• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

Damn right, I say so!

My mother is white and my father is black. You bet I ****ing say so!

Uhuh and I'm one quarter Cherokee, Scottish, French, and German. Ask me if I give a crap about your opinion of the Missouri Partisan Rangers. Missouri saw the bloodiest action out of all the theaters of the war and called for guerilla tactics. My two ancestors rode with Quantrill's Raiders and served with distinction until their deaths during The Payback.
 
Uhuh and I'm one quarter Cherokee, Scottish, French, and German. Ask me if I give a crap about your opinion of the Missouri Partisan Rangers. Missouri saw the bloodiest action out of all the theaters of the war and called for guerilla tactics. My two ancestors rode with Quantrill's Raiders and served with distinction until their deaths during The Payback.

Oh yeah. Missouri saw the bloodiest tactics. That's why the war's bloodiest events happend in places other than, Missouri.

How does a person ride with Quantrill, and serve with distinction? He was a piece of **** and brought shame on the honorable soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.
 
Oh yeah. Missouri saw the bloodiest tactics. That's why the war's bloodiest events happend in places other than, Missouri.

How does a person ride with Quantrill, and serve with distinction? He was a piece of **** and brought shame on the honorable soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.

I see that you've bought in the Union propaganda regarding the Missouri Partisan Rangers. That explains everything to me. When I stated that Missouri saw the bloodiest action out of all the theaters of the war I meant it. In Missouri it was total and unrestrained warfare against everything and everyone. Civilians murdered by the US Army, their possessions looted, their counties put under martial law and breaking it meant instant firing squad, the burning of entire towns to the ground, and the destruction of pretty much every manufacturing plant and farm within its borders. No other state saw that much destruction for as along as Missouri did in the entire course of the war. Contrary to popular opinion, Quantrill did fight against only military targets and refused to attack civilians. It just happened that the US Army was cowardly and hide behind civilians in order to prevent from their positions from being attacked.
 
Oh yeah. Missouri saw the bloodiest tactics. That's why the war's bloodiest events happend in places other than, Missouri.

How does a person ride with Quantrill, and serve with distinction? He was a piece of **** and brought shame on the honorable soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.

Off topic but
HA!!! The word honorable and confederacy should never be in the same sentence.
 
I see that you've bought in the Union propaganda regarding the Missouri Partisan Rangers. That explains everything to me. When I stated that Missouri saw the bloodiest action out of all the theaters of the war I meant it. In Missouri it was total and unrestrained warfare against everything and everyone. Civilians murdered by the US Army, their possessions looted, their counties put under martial law and breaking it meant instant firing squad, the burning of entire towns to the ground, and the destruction of pretty much every manufacturing plant and farm within its borders. No other state saw that much destruction for as along as Missouri did in the entire course of the war. Contrary to popular opinion, Quantrill did fight against only military targets and refused to attack civilians. It just happened that the US Army was cowardly and hide behind civilians in order to prevent from their positions from being attacked.

Your revisonist history brings disgrace upon Conservatives. Change your politicale leaning to, "very Liberal". Please?
 
Off topic but
HA!!! The word honorable and confederacy should never be in the same sentence.

Another revisonist historian. You and "The_Patriot" have more in common than either of you know.
 
Off topic but
HA!!! The word honorable and confederacy should never be in the same sentence.

Do you enjoy being wrong all the time or is this just a hobby?
 
Off topic but
HA!!! The word honorable and confederacy should never be in the same sentence.

Some of the most honorable military figures in United States history served in the Confederate Army and Navy. What world do you live in?
 
Your revisonist history brings disgrace upon Conservatives. Change your politicale leaning to, "very Liberal". Please?

I notice that you didn't present proof to dispute my statement, instead you attack me. How quaint.
 
I notice that you didn't present proof to dispute my statement, instead you attack me. How quaint.

Present proof?

Ok...let's see... two words..."Lawrence, Kansas".

HELLO?!?!?!?
 
Wait, so a group of states that succeeded from the Union, and fought to keep the institution of slavery alive is honorable? You've got to be kidding me.
 
Present proof?

Ok...let's see... two words..."Lawrence, Kansas".

HELLO?!?!?!?

That is what they call The Payback in retaliation for the intentional collapse of a hotel in Kansas City, MO by the US Army. Inside of the hotel, were the immediate family members to certain notable officers in the Missouri Partisan Rangers like Bill Anderson. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas was to attack the US Army fort there and to arrest Unionist men for war crimes. Quantrill's Raiders attacked the fort only and left the civilian population alone. They specifically targeted prominent leaders like Senator James Lane. All told, during the fighting, 150 men had died on the Unionist side. Not a single woman or child was injured in the fighting. (Source) After The Payback, General Thomas Ewing (US Army) ordered the evacuation of four western Missouri counties, ass, Jackson, Bates and portions of Vernon, and burned them to the ground. (Source)

You were saying?
 
Wait, so a group of states that succeeded from the Union, and fought to keep the institution of slavery alive is honorable? You've got to be kidding me.

LOL Do you get your history from the back of a crackerjack box?

Slavery wasn't even one of the primary reasons for the civil war.

For God's sake do some research.
 
LOL Do you get your history from the back of a crackerjack box?

Slavery wasn't even one of the primary reasons for the civil war.

For God's sake do some research.

So the confederacy was getting rid of slavery? Please, stop trying to push your apologist history.
 
Wait, so a group of states that succeeded from the Union, and fought to keep the institution of slavery alive is honorable? You've got to be kidding me.

No offense, but many of those fighting in the Confederacy did not own slaves, and didn't even believe that they ever would. In fact, Virginia was intitially neutral towards the war, until the Union tried to draft Virginians to fight for their side and to insist on using Virginia to get to the other states. Many who fought for the Confederacy, actually fought more for state's soveignty than to maintain slavery.

I don't agree with seceding, but I also don't like how people miscontrue history. I know that we were all taught that the Civil War was about slavery, but that just isn't completely true. My husband is a huge Civil War buff, I have learned a lot since I've been with him. I am really glad the Union won, but that doesn't mean that I think all Confederate soldiers were wrong and/or scum or even that they were all racist.
 
No offense, but many of those fighting in the Confederacy did not own slaves, and didn't even believe that they ever would. In fact, Virginia was intitially neutral towards the war, until the Union tried to draft Virginians to fight for their side and to insist on using Virginia to get to the other states. Many who fought for the Confederacy, actually fought more for state's soveignty than to maintain slavery.

I don't agree with seceding, but I also don't like how people miscontrue history. I know that we were all taught that the Civil War was about slavery, but that just isn't completely true. My husband is a huge Civil War buff, I have learned a lot since I've been with him. I am really glad the Union won, but that doesn't mean that I think all Confederate soldiers were wrong and/or scum or even that they were all racist.

I'm not saying that they were all slave owners, I know very few people in the south actually owned slaves. But I wouldn't call them honorable, misguided fools would be the best term to describe most of the soldiers in the confederacy.
 
I'm not saying that they were all slave owners, I know very few people in the south actually owned slaves. But I wouldn't call them honorable, misguided fools would be the best term to describe most of the soldiers in the confederacy.

So was my family misguided fools after reading what the US Army did to them?
 
I'm not saying that they were all slave owners, I know very few people in the south actually owned slaves. But I wouldn't call them honorable, misguided fools would be the best term to describe most of the soldiers in the confederacy.

They were fighting for what they believed was a good cause. Many could have cared less whether slavery was legal or not, but they didn't like the idea of a strong central government. I don't think they were any more or less honorable than those soldiers fighting for the Union. They were just fighting to maintain their ideals. I personally disagree with their beliefs, for the most part (although there were some unfair taxes imposed on the South prior to the Civil War that I don't agree with), I still don't believe they were fools.
 
They were fighting for what they believed was a good cause. Many could have cared less whether slavery was legal or not, but they didn't like the idea of a strong central government. I don't think they were any more or less honorable than those soldiers fighting for the Union. They were just fighting to maintain their ideals. I personally disagree with their beliefs, for the most part (although there were some unfair taxes imposed on the South prior to the Civil War that I don't agree with), I still don't believe they were fools.

Yeah, some, but more people than not wanted to keep slavery in tact. And more people in the confederacy than not were racist. To fight for an institution that promoted slavery, is still wrong. No matter what you have rationalized in your head as another reason to fight for it. Yeah, they believed in what they were fighting for, but that doesn't make them honorable. They were misguided fools, no matter how you want to paint it.
 
Yeah, some, but more people than not wanted to keep slavery in tact. And more people in the confederacy than not were racist. To fight for an institution that promoted slavery, is still wrong. No matter what you have rationalized in your head as another reason to fight for it. Yeah, they believed in what they were fighting for, but that doesn't make them honorable. They were misguided fools, no matter how you want to paint it.

Slavery was perfectly legal in the US and the north was filled with racists. Racism was a fact of life on both sides with the north's solution was to ship the former black slaves back to Africa.
 
Yeah, some, but more people than not wanted to keep slavery in tact. And more people in the confederacy than not were racist. To fight for an institution that promoted slavery, is still wrong. No matter what you have rationalized in your head as another reason to fight for it. Yeah, they believed in what they were fighting for, but that doesn't make them honorable. They were misguided fools, no matter how you want to paint it.

I don't agree, on either point, because most didn't believe they were fighting to maintain slavery. Also, racism was no more prevalent in the South than it was in the North. It got to its worst in the South after the war, when the former slave owners were trying to deflect anger off of themselves and onto others. Those plantation owners figured if they turned the poor and working class whites against the newly freed slaves, that everyone would forget their part in the conflict at all and they could even use the fighting to their advantage when hiring people to work those plantations. They could even point to the North and its own problems with conflicts about race and available jobs. Racism actually got worse after the war, rather than prior to it. Especially where the Southerners who hadn't owned slaves were concerned.

And, as I said, Union soldiers were no more or less honorable in the Civil War than the Confederate soldiers. Many of the Union soldiers were fighting because they were either drafted or they wanted a paycheck. Most could care less what they were actually fighting for. (Obviously not true concerning those who were former slaves)
 
I support DADT. Anyone who doesn't is a hypocrite.

I support repeal of DADT. Anyone who doesn't is a hypocrite.

So many wrong things in this thread, I almost don't know where to begin. First off, the only way repealing DADT would cause an increase in sexual harassment cases is if gays are more likely to sexually harass some one. Good luck finding evidence to prove that.

Next, sodomy is a red herring. It is very rare for gays to be discharged for sodomy, since it is much harder to prove. Most DADT discharges are for saying one is gay. Next most common, engaging in hand holding/kissing of some one of the same sex. Sodomy requires being caught in the act, which means that it is in barracks, on ship, on some military installation, etc., so the person has already screwed up, since sex of any sort is not allowed.

Third, the whole commander asking thing is stupid. Right now, under DADT, a commander cannot ask, ever, if a soldier is gay. During a DADT investigation, a soldier can be asked if they said they where gay, engaged in gay activities, are married to some one of the same sex, but they cannot be asked "are you gay". This is related to another mistaken comment in this thread...being gay is not against the rules in the military now. You cannot be discharged for being gay, you can be discharged for doing something to admit you are gay, such as telling, engaging in homosexual acts, or getting married to some one of the same sex. It is not allowed for commanders to ask some one's orientation, and the soldier, while they cannot use such blunt language, can in essence tell that officer to go to hell, it's none of their business.
 
Actually, it's not. Have you spent time in a fighting position with a gay soldier? Have you spent time in a fighting position with any soldier? Again, be honest.

Actually it is. Of course if you want to limit everyone to discussing only issues that they have actual experience with, unless you are gay, you are not qualified to discuss what it is like to be gay in the military, how a gay person might act or be treated, or how they would react in some of the scenarios that you have presented. Further, unless you have served with an openly gay soldier or officer, anything you would say about THOSE scenarios is also irrelevant as you have no actual experience with them. See how this works? Drop the "I know because I was in the military" crap, or you'll get beaten by demonstrating that you have NOT experienced the scenarios that you have been discussing.
 
Back
Top Bottom