It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by Montana

Yep, Nam and the units raving, ranting, you believers are idiots, atheist when the mortars started dropping on top, was heard screaming at top volume " Jesus Christ why didn't I dig this (foxhole) deeper"

Per the ole WW2 quote "there are no atheist's in foxholes."

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:01 AM
THIS IS GOOD!!! We don't need more people going outside of our borders fighting something fake and promoting an agenda that much of us don't believe in anyway. We can use them in our communities to truly begin defending the people and their liberties at home, where they need to be most protected. There are no longer national borders, in case you haven't noticed.

If you want to go into the military and get rejected, you're welcome onto the team of liberty. Why would you want to get brainwashed, anyway? It's asking for mental rape. Welcome to the militia, where everyone knows what they're fighting for.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:28 AM
Something like this could affect troop morale in an adverse way on the battlefield. This is not the time to implement such policy along with sensitivity training. The implications of this type of policy will also have an effect on other Military policies and could lead to officers' resigning and enlisted personal finding an adverse clause in the USCMJ to get out of their contract for enlistment, (straight or gay). Most will cite religion as this commander has. There is no way around this for the commander other than to resign his commission or at request be assigned other duties until retirement. There are many implications that none of these politicians have thought about regarding this policy. This is one of many that every commander will have to face and implement, even a commander that is gay. I guarantee you that a gay commander will also have their reservations about this policy. Gay or straight this effects the troops under your command whether they are gay or straight also.

This policy will achieve nothing, but to divide our military.

edit on 29-12-2010 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by SJE98

This policy will achieve nothing, but to divide our military.

That's the sole purpose. The New World Order needs to bring down America to achieve a One Government World.

Destroying our military is just part of their end game. Looks like they were successful.

A man in our military uniform wasn't allowed to wear that uniform and scream out "I like to bang redheads"....purely because it was not professional. Now Gay's will be able to don our military uniform and scream "I like to bang other guys".....and nobody will be able to hold them accountable for lack of professionalism.

That's how I'd defeat a highly professional military force. Take away their professionalism.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:47 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:50 AM
The guy has the courage of his own convictions - fair enough.

But when you are into kill mode, love of every sort goes out the window. He should be glad of extra bodies (and I mean bodies).

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:56 AM
Why are we talking about sexuality in the military anyway? We should be thinking about planning for the wars. On a casual conversation, the straight people should be able to talk just like the gay people. There should be no indoctrination of anything. This is not a sexuality class, it's the military. This will make everything neutral.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Pervius

It's called DIVIDE and CONQUER !!! That's what this is all about.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:04 AM
I can't believe how many people think having homosexuals in the military is somehow detrimental.

How exactly does it make the U.S. military less effective?
IMO, those who are uncomfortable serving with gays can do the same thing as those who were/are uncomfortable serving with blacks, browns, etc... GTF OVER YOURSELF

I can't wait until the older, ignorant, generations die off.
edit on 29-12-2010 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:11 AM
I think sexuality shouldnt be taken so seriously... you have to be very religious to fear sex in that way.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:23 AM
Please, all gay males, stay out of the killing fields.

Because you guys have a lot to offer the living world.

And if the military has trouble with you, girls - avoid trouble.

Leave the killing and the dying to real men, who seem to embrace it.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:40 AM

edit on 29/12/10 by derfred33 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:08 AM
African-Americans in the Military

Still a major issue today

Women in the Military

Still a major issue today

More...Women in the Military

Looks like there are more important issues to worry about for the American Military. If the enemy is patient enough, they just need wait a generation; by that point Americans will be to fat to defend themselves.

Obesity issue facing America

Just another thread here on ATS to encourage bigotry and hatred. Seems to be a recurring theme. Whatever happened to good old fashioned aliens, UFO's and the NWO?

Ohhhh, that's right; I apologize, I almost forgot!

Aliens and UFO's are actually Jinns sent by Satan
The NWO actually comprises of a 'Gay Agenda'


Dinosaurs walked beside humans 4000 years ago. (Just added that because it makes me giggle)

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:41 AM
I agree with the army colonel.

they should have never even changed anything in the first place as it was probably fine as is. but now that they are bringing it out in the open and basically FORCING everyone to accept it, all it's going to do is upset straight people/people with religious beliefs (which i suspect is majority of American's) like it did for the army colonel.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:30 AM
Well, I see it in a very simple manner. If you can't put your big boy panties on and grow a pair, then go home. I personally don't want that knuckle-dragging biped "defending" me and my country while tearing down or abusing his fellow gay soldiers. It's not a fair trade-off in my opinion. It may never go away 100%, but that treatment has no reason to be upheld.
The military has enough problems, giving the homophobes their walking papers might boost moral more than one thinks. Imagine if you worked at a large office, and knew outed/suspected gay employees were given pink slips, harassed, beat up. If you were close to co-workers who were gay, would that not make you tense and stressed? That is not a good work environment, is it not? Be it an office, a retail business, or the battlefield, that is not an atmosphere conducive to good moral.
Sensitivity training in any workplace might be laughed at, but considering the sorry state this country is in anyway, it's not a bad thing in any way, shape or form to try to teach someone to be a decent human being. After all, rotten behavior was learned to begin with, and as can be the humane behavior.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:51 AM
DADT has been repealed. As i see it the LtCol has 3 options:

1. Lead
2. Follow
3. Get out the way

If he's going to use religious mythology as an excuse, he should choose option 3.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:51 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:58 AM
Having served in combat, I can say that I am proud of this Lt Colonel. I think all straight men and women who do not desire to serve with homosexuals should be given the option of an honorable discharge. Yes gays were in the service when I was. I can also say that they suffered many more "accidents" when found out. In a world of aids and other blood borne pathogens, I would not want blood from a homosexual. In a combat situation, I agree with the others who have said that the homo is on his own if wounded, I would not touch or go near him. Now I am a white male. I was married for 10 years to a black woman, so don't give me any BS about it's the same thing as when blacks were allowed to serve. If you believe that you are a fool.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

Having served in the military I find your opinion quite disgusting and completely ignorant.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Absolutely terrible.

So this is the kind of mental capacity we have serving in the US Armed Forces? Then I'm honored to have served for queen and country in a military which is forward thinking and progressive...comparatively speaking.

I guess you think you can catch homosexuality from sharing a toilet and Aids from kissing right? because that's what you sound like.

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in