View Full Version : Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/combat-troops-to-get-gay-sensitivity-training/?page=1
Really, this is what we need to worry about??
American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/afghanistan/) said Thursday.
The Pentagon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/) is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.
Army Command (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/army-command/) Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/marvin-s-hill/), the top enlisted man in Afghanistan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/afghanistan/) where 100,000 U.S. troops are deployed, said that the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/taliban-movement/) militants.
“I have heard about the training that will be forthcoming to the battlefield,” Sgt. Hill (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/marvin-s-hill/) told Pentagon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/) reporters via a teleconference from Kabul.
“We will take our directions from the Department of Defense (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-department-of-defense/), from the secretary of defense, the chairman, as well as the service chiefs of each service. Our plan is to take their direction, and we’re going to execute that training right here on the battlefield.”
No unit is exempted, he said.
“Our goal is to not allow a unit to return to home station and have the unit responsible for that,” he said. “While we own those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we’re going to execute that training on the ground. We hope that it will have little impact on their combat and security operations here.”
President Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) signed a bill in December to repeal the ban, called “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which required gay troops to hide their sexuality. However, the ban will stay in effect until the secretary of defense certifies that repeal of the policy will not hurt combat readiness.
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, said it is “ridiculous” to train combat Army soldiers and Marines as they are engage in daily combat with tenacious insurgents.
“It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world,” she said. “For the administration to say this is more important than even with the troops we’re trying to train in that part of the world, I think it shows flawed priorities at best. It is ridiculous.”
Sgt. Hill is an outspoken proponent of ending the ban.
“If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward - if that’s the way that we have to go,” Sgt. Hill said on the television show, “Washington Watch” in December.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered a detailed training regime to make sure both sides, homosexuals and heterosexuals, treat each other with respect. He has said gays will be able to declare their sexual preference openly before end of the year.
The training is broken down into three tiers. The first tier is for specialists like chaplains, lawyers and investigators. The second is for commanders in the field. The third is for the force at large, 2.2 million active and reserve troops.
The Pentagon‘s Repeal Implementation team is leading the whole process.
“Professionalism is the expectation across all the services,” Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer, the team’s chief of staff, told the Pentagon‘s news service.
“This is a disciplined force, and we expect to see that as the training and repeal go into place. Lastly, respect is what everybody expects to receive and what everybody should give.”
Big Wall
02-26-2011, 09:32
I...I'm speachless.
JohnTRourke
02-26-2011, 09:36
as we continue to circle the bowl.
[BooHoo]
Lastly, respect is what everybody expects to receive and what everybody should give.”
FAIL! Respect is earned, respect is not an entitlement. Idiots.
Ohh no "respect is entitled" only when your teabaggin another dude or muff diving another chick. Kind of sounded well.......RETARDED!!! To pull a active solider off the mindset of combat to train him to be sensitive to Homosexuality.....LMAO. All I can say is wow....just wow.
"...it shows flawed priorities at best.”
I don't care if it is "gay assimilation" or any other non-combat and/or non-operations related training. The diversion, even if slight, is a failure in judgment and common-sense.
Been many years since I was in-service so I have to ask recent vets; "what are examples of other non ops or non mission-critical training you were required to complete during any deployment in the past ~10-15 years?" Is this now a common occurrence or is this "gay thing" thing an anomaly?
OneGuy67
02-26-2011, 12:28
I told you people...those who wanted social norms implemented into the military regimen.
You wouldn't believe the amount of non-ops training that is required now that everyone has to sit through. Rape awareness and reporting, cultural sensitivity (not theirs, ours), suicide prevention, code of conduct, conduct of war, code of war, anti-terrorism online, SERE online (a video game), etc. These are the ones on top of my head that we've had to do this past few months.
Chad4000
02-26-2011, 12:46
not to mention, it actually does more harm to their movement when they try to stuff this in everyones faces...
just mind boggling..... its such a shame...
2008f450
02-26-2011, 12:49
Really? Our troops have enough to think about in combat,now they have to worry about offending someone in the middle of a fire fight. I wouldnt be surprised if the number of friendly fire incidents goes up.[M2]
oh wait, I can't pick you up and save your life, I must ask first if it is okay. may I pick you BAM BAM BAM BAM FUCKING HEADSHOT>>>>>dead soldier.
fuck those homos.
2008f450
02-26-2011, 12:55
whats next? Fuc@%&* rainbow patches on the arm instead of the flag?
"...wouldn't believe the amount of non-ops training that is required now...Rape awareness and reporting, cultural sensitivity, suicide prevention, anti-terrorism online,..."
And these types of training programs are required/conducted in-theatre?
I can understand a level of training that brings forward direct value to combat operations and support efficiencies (not to mention a mental break afforded by a bit of training versus the daily grind) on occasion but this social shit too? In-country?
Well...I guess I'll sleep better knowing this Administration and Commander-in-Chief are more concerned with socializing homosexuality than fighting a war. All I can say is "I'm so glad to have served during the Reagan era versus having to acknowledge and tolerate the lumps of shit of the recent past."
What an embarrassment our country is under this Administration. [Mad]
StagLefty
02-26-2011, 13:52
My son is getting tired of hearing me say "I'm so glad I'm on my way out" every time I read crap like this. [ROFL1]
Jumpstart
02-26-2011, 14:17
Being a former Democrat, I have come full circle to hating everything that they have become, it has come to a head with the Obama administration. Last election, my old man, who comes from a long line of Democrats stated " this will be the first year I pull the lever for ALL Republicans". If you ask me, he came late to the party.
now you have to wonder when someone says i got your back[Flower]
OneGuy67
02-26-2011, 16:40
And these types of training programs are required/conducted in-theatre?
I can understand a level of training that brings forward direct value to combat operations and support efficiencies (not to mention a mental break afforded by a bit of training versus the daily grind) on occasion but this social shit too? In-country?
Well...I guess I'll sleep better knowing this Administration and Commander-in-Chief are more concerned with socializing homosexuality than fighting a war. All I can say is "I'm so glad to have served during the Reagan era versus having to acknowledge and tolerate the lumps of shit of the recent past."
What an embarrassment our country is under this Administration. [Mad]
Yes. All units had to "check the box" on a number of non-ops related training. This isn't specific to this current administration; the previous one was just as bad when it came to a lot of these types of classes/training. We just get to add another "special class" to the list of training we have to go through to be sensitive of.
When I was in Iraq in 2008, the mess-hall (DFAC, now. Ug!) had a month's worth of different types of reminders of what that particular month's sensitivity was. Anti-rape, social reporting, black history month, hispanic history month, female history month, asian history month, indian history month, etc., etc., etc. I often wondered what the Third Country Nationals (TCN's) who worked in the mess hall that were from Pakistan and Indonesia thought about these things and how "sensitive" we were.
In-theater distraction aside, does anyone really think this training is going to affect a soldiers actions who would be "insensitive" to their gay counterparts anyway? nope....what a waste of time and money
TEAMRICO
02-26-2011, 19:32
In the future they will be having Hetero-Sexual TNG, NON Gender/Pre-Op/Trans Gender, Non-Gay Soldier TNG for the few REAL MEN left serving so they are not uncomfortable serving with a bunch of Poof Boys wanting their lady-rights and Crying that they dont have Lady GaGa cadence for there morning walk around the park holding hands!
Command Sergeant Major of the Army Maddow will whip those sissy boys into a fighting farce that will protect what is left of your freedoms! Boy, we can only hope!
Glad I got out before this all happened!
Scanker19
02-26-2011, 19:57
whats next? Fuc@%&* rainbow patches on the arm instead of the flag?
42nd Infantry.
Really we have already been told to treat infantry as if they aren't gay for many years, but now having actual gay guys will be a horse of a different color.
Troublco
02-26-2011, 20:04
I told you people...those who wanted social norms implemented into the military regimen.
You wouldn't believe the amount of non-ops training that is required now that everyone has to sit through. Rape awareness and reporting, cultural sensitivity (not theirs, ours), suicide prevention, code of conduct, conduct of war, code of war, anti-terrorism online, SERE online (a video game), etc. These are the ones on top of my head that we've had to do this past few months.
+1. My traditional guardsmen barely got to do their jobs, there was so much. They certainly were not, and could not be in the time allowed, fully trained to do their jobs. And there was nothing they, or we, could do about it. It's criminal when there is so much garbage that military personnel cannot perform what is supposedly their primary function. And it's gotten to that.
I'm glad I'm out now.
Poof Boys wanting their lady-rights and Crying that they dont have Lady GaGa cadence for there morning walk around the park holding hands!
Thats just one funny ass mental picture...
42nd Infantry.
Really we have already been told to treat infantry as if they aren't gay for many years, but now having actual gay guys will be a horse of a different color.
Oh, this is SOOOOO +100!
I'm just wondering if the gays will have to cover their faces when in Muslim theaters... So let's add a few things up (not hatin', just sayin') - our primary theaters are Muslim dominated nations who strongly object to us having women in the military already (second class sub-humans), now we have a bunch of openly gay soldiers too (the evil of all evils).
Do we really need to give these folks even MORE reasons to gun down our boys (and girls, and whatchamodoozit can't decides)? I always figured that I served with guys who putt from the rough but nobody really knew it, now that they can flaunt it and be openly gay I just thank my lucky stars that I'm out now.
Last I heard, homosexuals represented less than 2% of our citizens yet we seem to be spending 50% of OUR attention giving THEM attention. That just doesn't add up. I accepted Don't Ask Don't Tell but whatever, this is ridiculous to pull soldiers off duty to tell them "please don't shoot your queer squaddies".
Scanker19
02-27-2011, 10:16
Lady GaGa cadence for there morning walk around the park holding hands!
Like this?
haHXgFU7qNI
Like this?
haHXgFU7qNI
thats f*ck*ng gay ...(holding back vomit)
brokenscout
02-27-2011, 10:31
Half of what you do in the military is some sort of Sensitivity training, hopefully they'll throw it in with the racial, muslim, and whatever the PC flavor of the day is. So it doesnt take up that much of there time.
fuck those homos.
Only if they think you're cute, Sniper.
H.
I don't see what the big deal is. This training will take like one hour. You have to go through the same dumb training for every other job you get in your life; and it is like an hour lecture about not gabbing asses and talking about sex.
Troublco
02-27-2011, 11:06
I don't see what the big deal is. This training will take like one hour. You have to go through the same dumb training for every other job you get in your life; and it is like an hour lecture about not gabbing asses and talking about sex.
When you add up all the one hour training requirements, toss in the half day training requirements, along with any that take a day, it becomes extremely burdensome. When every area that thinks their piece of the operation needs training and certification decides everyone HAS to have training, along with a nice test and certificate at the end, it becomes burdensome. You have to remember that most, if not all, of these requirements are annual recurring requirements. Best not to criticize that you have not directly had to deal with.
Think of it this way - my traditionals got about 24 8 hour days a year. Take out the day for the Christmas party, any time for commander's calls (usually at least 2 hours each), requirements to go do a piss test, any friggen' details they got called off to do, and all of the training requirements like the one we're talking about here (and there are quite a few of them) and my folks had maybe 12 8 hour days in which to get or stay proficient at a fairly difficult technical job. Then add another hour's worth of training when someone gets a hair up their butt. Oh, and add the half hour to walk over to where the training is to be 10 minutes early so you can get a seat. Then walk back to your shop and try to pick back up where you left off. It doesn't take long to waste a hell of a lot of time doing crap like that. They are expected to be able to deploy and do their jobs alongside people who do the job every single day, but they can't because the training they get is how to be sensitive to others, about the culture in some other country, about sexual harassment, and now about gays in the military. Bottom line, too damn much BS training preventing people from being able to do their jobs; too many distractions; too much crap.
Yeah, but my point is that this is a requirement for any new changes to any place, not even just the military. It's not like gays in the military is the ONLY thing that produced extra training.
I haven't been in the military, but you dare tell me that I don't have experience sitting in meetings all day long for stuff that doesn't even directly effect me, all while work is just piling up back at my desk. I'm no stranger to the concept of having a meeting, just to plan another meeting.
I'm trying to point out that it is pretty feeble to try and say, "See? I knew this was a bad idea." Just because there will be some training or a meeting as a side product.
BushMasterBoy
02-27-2011, 11:24
If the next Commander in Chief is a Muslim and refuses to swear in on the Bible, I guess we will have to get him a Koran...we are all so insensitive. Infidels!
We should be blaming lawyers, for the amount of mostly useless "training" that people receive.
Only if they think you're cute, Sniper.
H.
[ROFL1]
reminds me of the movie "American Wedding" hen stiffler does the dance off at the gay bar.
"I told you those guys wanted to fuck me!"[ROFL1][ROFL1]
I don't see what the big deal is. This training will take like one hour. You have to go through the same dumb training for every other job you get in your life; and it is like an hour lecture about not gabbing asses and talking about sex.
yeah but what about the weird stuff like when the gay guy next to you is taking a piss staring at your johnson...you aren't supposed to beat his ass?
or having the wall of nude or near nude hot women to make life away from home easier...now you have to pass by a wall with chip-n-dale like dudes as well...
I'm not really being too serious because I don't know if it would happen or if it were true, but either way, I still think the whole thing is...well...gay.
If the next Commander in Chief is a Muslim and refuses to swear in on the Bible, I guess we will have to get him a Koran...we are all so insensitive. Infidels!
maybe they will start teaching it in schools. or maybe our children will have to go through gay sensitivity training...probably around middle school.
brokenscout
02-27-2011, 13:16
maybe they will start teaching it in schools. or maybe our children will have to go through gay sensitivity training...probably around middle school.
Or some shit like that, there always trying to slide something in. I swear when the elections were going , I think my kid thought it was the second coming of Christ. Obama this obama that, I asked him about McCain and he didn't know who it was.
ldmaster
02-27-2011, 13:41
they will invent for someone who completes this course, airborne, ranger, etc...
And what would the emblem be?
Now I suppose they'll have to create a new NSN for lube, and whether someone is sensitive to latex.
We did a few scared straight things once, and we would put a basketful of condoms on the table in the center pod, and make sure a used one or two would be visible in the holding cells where we'd put them to "cool off" before starting the verbal portions. Well, used in the sense that mayonnaise would be smeared on them. . .
This is such a wrong road to go down. I do absolutely see someone filing suit to have separate barracks for gay vs straight men and women, since the whole concept of seperate female/male facilities is the nature of sexuality - I dont want to take a shower with someone who even potentially sees me as a sexual partner, male OR female. It doesn't matter that they will be professional enough, it matters that I would feel that the potential exists.
Stupid stupid politicians playing games with america's fighting men and women. And, yeah, I've spoken to a few straight female military members that have said they HATE knowing that they're bunking with a lesbian, regardless of what the mainstream media will say about it. This isn't a male only issue.
We should be blaming lawyers, for the amount of mostly useless "training" that people receive.
This. They are really the only people to blame for this and really everything....
Troublco
02-27-2011, 19:16
Yeah, but my point is that this is a requirement for any new changes to any place, not even just the military. It's not like gays in the military is the ONLY thing that produced extra training.
I haven't been in the military, but you dare tell me that I don't have experience sitting in meetings all day long for stuff that doesn't even directly effect me, all while work is just piling up back at my desk. I'm no stranger to the concept of having a meeting, just to plan another meeting.
I'm trying to point out that it is pretty feeble to try and say, "See? I knew this was a bad idea." Just because there will be some training or a meeting as a side product.
My point is that this is another added requirement that is adding to the burden already in place.
You haven't been in the military, so I dare tell you that this is in ADDITION to all the BS meetings we already have, in addition to so much training for crap like this that it is evident you don't understand how much of an impact it has.
Trying to say this was a bad idea for the reason you stated may indeed be feeble, but that was not what I said. I was commenting on the fact that every time somebody comes up with a change, it directly impacts the people that already don't have enough time. My point is that having another training session simply because they allowed gays in the military openly is a waste. They could have done the same damn thing on a powerpoint slide show. Just like a bunch of others where somebody somewhere is protecting their oh-so-important little fiefdom.
It isn't lawyers, at least in the military it isn't. It's all the officers who don't have any idea what kind of a burden they've created with all their BS training requirements. Then they have to have countless meetings to discuss the burden we keep telling them they've created. They're like politicians, only no one elected them.
Sometimes people who have not been in the military, while thinking they know just exactly what it's like, DON'T.
Drilldov2.0
02-27-2011, 23:01
At eethze, thisters!
Sometimes people who have not been in the military, while thinking they know just exactly what it's like, DON'T.
I should have been more clear, so you didn't think that I was saying that you were saying "I told you so." It was OneGuy who said that.
What I say still stands though. It's not gay people's fault that the military (or anyone) can not design an efficient training program. I haven't been in the military, and I have no idea what it is like. But I've seen pointless training sessions in nearly every job I've ever had. It's all the same thing. Nothing ever gets rewritten, they just stack all the new stuff on top of the old stuff, and now you are wasting hours and hours and hours on stuff that could be done in minutes.
Ever been to an all day meeting where you are told to share your deepest thoughts with strangers and even encouraged to cry if you need to? I have. It was a very stupid waste of money, organized by some moron in the corporation.
Now that you are retired, you should get on the ball and make up some lame ass "How to tolerate gays" seminar and start a consulting company. There is probably millions of dollars to be made if you get in early.
*I know that you have a real job and wouldn't do that. :)
OneGuy67
02-28-2011, 01:11
Once again, Stu, having never been in the military, you fail to understand the culture and attempt to equate it to something you are familiar with and that fails.
You will never understand until you are immersed in the military. Those here on the forum who have served, do understand what is being asked and the difficulties it presents.
Sorry Stu...
That's totally fine. I'm just having a hard time understand the outrage over meetings though.
That's totally fine. I'm just having a hard time understand the outrage over meetings though.
I'm not sure about others here, but for me it's not so much the meetings themselves, it's THIS meeting that is irritating. A soldier going through gay sensitivity meetings is just a strange thought. I remember how much we would raz a guy in basic for looking down, asking him if he was checking out the guys ass in front of him - now he may very well be and it is just quite a change to have to accept that or face disciplinary actions.
There is an upside to all of this, though. I was once told about cottonmouths "don't get bit on the ass, nobody here is going to suck poison out of your ass" - well, now they might! There might be a whole new generation of medics for this task.... :)
Byte Stryke
02-28-2011, 11:45
That's totally fine. I'm just having a hard time understand the outrage over meetings though.
in a Lesser, but somewhat parallel attempted comparison:
You are fighting a fire, Someone keeps interrupting you to train you how to polish the chrome on the firetruck.
Life or death combat situation that requires your full attention to the task at hand.
Not the task in your bunkmates hand.
Troublco
02-28-2011, 11:48
I know what you're trying to say, Stu. But I have to agree with OneGuy67; you can't understand the military until you've been in it. Pointless meetings of the sort you mention are just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing against you, just the way it is.
SA Friday
02-28-2011, 12:20
So, they swap the annual 'don't ask don't tell' policy training for the new 'sensitivity' training... All three of my deployments had policy change briefings while I was in a combat zone. This is much ado about nothing... It happens all the time. If is wasn't about allowing homosexuals go openly serve, it wouldn't have made the news and it wouldn't have its own thread.
you can't understand the military until you've been in it. Pointless meetings of the sort you mention are just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing against you, just the way it is.
What aspect of military service is such that it cannot be conveyed to someone who hasn't been there? The feeling of trusting others with your life? That you'll give 110% not because of the orders but so that you don't let your brothers down? The berating and screaming of boot camp? The trust that these guys will lay down their life for you?
It seems like the difference between sympathy and empathy.
H.
What aspect of military service is such that it cannot be conveyed to someone who hasn't been there? The feeling of trusting others with your life? That you'll give 110% not because of the orders but so that you don't let your brothers down? The berating and screaming of boot camp? The trust that these guys will lay down their life for you?
It seems like the difference between sympathy and empathy.
H.
But the typical office has those same attributes. (Sarcasm)
But the typical office has those same attributes. (Sarcasm)
Could make a parody of The Office, set in the military. Like, whatever unit is responsible for coordinating all the paper needs of the entire military, run by a totally incompetent manager.
H.
Its funny how a lot of people act like gays have only been serving in the military since the repeal of DADT, or that we are going to get overrun with gays now. News flash, gays have served in the military since the revolutionary war. Its not going to change anything, but this sensitivity training is a lot of bull shit. Gays in the military are not the issue.
Troublco
02-28-2011, 16:23
My issue had nothing in particular to do with gays in the military (wasn't trying to hijack the thread) but about the fact that these BS training sessions are continually added to the point of distraction, and Hoosier, No, you just don't, and won't, get it.
My issue had nothing in particular to do with gays in the military (wasn't trying to hijack the thread) but about the fact that these BS training sessions are continually added to the point of distraction, and Hoosier, No, you just don't, and won't, get it.
What exactly is it that I'm not getting? That's what I was asking. I've seen it said several times that "if you didn't serve you can't understand." I'm not sure what aspect about service can't be conveyed. Please enlighten.
H.
What exactly is it that I'm not getting? That's what I was asking. I've seen it said several times that "if you didn't serve you can't understand." I'm not sure what aspect about service can't be conveyed. Please enlighten.
H.
I don't think you can't understand, you seem like a bright guy :). It's one of those undefined emotions I suppose. I know I served with gays, I just didn't KNOW. I have to now treat you in a different way than my other brothers because of who you decide to stick it to? I understood the sensitivity training with women, the supposed weaker sex and all, but this is just downright silly to me. Let's just weaken us a bit more by telling us we can't call someone a faggot anymore because they might just be one and break down on me. Whatever hurts the brotherhood in any way is FUBAR, that's my emotion. I honestly believe a civvy can understand that, I won't belittle your intelligence by saying otherwise.
For me, bottom line: RLTW (gay or not).
theGinsue
02-28-2011, 21:21
Not to highjack this thread, but... (translated: I'm highjacking this thread)
What aspect of military service is such that it cannot be conveyed to someone who hasn't been there? The feeling of trusting others with your life? That you'll give 110% not because of the orders but so that you don't let your brothers down? The berating and screaming of boot camp? The trust that these guys will lay down their life for you?
It seems like the difference between sympathy and empathy.
H.
No, you just don't, and won't, get it.
I've worked in both the civilian corporate and blue collar sector and served 20 yrs in the military.
In the corporate sectore there is the term "loyalty". In the military there is a "sense of duty". These might sound the same but they aren't anything alike.
Esprit de corps is something that I haven't seen anything in the civilian sector that even clomes close.
The camaraderie between brothers in arms has no civilian equivalent either. Sure, I've had camaraderie with coworkers in the civilian sector, but nothing like what I experienced in the military; it just doesn't exist.
The bonds you form, the pride of service you experience, the sacrifices you make for a cause much greater than yourself - and often times you family take on a nuance that just don't translate into the civilian sector.
They are unique flavors much like the difference between beef pot roast and prime rib roast. Same animal, right? Both are cooked somewhat similarly, right? Yet their flavors are significantly unique and trying to explain those differences and define them to someone who hasn't tasted both cuts of meat is this side of impossible.
So you wrestle when you're bored and huddle together for warmth when you're cold, but no one wants to do that with a gay guy? Getting warmer?
Byte, no one is having a meeting about sensitivity DURING combat. Come on.
By the way, no hard feelings from me. I know I haven't been in, and I also know that I shouldn't say anything or have an opinion, but sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut. I apologize for those times.
Byte Stryke
03-01-2011, 07:17
Byte, no one is having a meeting about sensitivity DURING combat. Come on.
as this is a very recent precedence I cannot say I have been in sensitivity training *IN* Combat.
I have, However, been in some ridiculously stupid meetings while a firefight/Shelling broke out.
The point actually is, why take time from troops training for combat to train for something as asinine as this.
For it being a Military they sure are worried about our troops offending someone.
For it being a Military they sure are worried about our troops offending someone.
This IS the Obama Military Byte, so pretty soon we'll be replacing lead rounds with rainbows, teddy bears and hugs and we will overwhelm the enemy with compassion for their hatred of us.
HBARleatherneck
03-01-2011, 08:58
I am going to sidetrack you guys.
So, is there anything written anywhere that says military service is a right?
Can the military make rules that keep people out?
Such as too fat, too short, too tall, too weak, too low of inteligence
level,?
So, is it now of limits trying to keep anyone out? Im just asking.
If military service is a guaranteed right than everyone should be able to serve. wether they are 800 pounds, anti guns, anti war, 2 foot tall, 12 years old, 99 years old, gay, straight, beastyalist(sp), etc, they should be let in.
If we have no guaranteed rights to serve in the military, then we should do whatever it takes to keep it an elite fighting force. No matter, whose feelings get hurt.
period. my opinion.
This thread is gay.... [Peep]
I've always looked up to and admired our military. Even when exposed to the not so nice side of things such as the idiots, thugs, gang-members, etc, I always thought that they were just the bad apples. My father served, his father, his father, etc. I'll never get that chance.... but the way things are going, I'm not sure I want that chance anymore.
Sincerest "Thanks" to all those who have and are serving whether you are gay or not. If you can "nut up" and do the job without being a whiny diva, then great.
If not, I'm sure there's a body bag waiting for you somewhere. Which I think is the bottom line. Are our soldiers being trained to fight and kill without mercy, remorse, and self condemnation/trepidation... or are they being forced to get in touch with their "feelings" and become inadequate on the battlefield?
I'm not saying that a killer cannot be emotionally "in touch". Don't read that last paragraph the wrong way.
Just my thoughts, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. [Swim]
If we have no guaranteed rights to serve in the military, then we should do whatever it takes to keep it an elite fighting force. No matter, whose feelings get hurt.
period. my opinion.
+1[Beer]
im all for gays in the military , im sure we could always use them to do it the old russian way . 1 bolt action rifle per 2 or 3 guys , no cover, no tanks , no fire support , no air cover , human wave style attacks , and if they turn back we shot em for cowardice . lol , i bet a lot less people would turn up gay , lol , sorry my southern baptist up bringing is coming out a little .
personally the military should be about the defense and offense of war and fighting , gay, straight , black , white, christian or muslim . Once you make join it should not matter . Bad words and harsh feelings concerning race , sex and religion are part of fighting of all sorts and to restrict something as simple as the language of said fighter , reduces his combat effectiveness .
In the corporate sectore there is the term "loyalty". In the military there is a "sense of duty". These might sound the same but they aren't anything alike.
Esprit de corps is something that I haven't seen anything in the civilian sector that even clomes close.
The camaraderie between brothers in arms has no civilian equivalent either. Sure, I've had camaraderie with coworkers in the civilian sector, but nothing like what I experienced in the military; it just doesn't exist.
The bonds you form, the pride of service you experience, the sacrifices you make for a cause much greater than yourself - and often times you family take on a nuance that just don't translate into the civilian sector.
This is the kind of answer I'm looking for. Do you feel this level of connection with people when you're all sitting in the rear with the gear, or is it the sort of thing that only kicks in when you're in a trench and the bullets are flying? Does it come from training with those specific guys, or is it a more general feeling towards everyone in uniform?
H.
If we have no guaranteed rights to serve in the military, then we should do whatever it takes to keep it an elite fighting force. No matter, whose feelings get hurt.
Do you think that gays will necessarily make it a non-elite fighting force? I think that assumption would be pretty easy to disprove. I've met my fair share of gay guys. You want to know how you can tell if someone's gay? They like to sleep with people of their own gender. Just because that guy can bench 300lbs and made it through Seal school, doesn't mean he isn't gay.
H.
SA Friday
03-01-2011, 11:26
I just don't get it. The evidence as to the right path on this issue is clear, evident, and historically repeated. Approve or disapprove of homosexuality, if you deny that intrigration only makes any military or government or society stronger, you are denying what history has shown us for thousands of years.
If you think an hour spent on a new policy while in the field is just too horrible to consider, then you don't remember your time in the field. Its simply a non issue for the time spent. As for the message itself, only the weak will let it stray their focus on the mission. That will last as long as the NCOs allow it. In my unit, all of one bitch session and then its hammer time. This topic is just not an issue at all. Its only as big an issue as you want to make it into, and then the real issue is fixating on a minor policy change. This is not a big rock in the jar.
HBARleatherneck
03-01-2011, 11:59
Do you think that gays will necessarily make it a non-elite fighting force? I think that assumption would be pretty easy to disprove. I've met my fair share of gay guys. You want to know how you can tell if someone's gay? They like to sleep with people of their own gender. Just because that guy can bench 300lbs and made it through Seal school, doesn't mean he isn't gay.
H.
no, i am saying, where do you drawn the line? everyone gets to serve? wether they help or hinder the mission? fat people can be patriotic too. just because someone is a midget/dwarf doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve to serve. just because a guy is in a wheelchair doesnt mean we shouldnt accomadate his limitations at the front. we should have two combat troops pushing or pulling this person, because they want to serve and feel that they are ENTITLED TO SERVE. just because someone is a devout muslim hell bent on killing Americans doesnt mean he cant serve in our nations forces. so, where do you draw the line?
We allready draw the line on ages that may serve. we dont let extreme fat bodies serve, we arent going to let a parapeligic into a combat unit. that is predjudice and wrong, right?
whats wrong with America today? Entitlement, and everyone wanting to be treated differently. if someone gay is going to serve anyway, why any special treatment or instructions by the military to protect the person. either it works or it doesnt. if everyone were treated the same and not special, it would probably work out.
still nobody has answered... does anyone have the right to serve in the military? is it written in some book, somewhere, that everyone regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, physical limitation, mental limitations all have the RIGHT to serve? anyone? or is this really about pushing gay special rights? and not actual equality?
and to more directly answer hoosier... i think we should tighten up the ranks. less pussies, less panzies, stronger, faster, better. more dedicated, less limp dick sick bay commandos. this is what our nation needs. not more of less. and that goes for straight, gay, black, white, green. joining the military shouldnt be about needing college money or job. if those come as a perk, so be it. thats great, but joining for these reasons probably weaken the force, not strengthen it.
I just don't get it. The evidence as to the right path on this issue is clear, evident, and historically repeated. Approve or disapprove of homosexuality, if you deny that intrigration only makes any military or government or society stronger, you are denying what history has shown us for thousands of years.
If you think an hour spent on a new policy while in the field is just too horrible to consider, then you don't remember your time in the field. Its simply a non issue for the time spent. As for the message itself, only the weak will let it stray their focus on the mission. That will last as long as the NCOs allow it. In my unit, all of one bitch session and then its hammer time. This topic is just not an issue at all. Its only as big an issue as you want to make it into, and then the real issue is fixating on a minor policy change. This is not a big rock in the jar.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Byte Stryke
03-01-2011, 12:24
n
We already draw the line on ages that may serve. we dont let extreme fat bodies serve, we aren't going to let a paraplegic into a combat unit. that is prejudice and wrong, right?
I take it you have been out for quite a while.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb128/heightsangel84/ArmyStrong.jpg
They still won't let me in..... [sad face]
HBARleatherneck
03-01-2011, 12:28
well Byte, I was never in the army. wow.
this topic is so stupid.
we waste so much time on it.
politicians who either didnt serve or cant remember that far back. dictate rules for the people who are actually actively serving.
people who did serve but no longer are in.
people who never served but have an opinion.
really unless you are currently affected by it, we should come up with new subject matter.
i am going to go outside and weld target stands. something productive that pertains to me and guns. bye
no, i am saying, where do you drawn the line? everyone gets to serve? wether they help or hinder the mission? fat people can be patriotic too. just because someone is a midget/dwarf doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve to serve. just because a guy is in a wheelchair doesnt mean we shouldnt accomadate his limitations at the front. we should have two combat troops pushing or pulling this person, because they want to serve and feel that they are ENTITLED TO SERVE. just because someone is a devout muslim hell bent on killing Americans doesnt mean he cant serve in our nations forces. so, where do you draw the line?
We allready draw the line on ages that may serve. we dont let extreme fat bodies serve, we arent going to let a parapeligic into a combat unit. that is predjudice and wrong, right?
whats wrong with America today? Entitlement, and everyone wanting to be treated differently. if someone gay is going to serve anyway, why any special treatment or instructions by the military to protect the person. either it works or it doesnt. if everyone were treated the same and not special, it would probably work out.
still nobody has answered... does anyone have the right to serve in the military? is it written in some book, somewhere, that everyone regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, physical limitation, mental limitations all have the RIGHT to serve? anyone? or is this really about pushing gay special rights? and not actual equality?
and to more directly answer hoosier... i think we should tighten up the ranks. less pussies, less panzies, stronger, faster, better. more dedicated, less limp dick sick bay commandos. this is what our nation needs. not more of less. and that goes for straight, gay, black, white, green. joining the military shouldnt be about needing college money or job. if those come as a perk, so be it. thats great, but joining for these reasons probably weaken the force, not strengthen it.
No, there's certainly no right to serve in the forces. If someone can't perform the job they need to perform, then that won't work. I don't think the gay people who are presently serving are getting any special treatment (as long as they don't mention it, if they do their special treatment was getting washed out). They're not asking for any special treatment, as far as I can see. Getting training to the troops isn't really special treatment, I really doubt there's anything in that training that isn't common sense. I'm sure the Navy guys got similar training when women started serving ship-board. Does that qualify as special treatment?
I think we'd have a better chance of getting our forces stronger faster better if we paid them better and gave them real opportunities to be a lifer and not have to be on food stamps.
As for fat asses (like myself) or paraplegics, and women, they aren't put into combat units. That doesn't mean there's nothing they could do in the service. What percentage of people in the service even know how to shoot (well)? Lots and lots of people are sitting in the rear filling out TPS reports to make sure the trigger pullers have the bullets they need. I'd have zero problem with a paraplegic or a fat ass sitting in that air conditioned trailer in Nevada in front of a screen with a joystick blasting bad guys with the MQ-9.
Anyway, what's done is done, and at least now we won't be kicking out hundreds of people who learned to speak Arabic because they likey the butt-sex.
H.
Byte Stryke
03-01-2011, 13:11
Anyway, what's done is done, and at least now we won't be kicking out hundreds of people who learned to speak Arabic because they likey the butt-sex.
H.
Mishkala?
and no, I don't " likey the butt-sex."
But thanks for the stereotype.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.