shower with straight males, then a straight soldier should be able to shower with females. Personally, I'm not for that.

If anything, maybe a desexualizing of the military should occur. Meaning open displays of anything, porn, affection, expression etc. by anyone of any sexual orientation while in uniform, on duty, or on military property would not be tolerated. It could be a zero tolerance policy. I would still keep the current UCMJ code against Sodomy as well. It applies to both straight and gay.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



True, the Don't ask Don't tell policy is in place so commanders don't ask if you are gay. That is the DON'T ASK part.

The Don't tell part covers gay soldiers not letting other soldiers know that they are gay. If they do then they are discharged from the military.

If you are openly gay in the military you will be discharged. No questions asked. So yes it is in place to keep openly gays out of the military.

So you are half right.

The Don't ask Don't tell policy is in place for morale and should not be removed.

When you are deployed you have what is called shower tents. They are not private and are very cramped, with hundreds being pushed through every night. How comfortable do you think a young soldier is going to be when he has to shower a foot away from another soldier who he knows to be gay?

Do they shower with the females (if gay male) or with the men (if gay female)? Do they get their own shower time?

Having a gay male showering with other men would be as uncomfortable for the straight men as having females shower with the males.

There are other examples I can come up with if you need them to see that this is a very bad thing to do.

Edit for grammer


[edit on 14-1-2009 by jd140]


"if you are openly gay in the military you will be discharged. No questions asked. So yes it is in place to keep openly gays out of the military."

And this was exactly what I was referring to in my opening post. You just said it so much accurately, thank you. I also think that it may be placing these men and women at risk for both verbal and physical abuse.

I can't see how this would have any positive effects on a military unit period.
So what is Obama's point in doing this so urgently?


[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


My honest opinion is that I think he is starting to feel the pressure of his new celebrity status and popularity. He is the most celebrated President ever and he hasn't even taken office yet. That is alot of pressure he has on his shoulders and he is doing what he thinks is a popular choice without really doing any research on the matter.

We shall see.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Let's see if I can make infowars. Haha..


What if he was trying to dissolve the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, not for equal rights or due to demand from the gay community, but what if he was doing it so all people can be drafted.

His National Service act parallels a bill of which Chuck Rangel (D-NY) proposed in House Resolution 393.



Draft Reinstatement bill

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.






Obama at around 6 minutes says:


“One of the things that I’ve proposed, for example, is that I will give a $4000 tuition credit - every student, every year - so that they are not being loaded up with enormous debts, uh, but there will be a community service - a national service component. The military could be one way for you to get this $4000 tuition credit. Another way would be to work in an under-served school that needs help. Another way would be to work in an under-served hospital or a homeless shelter, or a veterans home. The point is, I think it is important for young people to serve.”


I don't necessarily disagree with above, except his first insinuation about "Oh, the military could be one way
." As I don't think anybody should be coerced into joining any part of the military, as serving ones OWN country, here, within would be highly more efficient. Regardless.

In the national debate held at Columbia University Obama goes on to say in response to a question about how to make military service more appealing:


Well, first of all, as commander-in-chief, my job is to keep America safe. And that means insuring that we’ve got the best military on Earth. And that means having the best persons in uniform on Earth. We have that right now, but as a consequence of these wars, they have been strained incredibly. I think it’s important for us to increase the size of our Army and our Marines so we can reduce the pace of tours that our young men and women are on.


Without hesitation or provocation he dives right into national service with:



My grandfather, after Pearl Harbor, joined the military. My grandmother, who had just had a baby at Fort Leavenworth, stayed back and worked on a bomber assembly line.


and in the same long winded jaunt:


But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some. Source




Rahm Emanuel when asked about how the Universal service plan would work, the question being "How would this work? Are people going to live in barracks?"

He responds "Universal civil..? Civil Defense Training?

At around 2:00 the reporter still doesn't get the answer he's looking for and asks again something to the extent of "How would we do that? Just go down to a Red Cross building or something?"

Rahm responds: "The whole idea there is you can do it through your state National Guard."

The reporter says, "I'm a little hung up on the barracks.."

Rahm responds: "Rather than figure it out, whether you take a train ride or barrack, think of it this way; it will be a common experience."

Civil defense. Even though, Rahm didn't serve to defend the United States. Though, born in Illinois, he served for the Israeli army and not any branch of the United States military. I have an issue with this. How the hell is someone going to force me to serve, when he won't even serve his own country?

Personally, I have always been drawn to military service. After aquiring my first responder and EMT certifications, joining the military as a medic was instantly on my mind. After much thought and even some ATS dialogue in one of my threads I have settled on becoming a Corpsman in the United States Navy. I believe within the next year I will be signing my life over so that I can serve others and that is my choice, my freewill, as a citizen, as a person protected by my constitution. I will not stand for someone who didn't even serve his own country telling others to serve it. Neither will I stand for the circumvention of our constitutional rights.

Back to the point.

Is this a push for "equal rights" or is this a ploy so that people aren't excluded from the draft for proclaiming their homosexual preference? As Obama said, if we go, we all go! I could see how the sexuality hang up could hold a lot of his conscripts from entering the service under the "don't ask, don't tell."


I apologize in advance, but I'm typing with my tin foil cap on for the first time.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I don't see exactly the point of what Obama is doing.

Under UCMJ homosexual behavior will still be illegal and grounds for expulsion from the military. So what he's doing is more lip service than anything.

If the UCMJ is altered there will be morale and camaraderie issues. One silly example is displays of pornography. Often in combat units there are displays of porn, sometimes in tanks or other vehicles. I can only imagine the reaction to some young new private as he posts some gay porn in his vehicle or b hut.

Combat arms units are very heterosexual and testerone driven. The vast majority of these combat personnel are from the Southern US, especially Texas. Open homosexuals will find themselves in an extremely hostile environment in a combat arms unit.

Now Support units are a whole other universe. Obama could probably alter UCMJ in favor of allowing homosexual personnel into Support Units. It would basically be the same policy that is already applied to female personnel.

Now if the military goes full coed, males and females together in coed showers, then Obama could do what ever he wants at that point. There are a number of soldiers who feel if someone openly gay can shower with straight males, then a straight soldier should be able to shower with females. Personally, I'm not for that.

If anything, maybe a desexualizing of the military should occur. Meaning open displays of anything, porn, affection, expression etc. by anyone of any sexual orientation while in uniform, on duty, or on military property would not be tolerated. It could be a zero tolerance policy. I would still keep the current UCMJ code against Sodomy as well. It applies to both straight and gay.


Isnt that porn display already a bit hostile to the female soldiers in the military? I think gay people should be able to express their position in sexuality during the recruitment protocol but in the barracks people should lay a bit low with precair life expressions and calanders, also with the porn when women are involved..



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
From my experience in the Navy, there appears to be more gay females than gay males serving. Many of the males I knew were actually bi.

One consequence of this new policy will be that men and women can no longer 'pretend' to be gay to get out of their contract. I witnessed way too many 'witch hunts' against good sailors because someone was angry with someone else and made an accusation that the person was gay.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Why can't he stick to the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Because it IS broke. If you look at it from the wider view (not just from the eyes of the military), it may make more sense to you.

This is not about how it will affect the military. This is a civil rights issue. It really doesn't matter how "uncomfortable" someone is going to be in the shower. They're going to have to deal with their own feelings.

Consider if we were forcing black people to wear white makeup to be in the military... That's what the "DADT" policy does. It says, "We'll take your service, your loyalty and dedication - we'll even let you give your life. As long as you hide who you are."


To take the best fighting force in the world and manipulate it to fit his agenda is foolish.


His agenda being "equal protection under the law"... I don't think that's foolish. I think it's bringing our military into alignment with the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.



In my opinion he is doing everything to undermine this country and what it stands for.


How are separation, inequality and discrimination "what this country stands for"?



Our current economic crisis should be where his focus is.


That IS where his focus is.
As has been proven, however, he can do more than one thing at a time.


I'm thrilled that Obama is showing signs of flushing the outdated and cruel civil rights limitations that our citizens have been dealing with for so many years.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Because it IS broke. If you look at it from the wider view (not just from the eyes of the military), it may make more sense to you.



Really? The military is broken, and the only way to fix it is to allow gays to openly serve? What a crock!



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is not about how it will affect the military. This is a civil rights issue. It really doesn't matter how "uncomfortable" someone is going to be in the shower. They're going to have to deal with their own feelings.


And that's the attitude you'd have when I'm showering with your daughter? Because there's no difference. Gays showering with straights, or coed showers (just like Starship troopers!).


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Consider if we were forcing black people to wear white makeup to be in the military... That's what the "DADT" policy does. It says, "We'll take your service, your loyalty and dedication - we'll even let you give your life. As long as you hide who you are."



If gays want to do something for their country, I'm sure they can find other avenues. And comparing it to race is crazy talk. It's not the same thing.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm thrilled that Obama is showing signs of flushing the outdated and cruel civil rights limitations that our citizens have been dealing with for so many years.


It's just his way of sucking up (pardon the pun) to the gay and lesbians for their vote. He doesn't care about them or the military.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Asa former Marine, I cantell you right now, that will NOT fly. I dont care how smart or wise you think you are by trying to justify something like this, but it WILL NOT happen. Obama can try n do it, but he will soon find out how big of a mistake hemade when the blood isonhis hands.
Civil rights issue or not, men inthe military wont have it. There is a lot of training and protocol when it comes to the military,,a history of how the military beforeus did it, and it moves from generation to generation, to change that would be a disservice for those people by changing theone thing that they know. There are a lot of men inthe military that would(and I am sorry to say) drive the gays out one way or another if they found out.
Anything from vebal tophysical abuse would take place, and the suicide rate in the military would skyrocket. Not to mention "accidental fatalities" in the training fields. You cant put someone to watch your back when theres gunfire commin downrange if you cant trust them. Thats absurd to pair someone up with someone they dont feel comfortable with, especially when their life is at stake. I say if he wants the gaysto be in the military, give them their own branch. Until then, Dont ask dont tell is the only way it can work.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
The military is broken, and the only way to fix it is to allow gays to openly serve?


The military is practicing discrimination. The only wat to fix that particular problem is to stop it.



And that's the attitude you'd have when I'm showering with your daughter?


Yes. As long as you don't touch or otherwise harass her. If she's uncomfortable with military practices, she shouldn't have joined.



If gays want to do something for their country, I'm sure they can find other avenues.


So can homophobes.



And comparing it to race is crazy talk. It's not the same thing.


HOW is it not the same?



It's just his way of sucking up


He already GOT their vote. He doesn't need to do anything for them.



He doesn't care about them or the military.


Unless you have something to back that up, it's just your personal opinion. He has shown with his votes and statements that he cares about equality for all people and the military, So, I think he does.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Not to mention "accidental fatalities" in the training fields.


Are you suggesting that some goon who would kill a fellow serviceman because of his sexuality should be "protected" from the knowledge so he would be all "comfy" and cozy? What are these guys, wimps? They can't handle a little uncomfortableness without killing someone?



Thats absurd to pair someone up with someone they dont feel comfortable with, especially when their life is at stake.


So, if they're a flaming racist who doesn't "feel comfortable" being paired up with a black soldier they should be catered to and paired up with someone they feel more compatible with? What is this? a dating service? GET comfortable, soldier!



I say if he wants the gaysto be in the military, give them their own branch.


Ah, yes! Separate but equal. That works. How about homophobes have THEIR own branch?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Im not going to go lineby line through yourposts to answer your questions...so I will just answer all of them in one statement...

"YES,THEY WOULD"

You obviously havent beenin the military, cause if you have, you wouldnt be trying to makes as much sense out of this as you are, because people in the military, WONT HAVE IT.
They arent going to think about "oh is it right to kill a fellow countryman for this and that, blah blah blah?"...no they wont, they wont give it one thought. A lot of people in the military arent all there is you know what I mean, a lot of them guys are nuts, and those are going to be the guys whodo it, and guess what, the blood wont beon their hands, it will be on Obamas, cause the military would just cover it up.
Dont be so stupid as to think that everyone in this world cares about the same things you do.

Not to mention the hazing that will take place, oh lord. you obviously have no idea.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Common Good]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Wow BH, you need to go work for the new administration. Or better yet, maybe the liberal media. I mean the ability you have to spin the truth, astounds me!

"This is not about how it will affect the military. This is a civil rights issue. It really doesn't matter how "uncomfortable" someone is going to be in the shower. They're going to have to deal with their own feelings."

You are comparing apples to oranges!! The military is NOT everyday society!You and I are not flushing out insurgents with AK-47's in our hands. This is not about civil rights or discrimination. This is about allowing the military to do the job they went there to do. It requires unbreakable trust between each other. You have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the people in your unit, have got your back!!! Otherwise you are going to get one another killed.


"Consider if we were forcing black people to wear white makeup to be in the military... That's what the "DADT" policy does. It says, "We'll take your service, your loyalty and dedication - we'll even let you give your life. As long as you hide who you are."

Every single time you defend this man, you bring up race!! Why is that BH?
Are you baiting?? There are valid reasons for DADT!! If you choose to look at this from the stand point of "please except me as I am" then you are missing the entire point. The military is their to die for you and I defending our country and its freedoms; not to worry about a soldiers "feelings" getting hurt, or gender identity problems!

Definition of Military
Military:

1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
2. of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.
3. of or pertaining to soldiers.
4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier: a military bearing.
5. following the life of a soldier: a military career.
6. performed by soldiers: military duty.
–noun
7. the military,
a. the military establishment of a nation; the armed forces.
b. military personnel, esp. commissioned officers, taken collectively



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Common Good, I'm not suggesting that what you say isn't true. Unfortunately, I believe you. But that's not a valid reason to continue practices of discrimination. When black people first started getting the rights that white people have, they were killed simply for exercising those rights. Gay people are killed in civilian society for simply having the gall to be who they are. And keeping them (or any group of American citizens) in the shadows or denying them the same rights as we all have is NOT the way to resolve this problem. That is in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution that they protect. I will NEVER support that.


Originally posted by Common Good
A lot of people in the military arent all there is you know what I mean, a lot of them guys are nuts, and those are going to be the guys whodo it, and guess what, the blood wont beon their hands, it will be on Obamas, cause the military would just cover it up.


And that's another problem. Another way that the military is "broke". It's a good old boys' club who protect their own. That's corruption. I can not support that the people supposedly protecting my country is an organization of corruption. They should be a representation of our Constitution bound to protect our interests. And "giving in" to that, and letting it continue is a shameful act, in my opinion. Standing up for and allowing continued corruption is something I simply cannot do. There's nothing that would happen that would change my mind about that.

You're right. Gay people will die. They know that. They are fighting for their RIGHTS. They are fighting for their lives. If THEY are willing to be the Medgar Evers or Rodney King of this generation, then I think they deserve to make strides in their struggle for the personal rights of gay people. Without Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and people like Rosa Parks, who were willing to say "ENOUGH"! we would still be in the ugliest part of our nations' history.

SOMEONE has to take that step to stop protecting these "military men" (homophobic goons) who would murder their own comrades. I can't believe anyone would suggest we continue catering to these would-be criminals.



Dont be so stupid as to think that everyone in this world cares about the same things you do.


Why do you have to go into personal attack? Is it because we disagree? Where do you get the idea that I think everyone in this world cares about the same things I do? Why would I be here arguing with you if I thought that?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
It requires unbreakable trust between each other. You have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the people in your unit, have got your back!!! Otherwise you are going to get one another killed.


If you trust a person with your life, what the hell does his sexuality have to do with it??? What does the person he loves have to do with his trustworthiness? Nothing.



Every single time you defend this man, you bring up race!!


I'm not defending a man. I'm defending a segment of this country. I'm defending my fellow Americans. I'm defending the Constitution! I felt this way long before I knew who Barack Obama was. Your accusation is not only false, it's pure BS.



If you choose to look at this from the stand point of "please except me as I am" then you are missing the entire point.


I'm not. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Constitution. How many times must I iterate that?



The military is their to die for you and I defending our country and its freedoms; not to worry about a soldiers "feelings" getting hurt, or gender identity problems!


Exactly! Those whose "feelings" are bothered by homosexuality need to buck up and realize that their "feelings" of uncomfortableness are their own and they need to deal with them. THEY need to deal with their own gender identity issues.

I know you meant that gay people supposedly have "gender identity issues". That shows me where you're coming from and that there's no need for me to discuss this with you further.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Sorry, BH, your arguments aren't going to fly.

How about this challenge. Join the military, THEN start seeing how your position on gays in the military works.

99% of the people that spout off on gays being able to openly serve aren't in the military, will never join the military, and usually hate the military.

It's like the debate on women being in the Infantry. Liberals love to scream for that, too, but as soon as you ask a woman liberal if they will join, or their daughters, they backpeddle. "Oh, well, it's not for me; it for all the others that want to serve."



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by paxnatus
It requires unbreakable trust between each other. You have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the people in your unit, have got your back!!! Otherwise you are going to get one another killed.


If you trust a person with your life, what the hell does his sexuality have to do with it??? What does the person he loves have to do with his trustworthiness? Nothing.



Every single time you defend this man, you bring up race!!


I'm not defending a man. I'm defending a segment of this country. I'm defending my fellow Americans. I'm defending the Constitution! I felt this way long before I knew who Barack Obama was. Your accusation is not only false, it's pure BS.





If you choose to look at this from the stand point of "please except me as I am" then you are missing the entire point.


I'm not. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Constitution. How many times must I iterate that?



The military is their to die for you and I defending our country and its freedoms; not to worry about a soldiers "feelings" getting hurt, or gender identity problems!


Exactly! Those whose "feelings" are bothered by homosexuality need to buck up and realize that their "feelings" of uncomfortableness are their own and they need to deal with them. THEY need to deal with their own gender identity issues.

I know you meant that gay people supposedly have "gender identity issues". That shows me where you're coming from and that there's no need for me to discuss this with you further.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


Well sorry to hear you don't want to discuss this any further. While I disagree with everything you say, I do so respectfully.


have one question for you if you are up to it? ok maybe 2.

Is the United States Military the Place for Homosexuals, to work out Gender Identity Problems?

Go back and read the majority of your post regarding Obama, You DO bring
race to the forefront, the majority of the time!

"If you trust a person with your life, what the hell does his sexuality have to do with it??? What does the person he loves have to do with his trustworthiness? Nothing."

This,?? huh?? you completely missed the point! Which I would like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

We then, will agree to disagree!

Thanks for your input!
Pax


edit for grammar

[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic



Dont be so stupid as to think that everyone in this world cares about the same things you do.



Why do you have to go into personal attack? Is it because we disagree? Where do you get the idea that I think everyone in this world cares about the same things I do? Why would I be here arguing with you if I thought that?


Im not calling you stupid, Im saying dont be. Im not attacking you, nor am I fighting with you about it. You have to realize something, military life isnt the same as civilian life. In the military, you dont have any rights.
The only time you have rights in the military, is when you are fighting the enemy, thats it. This world is made up of two kinds of people, those who serve, and those who dont, and its the people that dont, that try so hard to understand why things are the way they are for those that do.
Most of the rights that people have in the civilian world, well to put it litely, they take them for granted without realizing they are doing so. AndI amnot saying that the military doesnt have their problems, because believe me, they do, but you cant look at it from outside and judge, it is impossible to comprehend what those guys have to go through day to day behind the scenes, its not about rights for them, and it never will be.
They are trained, hardened, no bs killing machines, and that is the whole purpose for them, thats why they are there, to protect those little freedoms that everybody else has that they dont get to enjoy themselves.
You have to make sure those guys get everything that they need, and once you start messing with the inner workings of how they operate, eventhough you think you are doing good, all you are doing is hurting it more. I dont think Obama has the slightest clue of the reprocussions of his actions, but he soon will. If he goes through with this, and I doubt that it will happen, but if he did, you will see the military members lose all faith in their commander in chief, and numbers of active duty members will slowly but surely plummet.
Whether you agree with me or not, you may think Im a backwards thinking man, but Im not, Im a progressively thinking man, and all I care about is the well being of our nation, cause its all that we have. And I will leave it at that.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Common Good]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join