Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 135 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #360708

    DavidF
    Participant

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    There have now been some uniformed brass that have made comments about DADT that suggest that they don’t see the prospect of abandoning it as readiness-threatening. Those opinions, I respect, and I wait to hear more from them. The leftist netroots, not so much.

    Indeed. Nice summation.

    Two points:
    I don’t think military members who would discriminate against a gay or lesbian coworker to the point of doing them physical harm should be paid with tax money. That doesn’t fly for teachers, or police, it shouldn’t fly for soldiers and sailors.
    A soldier who would physically or verbally attack a gay or lesbian coworker is not the type of person I want representing America overseas. If this person can’t respect a coworker who shares their American culture, how can they be trusted to respect Iraqis and Afghans? The military’s primary purpose is to win wars. But most of the time, their duties are peacekeeping. Even one bigoted, violent person jeapordizes America’s image abroad. Think about Abu Ghraib and that damage that did to us around the world.

    Sorry, that is the type of soldier I want. The military is not there to respect the citizens of countries we are at war with. The terrorists we are fighting right now do not respect anyone, what do you think afghans and iraqis think of gays?
    If we are fighting people like that, I want our equivelant of them. Our equivelent person would be a alabama raised redneck, who loves drinking busch light, smokes marlboro reds, curses a lot, and gets in fights when they are out at a bar. Basically our military should not be formed with a bunch of pansies who blog and twitter.

    So you want bigots in the military?

    You are saying all beer drinking, marlboro red smoking kids from alabama are bigots? Sounds pretty bigoted to me. I expect that from you though.

    Believe it or not, many of those “pansies” could kick your ass without breaking a sweat. I know a couple of those good old boys from the army who found that out the hard way.

    Talking tough is meaningless. Generally the tougher the talk, the less there is backing it. And when it comes to the military, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Toughness has nothing to do with sexual orientation, geographic origin or political point of view.

    #360709

    joev
    Participant

    @LBOWACC Please don’t patronize me. You don’t know me.
    Our soldiers should know that our enemies are not synonymous with people who live in the country we’re fighting.

    #360710

    TaraK
    Participant

    The reason for this is, i do not want to send someone to war that respects other nations or nationalities, I want someone who is so pro America, that they will kill without question for America.

    I don’t want anyone to ever exist that would kill without question. SERIOUSLY? Innocent people, children, or — let me appeal to your sensibilities — American tourists in other countries. No, I don’t want a thoughtless massacre regardless.

    And while you may point out that the terrorists are ruthless, the people of Afghan and Iraq are not. They’re as human as you & just as soulful. Don’t conflate.

    And how is this relevant to DADT?

    #360711

    LBOWACC
    Member

    DavidF wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    There have now been some uniformed brass that have made comments about DADT that suggest that they don’t see the prospect of abandoning it as readiness-threatening. Those opinions, I respect, and I wait to hear more from them. The leftist netroots, not so much.

    Indeed. Nice summation.

    Two points:
    I don’t think military members who would discriminate against a gay or lesbian coworker to the point of doing them physical harm should be paid with tax money. That doesn’t fly for teachers, or police, it shouldn’t fly for soldiers and sailors.
    A soldier who would physically or verbally attack a gay or lesbian coworker is not the type of person I want representing America overseas. If this person can’t respect a coworker who shares their American culture, how can they be trusted to respect Iraqis and Afghans? The military’s primary purpose is to win wars. But most of the time, their duties are peacekeeping. Even one bigoted, violent person jeapordizes America’s image abroad. Think about Abu Ghraib and that damage that did to us around the world.

    Sorry, that is the type of soldier I want. The military is not there to respect the citizens of countries we are at war with. The terrorists we are fighting right now do not respect anyone, what do you think afghans and iraqis think of gays?
    If we are fighting people like that, I want our equivelant of them. Our equivelent person would be a alabama raised redneck, who loves drinking busch light, smokes marlboro reds, curses a lot, and gets in fights when they are out at a bar. Basically our military should not be formed with a bunch of pansies who blog and twitter.

    So you want bigots in the military?

    You are saying all beer drinking, marlboro red smoking kids from alabama are bigots? Sounds pretty bigoted to me. I expect that from you though.

    Believe it or not, many of those “pansies” could kick your ass without breaking a sweat. I know a couple of those good old boys from the army who found that out the hard way.
    Talking tough is meaningless. Generally the tougher the talk, the less there is backing it. And when it comes to the military, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Toughness has nothing to do with sexual orientation, geographic origin or political point of view.

    Who said anything about sexual orientation, or political point of view? Geographic location was thrown in for the lulz, you can find the type of person i am describing in any state. That is fine you believe that though, I do not. certain individuals join the air force and coast guard, and certain types join the marines.

    Joev, so in all wars enemies are not synonmous with the people who live in the country?

    That is a pretty weird thought. I would hope that if we were incaded by Russia, or any other country, you and every other American, would pull out a gun if they ran into your city. Whether they were there just to kill the military or not, I would hope yo uwould pick up a gun and kill some of them.

    #360712

    LBOWACC
    Member

    TaraK wrote >>

    The reason for this is, i do not want to send someone to war that respects other nations or nationalities, I want someone who is so pro America, that they will kill without question for America.

    I don’t want anyone to ever exist that would kill without question. SERIOUSLY? Innocent people, children, or — let me appeal to your sensibilities — American tourists in other countries. No, I don’t want a thoughtless massacre regardless.
    And while you may point out that the terrorists are ruthless, the people of Afghan and Iraq are not. They’re as human as you & just as soulful. Don’t conflate.
    And how is this relevant to DADT?

    I do. If the joint chiefs say for whatever reason that civilians need to be killed, then i want an army that will act upon it. I have enough faith in the commanders of our military that they will make the right decision.

    I am certain civilians were killed when we dropped the bombs on japan, are you questioning that? I am sure you are.

    #360713

    TaraK
    Participant

    I don’t operate on blind faith in anyone.

    #360714

    LBOWACC
    Member

    TaraK wrote >>
    I don’t operate on blind faith in anyone.

    Hence why you would never join the military?

    #360715

    TaraK
    Participant

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    TaraK wrote >>
    I don’t operate on blind faith in anyone.

    Hence why you would never join the military?

    Well, the reasons I wouldn’t join the military is a whole ‘nother aside.

    #360716

    LBOWACC
    Member

    No doubt, but I assume that has to be on the list somewhere?

    #360717

    Bear
    Participant

    LBOWACC wrote >>
    I am certain civilians were killed when we dropped the bombs on japan, are you questioning that? I am sure you are.

    A better case might be Afghanistan, where the person most intent on reigning in civilian casualties is General McChrystal. And he’s doing it precisely because he realizes that killing civilians doesn’t create any military advantage whatsoever but generates increasing opposition, both political and military, to our presence in the region.

    #360718

    gramarye
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>
    I am certain civilians were killed when we dropped the bombs on japan, are you questioning that? I am sure you are.

    A better case might be Afghanistan, where the person most intent on reigning in civilian casualties is General McChrystal. And he’s doing it precisely because he realizes that killing civilians doesn’t create any military advantage whatsoever but generates increasing opposition, both political and military, to our presence in the region.

    Agreed, but suppose McChrystal were to make the decision that, for the sake of taking out a known high-value target that we only had a small window of time to take out before he vanished again, he was going to have to order a mission that would likely result in substantial civilian casualties? Would you still be respecting his judgment then, if it came out less in tune with your own? Perhaps you would, but there are certainly many who are more than happy to use figures like McChrystal as examples only so long as it fits their own agenda. Then they call them “sell-outs” or worse. (Colin Powell may have been the biggest victim of this phenomenon in recent memory, but it’s a staple meme in political debates these days.)

    #360719

    Bear
    Participant

    Since when are civilian casualties in pursuit of a sufficiently high-value target not in tune with my better judgment? The whole point was that the overwhelming majority simply are not, especially given their long-term repercussions, which makes me more than a little uncomfortable with the army full of trigger-happy, sociopathic xenophobes that LBOWACC seems to be advocating.

    #360720

    LBOWACC
    Member

    Bear wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>
    I am certain civilians were killed when we dropped the bombs on japan, are you questioning that? I am sure you are.

    A better case might be Afghanistan, where the person most intent on reigning in civilian casualties is General McChrystal. And he’s doing it precisely because he realizes that killing civilians doesn’t create any military advantage whatsoever but generates increasing opposition, both political and military, to our presence in the region.

    That is my point, thanks for making it for me. The troops are to do whatever top brass tells them to do. If top brass for some reasons decides its a good idea to kill civilians, then i want troops who have no problem carrying that order out. If the top brass tells them no civilians are to be killed, then they should follow that order.

    I do not want a Joev in the army. Someone who would never kill a civilian under any circumstances should not be in the army. A person in the army should do whatever top brass tells him to do. That may be kill civilians, or it maybe pass out food to civilians.

    Again thank you for so eloquently saying what I was saying. Troops should follow orders, and the morality of following those orders should never be questioned.

    I agree with you Bear.

    #360721

    Cookie
    Member

    LBOWACC wrote >>
    Troops should follow orders, and the morality of following those orders should never be questioned.

    Um, no.

    #360722

    Kirk
    Member

    I can tell LBOWACC has never served. The first week of basic training you get a pretty extensive class in the law of land warfare, that you are highly “encouraged” not to sleep through. You’re taught in that class what unlawful orders are and to disobey them and what you described is unlawful.

    I personally favor as much homogeneity in the military as possible. Men and women should live, eat, and sleep together. All the physical and grooming (yes that means girls should have the same haircut as the boys) standards should be the same and women should be included in combat arms occupations. If a women gets pregnant in a combat zone they as well as the man that impregnated her should be removed from service under other than honorable conditions as soon as practical. If your gay it shouldn’t really matter much because you’re going to look and act like every other soldier. So I guess they should make the policy a bit more comprehensive. Yes, include gay and lesbian service members but, make the standards and expected performance the same for everyone.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 135 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns with a “Curated Take Home Box Experience”

CLICK HERE TO PLACE YOUR ORDER