Well duh. We can't have our soldiers getting blow jobs off-duty. THERE ARE LIVES AT STAKE HERE!!!!!1!1!1!!11
I don't know about y'all, but if I was about to go and risk getting myself splattered all over the desert by some illiterate camel herder, I'd sure as hell be wanting to have the chance to empty my nuts in a chick's mouth once or twice before I go.Well duh. We can't have our soldiers getting blow jobs off-duty. THERE ARE LIVES AT STAKE HERE!!!!!1!1!1!!11
That is a problem and should be dealt with accordingly, that's my point, but if a married blokes boinking his neighbours wife, completely seperate from his military life, I don't see a problem.
Peoples lives will not be risked by a bloke going home from base and buggering another bloke. Moral, order and discipline will still be in place, and people won't have to worry about good soldiers being discharged for off-base behaviour that doesn't affect their service.
If it is OK for the commander in chief to get a blowjob at his desk in the oval office, then dammit, it is OK for me to get one at my desk in the battalion ops center
WOOT Social Engineer the Armed Forces more! **** their mission, **** what's best! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ROCK!!
How does it promote the interest of the good order of the service?
Let's just say you have an infantry unit, that has been in a remote outpost for a 12+ months. This article, will go a long way to prevent any kind of sexual activity between soldiers of the same sex. In that scenario, soldiers buggering each other would be detrimental to the good order of the unit.
Well duh. We can't have our soldiers getting blow jobs off-duty. THERE ARE LIVES AT STAKE HERE!!!!!1!1!1!!11
You'd be smirking like that too if you just had a gal play a symphony on your skin flute.I gotta say..that is one great smirk on ole Bill's face. HAH
Unless, the first bloke is a company commander and the bloke he's buggering is one of his soldiers. At that point, morale, good order and discipline are in great jeopardy.
But that could happen with or without DADT...
Until the neighbor finds out about it and kills the married bloke, then that unit is short a soldier and their are newspaper headlines that read, "Trashy Army Soldier Killed by Neighbor, for Boinking Neighbor's Wife". How's that going to look? Or, the more likelt event, the neighbor goes to post provost marshal and says that a soldier from that post is ****ing his wife, in which case, the Army wouldn't have any choice to take action. See how that works?
I'll give you a real life example: a soldier is having an affair with a female civilian. His wife finds out. She actually shows up, at the company area, during formation, with a gun, ready to shoot his ass. Fortunately, she was subdued before she could hurt anyone. But what if she would have gotten off a few rounds and hit people, other than her hubby? You're not looking at this with a wide angle lense.
Unless, the first bloke is a company commander and the bloke he's buggering is one of his soldiers. At that point, morale, good order and discipline are in great jeopardy.
But isn't this restricted under fraternization rules? Therefore we don't need DADT to stop this situation from happening, or to keep it a punishable offense.
Th only way to abolish DADT and not a have problem, would be restict gay male soldiers from serving in combat arms units.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.Let's just say you have an infantry unit, that has been in a remote outpost for a 12+ months. This article, will go a long way to prevent any kind of sexual activity between soldiers of the same sex. In that scenario, soldiers buggering each other would be detrimental to the good order of the unit.
Until the neighbor finds out about it and kills the married bloke, then that unit is short a soldier and their are newspaper headlines that read, "Trashy Army Soldier Killed by Neighbor, for Boinking Neighbor's Wife". How's that going to look? Or, the more likelt event, the neighbor goes to post provost marshal and says that a soldier from that post is ****ing his wife, in which case, the Army wouldn't have any choice to take action. See how that works?
I'll give you a real life example: a soldier is having an affair with a female civilian. His wife finds out. She actually shows up, at the company area, during formation, with a gun, ready to shoot his ass. Fortunately, she was subdued before she could hurt anyone. But what if she would have gotten off a few rounds and hit people, other than her hubby? You're not looking at this with a wide angle lense.
Unless, the first bloke is a company commander and the bloke he's buggering is one of his soldiers. At that point, morale, good order and discipline are in great jeopardy.
So, what unit did you serve in?
If the assumption is that every single gay soldier is a sex crazed maniac that'll rape the other soldiers...
Just because there are 2 gay people in a unit, does not mean they will automatically fuck...
The rules of liking someone still apply...
So, what unit did you serve in?
If the assumption is that every single gay soldier is a sex crazed maniac that'll rape the other soldiers...
Just because there are 2 gay people in a unit, does not mean they will automatically fuck...
The rules of liking someone still apply...
That is correct. Do you understand why females aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units? It is to prevent fratrnization among the soldiers of that unit, which would probably cause a breakdown in discipline.
Th only way to abolish DADT and not a have problem, would be restict gay male soldiers from serving in combat arms units.
I served in HHB DIVRTY with the 82nd Airborne. Tropers did get blow jobs and more off duty. Are you saying they don't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?