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.

 

Officer won't sign order for troop pro-homosexual indoctrination

page: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 

Wrong, Tonto.

This is like having discourse with third-graders who have **** for accurate information.

Even the great Sun Tzu, stated that there are orders not to be obeyed. And in practical application, even today, there are orders that are not obeyed.

You see, orders are given on the basis of information known at the time the order is given. Unfortunately, battle is very fluid - rapidly changing - weather, conditions, numbers, directions, movements, weapons, indirect support, and a hundred other factors.

Here's a BIG, big surprise. You don't get drummed out of the military for not obeying orders. You don't lose your rights if you disobey an order. Hell, I've disobeyed orders on many occasions, and sometimes was decorated for the same.

"Do NOT blow that bridge." You see an enemy division starting across hours later, and I guarantee, you'll blow the bridge. You see, the tactical situation has changed.

Your problem is your confusion with terminology.

You confuse insubordination with disobeying orders.

NOT the same thing.

For those in uniform, am I correct, or not?




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


How can anyone with a conscience obey orders they feel will have a horrible result? I have no idea. I am ordered to do something, I imagine many people dieing as a result. I follow the order anyway just because a higher rank told me to. The result I imagine happens. I know I would feel pretty terrible.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

TK, I know you and a great many others do not feel killing is justified for much of any reason.

And rest assured, I'm glad there are many of you, otherwise, this would be an even worse world to live in than it is now, even if that is possible.

However, there are some who destroy just to destroy. Kill just to kill. Hurt just to hurt. Terrorize just to terrorize.

It is to me - a good thing to be able to use force to stop those men.

We'll never see eye to eye, but I admire your beliefs even though there's really no in between.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Wow lets exagerate as usual, lets force the soldiers to have sex with each other, force them to become homosexual lol.
This has to be one of the lamest threads nin awhile sorry, sorry op im sure this wasent your point on bringing this up.

It just shows the lvl of education some people have lol, and seriopusly is there really gonna be a super invasion of gay soldiers, a new line of pink camo clothes lol, this is just getting out of hand,.

And why not have gay fight in wars, theres just another body to die for star and flag lol...

grow up eheheh



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


We aren't talking about an order to 'take a bridge'. Anyone who has ever worn a uniform has run into orders they did not obey because they were dangerous, unnecessary, or just plain stupid. You always look out for your buddy's back, because he's looking for yours.

We are talking about the order to integrate gays into the military.

I don't see that order causing mass casualties.And it certainly doesn't require 'quick thinking' because of rapidly changing circumstances. Lets all remember what the discussion is about.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


Gay people are already integrated into the military. Gays just are not openly serving in the military. Like I said, I can see not wanting to get a dishonerable discharge, just because someone sees you walking into a gay bar and rats you out. That part of DADT I think is wrong. But I can see how people might be concerned about gay people openly serving, as it could pose a real risk. One of the things I thought of was the medic issue. There are many issues I can think of, and most intelligent gay people that are, or are thinking of serving can think of too. Call me old fashioned, I just think it is prudent to keep your personal and professional life apart.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Too bad for him.

I don't suppose he'd object over religious indoctrination in the military (which has been well-documented).

Welcome to the 21st Century, pal!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I agree that personal and public life should be kept separate.... by everyone not just the gays.

The US military has been through this type of thing several times before, and has had to deal with the exact same arguments. Those of us who served in the 70s and 80s had to deal with first integrating the black soldiers (if you get their blood in you, you'll turn black, too! Don't laugh, I actually heard that from several people.) Then it was the Philipinos, then Puerto Ricans, etc etc etc it never ends.Each generation accepts the status quo and has a fit about the next 'crisis'. This too shall pass and future generations will think we were so stupid.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


I agree that there are bad people. I agree that sometimes you need to use force. I agree that some lives are not worth the owners that have them. I have no problem with justified military force and killing. There is a good reason for that that some people seem to be going out of there way to miss. I will try telling you and see if you get it. I can say those things because...



...I am not hiding behind a bible using it to ward off the sin of gay.


That is the difference between me and the man in the OP. I am not trying to say we should not fight wars and the no one should ever die. I am saying it is pretty weak to offer to do it, then pretend the bible is directing your moral compass. Thou shalt not kill is pretty cut and dry. I do not see a thou shalt not be gay. Just saying. Joing the military, great. Be Christian, great. Join the military, be Christian, then pick and choose which sins you are afraid of - weak. That was all I was saying. Others wanted this to be a more heated political thing than it needs to be.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



That is how we are taught to think about the enemy. They kill just to kill, hurt just to hurt. In reality they are fighting for their beliefs, the same as we are. The poor fighting the poor.

If someone breaks into your house, do you not have the right to defend yourself and your family? If a foreign country landed on US soil, would we be wrong to fight them wolverine style? I think not, yet people that do the same in countries we invade are demonized. They don't all wear an identifying uniform, and march like robots towards our troops, so they are somehow bad people. If another country invaded ours, we would be partaking in the same type of strategies, as our evil enemies, don't you think? We bombed the crap out of them before we sent the ground troops in, yet that is fine. Why? If we were honorable, we would all meet on a large open area agreed upon, march toward each other like drones shooting till one side is all dead. People expect the other side to adhere to rules of honor our side does not. We are taught to hold the enemy to some romantic belief of honor, while turning a blind eye everytime we do not adhere to the same thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
damn my internet sucks tonight. another double post
edit on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:18:47 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


If we're going to follow this standard, then I recommend that ministries be banned from military bases and any and all mention of God be banned as well.

It's only fair if you're going to whine and moan about homosexuality being an open topic in the military.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


Well their is a big difference between your sexual preferences and race, right? A gay person can not tell people they are gay, and unless they have a lisp, and break into showtunes at random times, no one would know otherwise. Yes I realize I am being stereotypical, an no I don't believe in it, I am just making a point. A gay person can just keep that to themself, you cannot really keep your race to yourself. Maybe we should just take after the muslims, except everyone should wear burkhas while on the job lol.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


This sounds great!

But I've gotta say- You've never heard someone pray like an non-believer who thinks they are going to die in the next few minutes!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Dude, the TSA would have fits!

Not to mention I tend to sweat with too many clothes on.....



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I think he did the correct thing to resign his rank and be done with it. You CANNOT be a bigot of any kind and simultaneously expect to be a leader of the armed forces. It just does not work out well for anyone. They should be instilling tolerance and in many ways I agree with the "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. Its no ones business if your gay, a muslim/christian/jew, a cigarrete smoker or non-smoker, a former drug addict, a former legal convict, or anything else. If authority needs to know that information it could be stored in a central database for whatever reason, but then again its best if NO ONE knows your likes and dislikes.

People are people and unless you break the law while on training or duty, you deserve the same rights&respect as anyone else. I will even go as far as to state "no special showers are necessary" since the OP made a mention of that in the beginning of his/her thread. It encourages prejudice where none is needed! If someone picks your ass/genitals while you have your clothes off, then report it to your superior officers and let justice take place.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

No, TK, it's not that simple.

We've come upon villages that were just wiped out by roving bands of "independents." They destroyed everyone - not because the poor village had anything to take or was of any value - or because they had different religious or political views - or because they were of a different tribe - they killed for the pure hell of it.

It's not always an indoctrination of who we believe are our enemies that need stopping.

My enemies include those in different uniforms, but also are sometimes those who would hurt and destroy others, just for the exercise.

And I have zero adverse emotion in removing them from the human gene pool.

In fact, I felt good. Our pickup was missed as we disobeyed orders and followed them across an international border to catch up with them.

Ruthlessness is often combated with greater ruthlessness.

A good thing.

That's been my point. Some folks are not very understanding nor very forgiving.

They just need a difference.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Annee
Yeahhhhh! Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I am a mother of two daughters and the grandmother of one.
If unisex showers became the norm - - - no one is going to care or notice. They're just gonna do what they are there for and move on to the next project/assignment.

I think that's very cynical
To me you are saying that heterosexual men are horny dogs with no family values.

I think you have reading comprehension problems. By the way, Annee, is right according to my experience. I was once in a unisex shower while studying at a German university. Nobody cared it was unisex. We all, guys and girls, just wanted to get clean and get back to the rest of our daily routine. There was no sexual atmosphere whatsoever in the air. But how can you twist this statement of Annee to mean what you said is beyond me.

Originally posted by ModernAcademiaEven if you are under the false impression that some well raised men wouldn't object you must at least know that the women would object... at the very least you know that... right?

Nope, didn't happen. The women did not object and the men didn't either. We all just wanted to wash the sweat away.

Originally posted by ModernAcademiaFurthermore you probably only know what you know, so i'm guessing the circle of men in your life weren't the best, doesn't mean every man is like that i'm sorry.

Am I missing something? We all know only what we know either through learning or experience. And you really should not guess like that. Your whole answer seems to me more like a thinly vailed ad hominem attack and not an honest and civilized response.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


We do similar things though, we just call it collateral damage. We bomb a funeral procession with a drone, because one man there is considered by our side to be a bad guy. The rest of them were just killed for the hell of it, wrong place wrong time. Innocent men, woman and children, blown to pieces for one guy, who is suspected to be a bad guy by our side. It is all perspective. Maybe that village was cheering on their enemy, and that was why they were wiped out. And to hear the blood thirsty on our side, had we bombed such a village, we would have been justified. In war you are either with us or against us, no matter which side you are on.

Sorry damn, I just realized I am participating in a thread derailment..... If you start a topic about this let me know, I would be interested.

edit on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:56:55 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
doublepost.

edit on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:55:38 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join