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

page: 46
21
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 

No, if the guy is a twinkie, I'm not touching his blood. I'm not going to handle it.

Tell you something else. A guy has TB?

I'm not sleeping anywhere near that SOB either.

Since folks aren't doing well on reading comprehension, I'll say this one more time.

Combat troops.

Combat.

Troops.

In SF, we were screened for . . . oddities. Not only that, we were approved by our peers. Do not tell me I served in combat with gays. Never happened.

Maybe a few slipped though in the line companies, but I can guarantee you they didn't tell anyone.

You're arguing in circles. No gloves. Combat. Different terrain than data processing.

They aren't wanted in, nor will last long in a unit that is a combat unit in combat.

Self-preservation.

At the end of the day, that's a combat soldier's main worry.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

Karma, you're telling me to consider my "Karma?"
I don't give a five-gallon bucket of **** about "Karma."


...calm down and go read that post again... i used the term karmic justice... i didnt ask you to consider anything... i told you how it would go down if the hypothetical situation happened...


Originally posted by FarArcher
That's another thing I find irritating. Misappropriation and misapplication of terminology.


...the shooter in arizona had an obsession with his version of correct terminology too...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
you can’t accuse an officer of being a poor leader and other comments like I have seen in this thread if you drastically change the rules of the organization to which he has sworn his oath.


...one rule/standard has changed... drastic is an exaggeration... its been in the works for years... its not the first change and it wont be the last... and, yes, any officer refusing to accept any new standard is a poor leader...


Originally posted by Golf66
I would recommend there be a period; and likely there will be anyway (probably with negative consequences) in which officers and even soldiers who now have serious reservations about the new policy to request to leave the service. I mean up until now they have served honorably and now all of the sudden the rules have changed. Seems fair.


...everyone affected has had plenty of time to decide if they will abide by the new standard or quit... the period to contemplate is over...


Originally posted by Golf66
the lifting of the policy which was likely the right decision was simply executed at a poor time. It will have a negative effect on morale and unit effectiveness in a time of war.


...the time of war will never be over...


Originally posted by Golf66
You cant expect to shove the new system down people’s thoughts and all the sudden expect them to embrace the change if they have some serious moral reservations about it.


...its the military, not a country club... if you cannot abide by the rules (old or new) and follow orders, you bail out and go and join the civilian workforce... simple...


Originally posted by Golf66
They enlisted under one rule now all the sudden it is different.


...everyone enlisted under MANY rules/standards, not just the one that has now changed... everything changes sooner or later... you adapt or you fail... thats the way it goes...


Originally posted by Golf66
In conclusion, right idea, wrong, timing and method of implementation.


...yep, right idea... the timing is irrelative... the implementation is fine...


Originally posted by Golf66
Could have gone gradual like with segregation starting with support units etc.,


...i'm sure the mucky mucks discussed that avenue and found it to be a waste of time...


Originally posted by Golf66
rather than the – “here we are, suck it or lose your career” approach which is basically to some akin to raping their military.


...exaggerated nonsense...


Originally posted by Golf66
Gradual change would have worked.


...no... that would have only encouraged the whiners to whine longer and get louder as the time frame shortened...


Originally posted by Golf66
So basically to make 4% of the Solider population happy we risk a negative effect on unit the other 50% who might have some real issues with it.


...fantasy statistics always makes your case look great (sarcasm)...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...one rule/standard has changed... drastic is an exaggeration... its been in the works for years... its not the first change and it wont be the last... and, yes, any officer refusing to accept any new standard is a poor leader...


No, this is not a new weapons program or uniform we are talking about, we are talking about an issue that to some is a deeply moral and even a religious one. Ity is to some just as emotional an issue as it is to gays on the other end of the spectrum.

It is in fact a drastic change from not asking people their sexual preference and expecting them to keep such matters private and being expeted to enbrace and support them openly.

Please tell me what your experiance is with military leadership so that I may consider your accusation in perspective? Have you even been in the military? Have you Commanded a unit, what size, type and in peace or war? Untill then you are just talking out of your forth point of contact.



Originally posted by Wyn Hawks......everyone affected has had plenty of time to decide if they will abide by the new standard or quit... the period to contemplate is over...


Can you please tell me when the decision was announced? When it will go into effect and if there is in fact a plan in place to allow those effected to consider leaving the service on honorable terms if they can pose or prove some moral or religious objection? As far as I know there is no plan becasue it would likely gut the military strength, which will not be allowed. SO how much time have they had to make thier choice again?


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...the time of war will never be over..


Do you have access to some classified information perhaps that the rest of us do not that might indicate that the war on terror will never end? Please enlighten us. The great Barry has given exit dates, why not wait till we have most of the troops our of theater?


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...its the military, not a country club... if you cannot abide by the rules (old or new) and follow orders, you bail out and go and join the civilian workforce... simple...


Again, please tell me what your experiance is with military leadership so that I may consider your accusation in perspective? Have you even been in the military? Have you Commanded a unit, what size or echelon, type and in peace or war? Untill then you are just talking out of your fourth point of contact.

Officers my submit resignations but there is no guarantee they will be accepted, especially if they have incurred an Active duty Service Obligation. Enlisted Soldiers wtih the exeption of some Senior NCO's enlist for a set time and can not resign. As I stated before there is no plan to all them to leave honorably if they disagree with the policy.


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks......yep, right idea... the timing is irrelative... the implementation is fine...


Timing is always relevant (which is what I think you meant not irrelative).


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks.........exaggerated nonsense...


No see point above, if they have no chioce other than acceptance then they are in essence being told to "suck it".

Officers my submit resignations but there is no guarantee they will be accepted, especially if they have incurred an Active duty Service Obligation. Enlisted Soldiers wtih the exeption of some Senior NCO's enlist for a set time and can not resign. As I stated before there is no plan to allow them to leave honorably if they disagree with the policy it would be bad for the morale and effectiveness.



Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...no... that would have only encouraged the whiners to whine longer and get louder as the time frame shortened...


Ask any expert and they will tell you gradual change (or a tiered/stepped aproach) is the best way to do almost anything other than addiction. Even then if its a physical adiction say to pain medication stpeing down gradually is the best and safest aproach.


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...fantasy statistics always makes your case look great (sarcasm)...


Much like being a dismissive does not help yours…please don’t be so dismissive in the future it is counter to debate in general. .

Here is where I got my numbers:

Anne Flaherty Associated Press

Overall, the survey found that some two-thirds of troops don’t care if the ban is lifted. Of the 30 percent who objected, most were members of combat units.

In fact, at least 40 percent of combat troops said the acceptance of gays serving openly would be a bad idea. That number climbs to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles.


If you want to nit pick my math you are more than welcome but my facts just came from estimating an average between the number of persons who objected in the combat units poll conducted by the military 40% in general and up to 58% in the Marine Corps. So I was just estimating.

This is where the step based apporach might have been better - just like when se desegregated the military it started with combat support and service support units and slowly gained acceptance over time.

What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

The disparity in your opinion of the numbers may come from this….(which is in the same article)

It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative. Every Fifth Person -- at Least

People tend to “believe’ there are more homosexuals than there are…so we are effecting the lives, and careers of a large proportion of individuals so that a fringe minority can feel good about themselves. Not really cost effective IMO.

So, my 4% number was based on the percentage of the overall population who claim to be gay (I bumped the number a little to be conservative in my estimate since the data was from 2000).

However, I’d say since minorities in general in the Military are actually underrepresented this would be less than 4%.

Serving in the military is not a right: many people do not qualify for a multitude of reasons – from lack of intellectual ability, to physical ability to criminal and moral issues and too many dependent children.

It is a privlige not a right - accept that, what is next wheel chair access to tanks or "special needs" barracks for the slow and boarderline menally retarded?
edit on 10-1-2011 by Golf66 because: typo



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
. . . we are talking about an issue that to some is a deeply moral and even a religious one. .



It really annoys the hell out of me - - - that religion is used as an argument in any capacity of the military.

The Military is a Government job - - therefore falls under Separation of Church and State.

It is NOT a church.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
In SF, we were screened for . . . oddities. Not only that, we were approved by our peers. Do not tell me I served in combat with gays. Never happened.


I'm not telling you that, all I'm saying is people have a habit of thinking they know everything there is to know about somebody else, only to be shocked later.



They aren't wanted in, nor will last long in a unit that is a combat unit in combat.

Self-preservation.

At the end of the day, that's a combat soldier's main worry.


No, that seems to be an American combat soldier's main worry, thanks to the intolerant upbringing of so many of our soldiers. Many highly effective militaries around the world consider it a non-issue, including Israel. You basically said it yourself, you ain't touching a bleeding "twinkie", regardless of the fact that straight men can get HIV too, especially those who fraternize with women in 3rd world countries, also regardless of the fact that it is impossible to contract HIV from blood that has been in contact with oxygen, it has to enter your blood stream directly from somebody else's. As I said before, the chances of contracting HIV from a wounded soldier is statistically a non-issue, especially for a SF soldier who has no issues jumping out of a helicopter into an environment where people are shooting at you. It's like a rhino being afraid of an ant. Doesn't make sense, and I'm quite sure it has to do with your dislike of gays, not your fear of their blood.
edit on 10-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
DADT has been in effect for 17 years - - - seriously - - - how much more time does someone need to adjust?


As many soldiers have said - - they know of gays in their units and they don't care.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I don't believe we need to coddle people's hatred and ignorance. Like you said, they can suck it up, or move back to the Ozarks and wall themselves off from society. Peoples' moral, and religious standards should have no place, or application anywhere but in their own lives. The personal lives of consenting adults is nobody's business but their own. Soldiers always point out that they are fighting for freedom, I guess they need to put an asterisk by that word, eh?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

No, this is not a new weapons program or uniform we are talking about, we are talking about an issue that to some is a deeply moral and even a religious one. Ity is to some just as emotional an issue as it is to gays on the other end of the spectrum.



So what religion teaches that it is moral to kill people but not to just not hate a gay guy for being gay? Which religion would that be?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SinnthiaSo what religion teaches that it is moral to kill people but not to just not hate a gay guy for being gay? Which religion would that be?


There is Christianity, then Islam and the various different fundamental groups of the two.


To the person who said something about separation of church and state - indeed, I agree with you. However, there are accommodations made in every aspect of federal and military employment for the exercise of one’s religion.

Wearing a Yakama (sp), wearing a cross on ones dog tags, allowing time for prayer 5 times a day for Muslims.

Allowing people to become a conscientious objector and not carry a weapon or to choose a job with non-combatant status like chaplain or medic.

Besides the separation of church and state article was not intended to indicate that people could not pray together in school, or to pray together before a battle - attend a military official function the first part is always the invocation...a Christian one. It is more tradition than anything else. I just sit quietly while others do their thing.

It was meant to ensure that the government would not establish a church that is the official one and to support it with tax payer funds like the Church of England which was the "official" church of our English overlords at the time.

I personally have met plenty of gays in the military; I could give a # less, some are good at their jobs others are not much like any other group be they black, white, redneck, middle class, college kids or whatever.

That is not the issue it is that it will without a f^*&^ing doubt affect military readiness and serve as a distraction from the primary mission of Commanders, which is to complete their missions not be the PC police in the barracks or showers.

I served once on a base run by the Danes in Bosina, they had a unisex shower (with stalls but open dressing areas) that is because their society is different. I personally loved my shower days some of the chicks were hot.

You cannot legislate thought or change - we have some who are not so open. It’s going to be bad in the combat arms units. Some gays will die because of this ala Fort Campbell incident. The problem is a lot of otherwise good people will be purged after each incident to make "amends". I am talking about Commanders and others who because of their positions will be offered up to the sacrificial alter of PC so that the military can say "see we care".

Do it slowly over time, change it with service support, then combat support then combat arms over time people will catch on....

I think the policy is a good one, time for change to meet the times - just perhaps having Commanded units I can tell you it will be a distraction and an administrative nightmare.

People will be afraid to discipline bad gay soldiers or say anything negative about their behavior like Major Hassan or blacks or females ect..Who always seem to want to invoke the "I'm special" card when disciplined?

The morale and effectiveness of the units will suffer - perhaps we do not share a common frame of reference from which to debate. I understand that. You look through the prism of should be and I look through the experiences I had in 25 year career.

I respect your opinions; I really do but caution you to not dismiss the soldiers in combat arms who clearly do not want the change. They are the ones who will live it and in some cases die of it.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
To the person who said something about separation of church and state - indeed, I agree with you. However, there are accommodations made in every aspect of federal and military employment for the exercise of one’s religion.


I did not say anything against exercising religious belief.

If you are in a housed-in environment - - - - a religious facility must be provided for OFF DUTY time.

I said religion is not OK as an argument in a Government Job. Any Government Job - - which the Military is.

If you worked for any other Federal Government Facility - - you would not be allowed to discriminate against gays.

Here is an article on: Federal Government Web Site Protects Transgender Rights

New language inserted in the U.S. Jobs federal government web site (www.usajobs.com) now protects transgender rights.

The structuring of new language introduced on the federal jobs Web site protects a small transgender population (those working for federal agencies) against workplace discrimination.

For example, here is a page from the USA Job's site on how to report discrimination. It includes gender identity as one of the protected classes of employees.

As noted by the New York Times, the U.S. job site bans bias over gender identity. The Obama administration has developed language on the site for people who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates. The administration has said discrimination in the federal workplace would not be accepted.

blogs.findlaw.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeI said religion is not OK as an argument in a Government Job. Any Government Job - - which the Military is.

If you worked for any other Federal Government Facility - - you would not be allowed to discriminate against gays


I think I must have not made my point well. NP.

I agree I don’t think gays should be discriminated against; however, if the military is not going to offer those whose religious objection to serving with gays has by law now been infringed a way to honorably leave the service rather than compromise their beliefs - it is now they who are being discriminated against.

It is a unique entity. Even some rights granted to citizens are taken from us. As an officer, under UCMJ I do not have complete freedom of speech to disparage or disagree with the President, Congress or even state officials. There are other examples I suggest you download the Manual for Courts Martial and see just how different military law is.

When I get injured they don’t have to make reasonable accommodation so I can keep my job – they can just discharge me for medical reasons… Perhaps you should learn a little more about the military.

Besides, not all laws that apply to government or federal employment apply to the military: we don't take the handicapped, mental or physical (handicapped discrimination), people over 42 (age discrimination), people who are too fat, too short or not smart enough, felons, non HS graduates, etc. So your argument is not all that applicable.

Finally, sorry, there is no "right" for people to serve in the military. The military can simply set the qualifications based on the needs and special circumstances of the nature of military service and disqualify whomever they please.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
. . . however, if the military is not going to offer those whose religious objection to serving with gays has by law now been infringed a way to honorably leave the service rather than compromise their beliefs - it is now they who are being discriminated against.


That is such BS. The DADT rule has been in affect for 17 years. It could have been removed at any time.

Anyone going into the service knows and has known there are gays in he military.

I don't care what anyone's belief is. Its a JOB. Do your damn JOB.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeI don't care what anyone's belief is. Its a JOB. Do your damn JOB.


First of all the military is not a “job” it is a lifestyle it does not end at 1700 like the Flintstones; one never ceases to be a Soldier.

When I go home at night I am still a Soldier subject to military law and rules – even after I have retired I am still on the rolls as an Officer entitled to use my rank (have to put a (ret) after it) – just in a retired status. I am even now still subject to the UCMJ and can be called back involuntarily at any time.

Clearly you know little to nothing about the military.

Also, did you read the post at all? It is not just like a federal job - discrimination is part of the military - people who are too short, too fat, too stupid, too insane, immoral, and many other categories cannot get in....?

Should we now just remove any and all limitations so we can have handicapped planes and access to intelligence documents for felons and gun/combat training for former gang members?

I am glad you are not in charge of anything important.


Originally posted by AnneeI don't care what anyone's belief is. Its a JOB. Do your damn JOB.


It is obvious you are a reasonable and understanding person [sarcasm] - while those who have an issue with the policy must bend to accept the ideals of a fringe minority to accommodate their rights, on the other hand there is no room to make a policy to accommodate anyone of the opposite belief to support their rights….

Seems a little hypocritical to me but, meh...we'll see how it plays out.

Would you wager your house that exactly what happened to gay soldiers for years (being discharged for having a certain set of beliefs) will not now happen to non-gays in the same way to set the example for the PC headhunters?

Again, two wrongs do not make one right.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by AnneeI don't care what anyone's belief is. Its a JOB. Do your damn JOB.


First of all the military is not a “job” it is a lifestyle it does not end at 1700 like the Flintstones; one never ceases to be a Soldier.

When I go home at night I am still a Soldier subject to military law and rules – even after I have retired I am still on the rolls as an Officer entitled to use my rank (have to put a (ret) after it) – just in a retired status. I am even now still subject to the UCMJ and can be called back involuntarily at any time.



It is a JOB.

I am fully aware that it is a JOB - - - you are required to live until you discharge.

All of your whining is BS to me. I do not care about your personal issues or belief. Get over it.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
we are talking about an issue that to some is a deeply moral and even a religious one.


...the kkk used the same whine... it was bs then... it still is...


Originally posted by Golf66
It is in fact a drastic change from not asking people their sexual preference and expecting them to keep such matters private and being expeted to enbrace and support them openly.


...there ya go exaggerating again...


Originally posted by Golf66
Please tell me what your experiance is with military leadership so that I may consider your accusation in perspective? Have you even been in the military? Have you Commanded a unit, what size, type and in peace or war? Untill then you are just talking out of your forth point of contact.


...if it was any of your biz, you'd already know...


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the time of war will never be over..



Originally posted by Golf66
Do you have access to some classified information


...inappropriate request denied AGAIN...


Originally posted by Golf66
Again, please tell me what your experiance is with military leadership so that I may consider your accusation in perspective? Have you even been in the military? Have you Commanded a unit, what size or echelon, type and in peace or war? Untill then you are just talking out of your fourth point of contact.


...nag, nag, nag...


Originally posted by Golf66
As I stated before there is no plan to all them to leave honorably if they disagree with the policy.


...you keep referring to them as honorable or that they served honorably... thats just a presumption... surely you dont expect anyone to believe that you personally know all the whiners in the military and have seen their performance records...


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...no... that would have only encouraged the whiners to whine longer and get louder as the time frame shortened...



Originally posted by Golf66
Ask any expert and they will tell you gradual change (or a tiered/stepped aproach) is the best way to do almost anything other than addiction.


...total immersion is the best, fastest, most effective way to learn a new language or a new culture...

...the best, fastest, most effective way to stop criminals is to instantly take away their freedom...

...the best, fastest, most effective way to stop a whiner, is to immediately stop catering to their whines...


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...fantasy statistics always makes your case look great (sarcasm)...



Originally posted by Golf66
Much like being a dismissive does not help yours…


...ahahahaaa!...



Originally posted by Golf66
please don’t be so dismissive in the future it is counter to debate in general.


...i might consider it, if you stop defending whiners...



Originally posted by Golf66
Here is where I got my numbers:


Anne Flaherty Associated Press

...you didnt quote the first sentence of that article cuz it didnt support your beef, huh?...


...from the article (link above) - the very first sentence...

The Pentagon’s study on gays in the military has determined that overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on serving openly might cause some disruption at first but would not create widespread or long-lasting problems.


...you also didnt quote the poll qualifier - iow, how many were actually polled... so, here it is...


The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer by an independent polling firm.


...makes the 30% that are whiners look even more pathetic...


Originally posted by Golf66
So, my 4% number was based on the percentage of the overall population who claim to be gay (I bumped the number a little to be conservative in my estimate since the data was from 2000).


...thx for admitting you posted false statistics...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
It is not just like a federal job - discrimination is part of the military - people who are too short, too fat, too stupid, too insane, immoral, and many other categories cannot get in....?

Should we now just remove any and all limitations so we can have handicapped planes and access to intelligence documents for felons and gun/combat training for former gang members?


All of those restrictions, hinder a person's ability to be an effective or honorable soldier. If somebody is not physically cut out for the job, that's a liability and can result in soldier deaths. If somebody has shown they do not abide by civilian laws, then they aren't cut out for military life since they have shown they do not respect authority, and are also a liability. What does a person being gay have anything to do with any of that? I'm sure the same "slippery slope" arguments could be heard during the civil rights era by those against ending segregation. Gay people are not a liability to the force, they may hinder a few bigots abilities to effectively do their jobs, but that makes the bigots the liability since they (in the words of fictional character Gunny Highway) aren't able to improvise, adapt, or overcome...and their dedication is obviously weak if they will walk away from the service because of how another soldier spends his R & R time.



those who have an issue with the policy must bend to accept the ideals of a fringe minority to accommodate their rights, on the other hand there is no room to make a policy to accommodate anyone of the opposite belief to support their rights


Peoples' rights to be bigots do not need to be supported, as I said before, none of us should coddle hatred. They're free to be hateful and judgmental, nobody is saying they should be discharged for being ignorant. But they should be able to perform their duties, and uphold their oaths first and foremost. The military doesn't give alot of room for individuality, as you point out. The lifting of DADT does nothing more than stop gays from being discharged if their sexuality comes to light. Nobody is saying another soldier should be discharged if their dislike for gays comes to light. They should just be grown up and mentally stable enough to do their job while stressing out about somebody else's sex life.

edit on 10-1-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Golf66
Please tell me what your experience is with military leadership so that I may consider your accusation in perspective? Have you even been in the military? Have you Commanded a unit, what size, type and in peace or war? Until then you are just talking out of your forth point of contact.


...if it was any of your biz, you'd already know...



LOL


OK - - have to respond to this.

My uncle a 20 year career Marine - - now retired said this to me: It doesn't matter if you are male/female - black/white - - green or purple - - in the military the only thing that matters is Rank.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
There is Christianity, then Islam and the various different fundamental groups of the two.


Both of those religions have rules against murder as well as rules against hating or judging anyone but yourself.

Try again?


BTW, I know that you military types on ATS seem to really think you are special and better than the rest of us so I just want to remind you that without the rest of us, you have no purpose or paycheck. Just putting that out there.

Again, one religion that says it is ok to kill people because your leader says they are the enemy and also teaches it is moral to judge and hate anyone.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Golf66
It is not just like a federal job - discrimination is part of the military - people who are too short, too fat, too stupid, too insane, immoral, and many other categories cannot get in....?

Should we now just remove any and all limitations so we can have handicapped planes and access to intelligence documents for felons and gun/combat training for former gang members?


All of those restrictions, hinder a person's ability to be an effective or honorable soldier. If somebody is not physically cut out for the job, that's a liability and can result in soldier deaths. If somebody has shown they do not abide by civilian laws, then they aren't cut out for military life since they have shown they do not respect authority, and are also a liability.


Thanks - I'll just borrow your response.

I really hate it when someone tries to sidestep the point - - - and throw the "restrictions of the military" in.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join