Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officialy suspended!

[ArmasTermin]

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't serve, only that it's no ones business and many people would rather not know... Ignorance is bliss.

I could live with a strong recommendation for gays to only tell fellow soldiers who won't have a problem with it about their sexual orientation. What I can't live with is DADT's policy of discharging anyone found out to be homosexual.

Race and sexual attraction are completely different issues. Now I am against higher-command officers snooping in soldiers' personal documents to discover they're gay, then discharging them. That's across the line. And I'm okay with gays in the military as long as they keep it to themselves. It's nobody's ******** business anyway. The only time that should come up if said gay guy is perusing a sexual relation with another soldier, which is totally uncalled for in combat situations, or on base. It's a lot of distraction and headache that is not needed within units and the idea of putting up with it because it might hurt someone's feewings is downright foolishness. That's not how a badass military unit is run. That's why the various US military branches want don't-ask-don't-tell. Except maybe the Navy...

 

[Maddness91]

ArmasTermin

So you really are a liberal?

fiscal conservative, social liberal

so basically, i boil down to, i don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't cost me ("me" being the taxpayer) anything (monetarily, health, etc)... except stuff like the basic stuff like health care, pension, roads... the nuts and bots things of gov't

so in Canada i vote (well voted) conservative, if i was in America, i would vote democrat, but this year in Canada i'm prolly going to vote liberal (even tho my riding is instantly going conservative, so it really doesn't matter) because the conservatives spent a billion dollars on the G8 thing and shut down Toronto for like a month (i'm truly undecided ATM tho because the libs voted down the abolishment of the super wasteful long gun registry, but the ultra lib party (NDP) openly voted kind of both ways so at least they are open to the idea of guns (Canadian politics... where the ultra libs are more gun friendly then the semi libs... xd )

anywhooooo.... enough about me xp pm me if u have questions or w/e... taken up enough of this thread with personal politics  

[ArmasTermin]

Maddness91

ArmasTermin

So you really are a liberal?

fiscal conservative, social liberal

so basically, i boil down to, i don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't cost me ("me" being the taxpayer) anything (monetarily, health, etc)... except stuff like the basic stuff like health care, pension, roads... the nuts and bots things of gov't

so in Canada i vote (well voted) conservative, if i was in America, i would vote democrat, but this year in Canada i'm prolly going to vote liberal (even tho my riding is instantly going conservative, so it really doesn't matter) because the conservatives spent a billion dollars on the G8 thing and shut down Toronto for like a month (i'm truly undecided ATM tho because the libs voted down the abolishment of the super wasteful long gun registry, but the ultra lib party (NDP) openly voted kind of both ways so at least they are open to the idea of guns (Canadian politics... where the ultra libs are more gun friendly then the semi libs... xd )

anywhooooo.... enough about me xp pm me if u have questions or w/e... taken up enough of this thread with personal politics

Ah, I had forgotten you live in Canada. In America I know you're aware the liberal side generally loves any sort of gun control, whether they understand it or not. So the idea of a person whom likes guns being liberal is foreign to me.  

[Private Sanders]

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

ArmasTermin

So you really are a liberal?

fiscal conservative, social liberal

so basically, i boil down to, i don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't cost me ("me" being the taxpayer) anything (monetarily, health, etc)... except stuff like the basic stuff like health care, pension, roads... the nuts and bots things of gov't

so in Canada i vote (well voted) conservative, if i was in America, i would vote democrat, but this year in Canada i'm prolly going to vote liberal (even tho my riding is instantly going conservative, so it really doesn't matter) because the conservatives spent a billion dollars on the G8 thing and shut down Toronto for like a month (i'm truly undecided ATM tho because the libs voted down the abolishment of the super wasteful long gun registry, but the ultra lib party (NDP) openly voted kind of both ways so at least they are open to the idea of guns (Canadian politics... where the ultra libs are more gun friendly then the semi libs... xd )

anywhooooo.... enough about me xp pm me if u have questions or w/e... taken up enough of this thread with personal politics

Ah, I had forgotten you live in Canada. In America I know you're aware the liberal side generally loves any sort of gun control, whether they understand it or not. So the idea of a person whom likes guns being liberal is foreign to me.

I live in the US, LOVE gun rights, and am liberal in pretty much every other way (I like socialized medicine, want gay marriage legalized, am pro-choice, support reasonable taxes [Not those insane tax cuts the Republicans seem to think are a good idea, but not massive taxes hikes either. Neither sounds very good to me.], am pro privacy and free speech rights, vehemently hate censorship, and am an environmentalist [Since this is a gun guild, I will point out that I am not opposed to hunting, but do believe than hunting needs to be regulated to prevent game from being hunted to extinction, that endangered species should not be hunted, and believe in tough punishment for poachers.]).  

[Private Sanders]

ArmasTermin

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't serve, only that it's no ones business and many people would rather not know... Ignorance is bliss.

I could live with a strong recommendation for gays to only tell fellow soldiers who won't have a problem with it about their sexual orientation. What I can't live with is DADT's policy of discharging anyone found out to be homosexual.

Race and sexual attraction are completely different issues. Now I am against higher-command officers snooping in soldiers' personal documents to discover they're gay, then discharging them. That's across the line. And I'm okay with gays in the military as long as they keep it to themselves. It's nobody's ******** business anyway. The only time that should come up if said gay guy is perusing a sexual relation with another soldier, which is totally uncalled for in combat situations, or on base. It's a lot of distraction and headache that is not needed within units and the idea of putting up with it because it might hurt someone's feewings is downright foolishness. That's not how a badass military unit is run. That's why the various US military branches want don't-ask-don't-tell. Except maybe the Navy...

I could handle a policy of disciplining gay soldiers for sexual harassment the same way straights are disciplined, again so long as gays aren't discharged solely for being gay.  

[Fresnel]

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

Jackie Flores

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't serve, only that it's no ones business and many people would rather not know... Ignorance is bliss.

I could live with a strong recommendation for gays to only tell fellow soldiers who won't have a problem with it about their sexual orientation. What I can't live with is DADT's policy of discharging anyone found out to be homosexual.

Race and sexual attraction are completely different issues. Now I am against higher-command officers snooping in soldiers' personal documents to discover they're gay, then discharging them. That's across the line. And I'm okay with gays in the military as long as they keep it to themselves. It's nobody's ******** business anyway. The only time that should come up if said gay guy is perusing a sexual relation with another soldier, which is totally uncalled for in combat situations, or on base. It's a lot of distraction and headache that is not needed within units and the idea of putting up with it because it might hurt someone's feewings is downright foolishness. That's not how a badass military unit is run. That's why the various US military branches want don't-ask-don't-tell. Except maybe the Navy...

I could handle a policy of disciplining gay soldiers for sexual harassment the same way straights are disciplined, again so long as gays aren't discharged solely for being gay.

The problem with gays is that you can't tell them apart. If you're worried about getting hit on by a woman, you stay away from women. If you're worried about getting hit on by gays...

Just sayin'.  

[Private Sanders]

Jackie Flores

Pripyat Dawn

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.

You know the difference, though? The American Army actually sees combat. So that PT test with easier standards for women? That's gonna be a problem. That EO standard that's weighted heavily against men? That's gonna be a problem. Women in America, whatever they think, are treated like queens in the military when they're not getting raped. And since the vast majority don't get raped...

You end up with a bunch of soldiers unwilling to soldier. So unless there's a massive ******** shift in the way women are treated- as in, no special treatment at all, same PT test, can't run to EO as soon as they think someone's hitting on them- women should never see a blue cord.

Um, France, Canada, and Germany have all seen combat within the last few years, so that comment about America actually seeing combat is ******** bullshit. In fact, it's not just bullshit. It's a ******** insult. As for physical standards, women can handle the same ones as men in France and Germany, two countries with rather exacting standards, so why not America? Drop the lower standards for women. They can ******** handle it just fine. They've already proven it in other countries. If a Canadian women can get into an infantry unit and serve alongside men without any serious problems, so can an American one.

You know who else has female infantry? Israel. ISRAEL. That pretty much ends the debate right there.

Ireland has female infantry, too (The Irish Permanent Defense Force has no regulations whatsoever governing which roles women are allowed in. I'm pretty sure this has been the case since women were allowed into the Irish military in 1979, but can't say so with absolute certainty. If it is the case, Ireland was one of the first countries to allow women into the full range of military duties.). New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are some more countries that allow women to be combat infantry.  

[Fresnel]

Jackie Flores

Jackie Flores

Pripyat Dawn

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.

You know the difference, though? The American Army actually sees combat. So that PT test with easier standards for women? That's gonna be a problem. That EO standard that's weighted heavily against men? That's gonna be a problem. Women in America, whatever they think, are treated like queens in the military when they're not getting raped. And since the vast majority don't get raped...

You end up with a bunch of soldiers unwilling to soldier. So unless there's a massive ******** shift in the way women are treated- as in, no special treatment at all, same PT test, can't run to EO as soon as they think someone's hitting on them- women should never see a blue cord.

Um, France, Canada, and Germany have all seen combat within the last few years, so that comment about America actually seeing combat is ******** bullshit. In fact, it's not just bullshit. It's a ******** insult. As for physical standards, women can handle the same ones as men in France and Germany, two countries with rather exacting standards, so why not America? Drop the lower standards for women. They can ******** handle it just fine. They've already proven it in other countries. If a Canadian women can get into an infantry unit and serve alongside men without any serious problems, so can an American one.

You know who else has female infantry? Israel. ISRAEL. That pretty much ends the debate right there.

Ireland has female infantry, too (The Irish Permanent Defense Force has no regulations whatsoever governing which roles women are allowed in. I'm pretty sure this has been the case since women were allowed into the Irish military in 1979, but can't say so with absolute certainty. If it is the case, Ireland was one of the first countries to allow women into the full range of military duties.). New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are some more countries that allow women to be combat infantry.

Israel is the country that ripped the nav electronics out of American planes to allow them to carry heavier bombs, they're not exactly the pinnacle of military sanity. I wouldn't be surprised if they trained child soldiers in times of need.  

[Whence it Flows]

Jackie Flores

Pripyat Dawn

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.

You know the difference, though? The American Army actually sees combat. So that PT test with easier standards for women? That's gonna be a problem. That EO standard that's weighted heavily against men? That's gonna be a problem. Women in America, whatever they think, are treated like queens in the military when they're not getting raped. And since the vast majority don't get raped...

You end up with a bunch of soldiers unwilling to soldier. So unless there's a massive ******** shift in the way women are treated- as in, no special treatment at all, same PT test, can't run to EO as soon as they think someone's hitting on them- women should never see a blue cord.

Um, France, Canada, and Germany have all seen combat within the last few years, so that comment about America actually seeing combat is ******** bullshit. In fact, it's not just bullshit. It's a ******** insult. As for physical standards, women can handle the same ones as men in France and Germany, two countries with rather exacting standards, so why not America? Drop the lower standards for women. They can ******** handle it just fine. They've already proven it in other countries. If a Canadian women can get into an infantry unit and serve alongside men without any serious problems, so can an American one.

There's a difference between a few hundred troops deploying to a combat zone, and total mobilization- over the past nine years, combat arms have a 98% deployment rate, most of those with multiple deployments.

I agree with you. But until that standard is removed, and EO stops being a c**k-hating witchhunt, women have no place in a combat zone.