[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]
How do you keep the peace without some sort of police force?
Peace keeping is violent in nature.
[/quote]
Hahahahaha!
No. Peace requires peaceful people.
You cannot force peace through violence.
People. Quit being so naive.
The US government has people in every country. Some of them ARE military (not in uniform) and some of them are state dept.
Just because you do not know where US forces are “officially” located does not mean they are not there.
Much of the “intelligence” they gather is done by posing as “humanitarian” workers.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]
How do you keep the peace without some sort of police force?
Peace keeping is violent in nature.
[/quote]
Wait, what?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]
How do you keep the peace without some sort of police force?
Peace keeping is violent in nature.
[/quote]
how do you keep your virginity without a rape force?
virginity keeping is sexual in nature.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
The moral component and it’s effect on the disintegrating American family is far more important than the effect or absence thereof on combat effectiveness. This country is in far more danger from domestic decay than it is from foreign enemies though they must be dealt with.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Mr Jefferson, keep building that wall 
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Mr Jefferson, keep building that wall :)[/quote]
Mr Jefferson’s and the rest of the founder’s “wall” continues to be misrepresented.
The military is not a place for sugar and spice and everything nice. There is a life and death struggle, and unit cohesion and morale must be considered.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
The moral component and it’s effect on the disintegrating American family is far more important than the effect or absence thereof on combat effectiveness. This country is in far more danger from domestic decay than it is from foreign enemies though they must be dealt with.[/quote]
You do realize military servicemen take an oath to defend The American Constitution, not The American Family, right?
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
I will agree with your statement on Israel, but they need every person to be able to take up arms in a moments notice if invaded. All citizens must go through the army to keep citizenship if my mind serves me correctly.
Here’s a random thought; there are already gay men and women, serving with the troops, sleeping in the same barracks and sharing the showers et cetera, and everyone knows that this is the state. In fact, if you are in the U.S. military, someone in your squad could well be gay. However, we have yet to see the colossal breakdown of morale, unit cohesion, Esprit d’corps or hors d’oeuvres.
In fact, if anything, allowing gay servicemen out of the closet should improve morale by not forcing the gay servicepeople to keep it bottled up, and by alleviating the possible paranoia anyone could have about whether their squadmates or superiors are gay. And yes, I said superiors; DADT has been around for sixteen years now.
[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
Here’s a random thought; there are already gay men and women, serving with the troops, sleeping in the same barracks and sharing the showers et cetera, and everyone knows that this is the state. In fact, if you are in the U.S. military, someone in your squad could well be gay. However, we have yet to see the colossal breakdown of morale, unit cohesion, Esprit d’corps or hors d’oeuvres.
[/quote]
This is what many here seem to be missing, or are just ignorant of the fact because they may not be in the military.
My active duty unit had a gay dude in it. He never came out told anyone, but we all knew it. And lo and behold, it had zero effect on morale, unit cohesion, etc, etc.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
The moral component and it’s effect on the disintegrating American family is far more important than the effect or absence thereof on combat effectiveness. This country is in far more danger from domestic decay than it is from foreign enemies though they must be dealt with.[/quote]
You do realize military servicemen take an oath to defend The American Constitution, not The American Family, right?[/quote]
The former cannot and will not function and is in fact not functioning without the latter. The fact that people will be looking cross eyed at their monitor wondering what on Earth I’m talking about does not bode well for the future of this nation. I’ve gone into why in great detail elsewhere.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
The moral component and it’s effect on the disintegrating American family is far more important than the effect or absence thereof on combat effectiveness. This country is in far more danger from domestic decay than it is from foreign enemies though they must be dealt with.[/quote]
You do realize military servicemen take an oath to defend The American Constitution, not The American Family, right?[/quote]
The former cannot and will not function and is in fact not functioning without the latter. The fact that people will be looking cross eyed at their monitor wondering what on Earth I’m talking about does not bode well for the future of this nation. I’ve gone into why in great detail elsewhere.[/quote]
Can you please provide some sort of source for the idiotic mentality that gays destroy families? You do realize that homosexuality has been part of humanity since before the days of Jesus, right?
[quote]brnforce wrote:
Can you please provide some sort of source for the idiotic mentality that gays destroy families? You do realize that homosexuality has been part of humanity since before the days of Jesus, right?[/quote]
He can’t.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Moreover, it isn’t the job of the US military to offer collective therapy and self-esteem classes - its goal is to win wars. If a given policy undermines - or risks undermining - that single mission, we should all be skeptical of it.
And no, there is no valid comparison to blacks in the military and gays in the military.[/quote]
We have a winner. Armies are for inflicting mortal harm on the goods and services of foreign enemies in the most efficient and least costly way to yourself. Not to provide social equality and justice to special interest groups. There is also no valid moral component to race. Homosexuality is a challenge to traditional marriage and family and any move to further legitimatize it poses real and highly consequential ramifications to the country at large. No such state of affairs exists with race.[/quote]
Lets remove the moral component of Homosexuality for a moment, because there’s far from broad consensus on homosexuality’s legitimacy or illegitimacy at the moment. Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military really affect its combat-effectiveness?
I mean… Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its military. Israel would not do anything that would affect its combat-effectiveness. Therefore, openly serving gay men and women would not affect the american military’s combat-effectiveness.
The moral component and it’s effect on the disintegrating American family is far more important than the effect or absence thereof on combat effectiveness. This country is in far more danger from domestic decay than it is from foreign enemies though they must be dealt with.[/quote]
You do realize military servicemen take an oath to defend The American Constitution, not The American Family, right?[/quote]
The former cannot and will not function and is in fact not functioning without the latter. The fact that people will be looking cross eyed at their monitor wondering what on Earth I’m talking about does not bode well for the future of this nation. I’ve gone into why in great detail elsewhere.[/quote]
Can you please provide some sort of source for the idiotic mentality that gays destroy families? You do realize that homosexuality has been part of humanity since before the days of Jesus, right?[/quote]
Nah and yes.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do relief workers need to wear uniforms and carry weapons?[/quote]
How do you keep the peace without some sort of police force?
Peace keeping is violent in nature.
[/quote]
Hahahahaha!
No. Peace requires peaceful people.
You cannot force peace through violence.[/quote]
yes you can, its been done through out history. its a matter of how much killing your willing to do.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
You do realize military servicemen take an oath to defend The American Constitution, not The American Family, right?[/quote]
The former cannot and will not function and is in fact not functioning without the latter. The fact that people will be looking cross eyed at their monitor wondering what on Earth I’m talking about does not bode well for the future of this nation. I’ve gone into why in great detail elsewhere.[/quote]
Okay. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll keep this in mind when I read the rest of your posts on this forum.