- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 7,466
- Reaction score
- 2,083
- Location
- North Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:
What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:
What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
The Democrats aren't going to have more power then they have right now for a long time.
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:
What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:
What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
Really? Because the way things are going, I only see them gaining more power unless they **** up drastically.
Either way, this isn't that huge of an issue. Ending DADT could cause problems, but in the long run it will work itself out.
Look at this thread, the fact that we are not unified on this issue should be a clue to you.,
Really?
simple. you take one guy who has an irrational fear of being assaulted by another's blood engorged member, now given this he may not be focusing on the mission. now rational or not you introduced this fear with your social engineering in the middle of a war, now instead of scanning and panning with his 50-cal for haji, he is thinking about that "damn fag" riding shotgun in the hmmwv.... his focus is lost. that potentially kills three-four people right there.
It may not be. but would you not air on the side of caution in the middle of 2 wars?
You've never been deployed then.
Pull into port, and the first thought is "where's the action"?
I think the Democrats are about at the height of power that our country will really allow. I think they've gotten every vote that they can possibly get. All they have to from here, is down. It doesn't matter how well they do, they can't keep this strength.
Gawd, it's like people haven't heard of "friendly fire".
It will happen if this is implemented during war time.
Maybe so, but it is a reason why it shouldn't be implemented during war time.You think that our soldiers would murder another one just because he chooses not to put his penis into a vagina?
If so, then we have way more desperate issues than whether or not gays are allowed in the military
You think that our soldiers would murder another one just because he chooses not to put his penis into a vagina?
If so, then we have way more desperate issues than whether or not gays are allowed in the military
Equality...
Maybe so, but it is a reason why it shouldn't be implemented during war time.
Yes, I have. working 18 hour shifts does not give a lot of time for "looiking for action".
Army deployments and Navy deployments are two different things. We didn't get "port breaks" when deployed.
What you are talking about is TDY to us.
Either way, if you are saying your Navy compadres can not handle themselves honorably while on port breaks, that is your problem, not the Don't ask Don't tell policy.
The Navy guys that I have worked with in Korea were always honorable.
What's dishonorable about taking shore leave and finding some hotties to hook up with?
That's nice, I don't.I think you are exaggerating.
If irrational fears make a soldier lose focus, he has no business being a soldier.
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:
What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
Nothing, as long as nothing illegal happens. So what is the problem with gays doing the same thing while in port?
It will lift the moral for those who currently are shamed into silence.
Does this help the military?
Sigh. It has nothing to do with what people do in port....
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?