• 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!

How long until the US military fails?

How long until the US military fails?

  • Total voters
    39
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,961
Reaction score
58,542
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In light of today's passing of the repeal of DADT in the senate, how long until the US military fails?
 
It will not. To me the question is how long until women are allowed into co-ed combat units and how long until they have co-ed open bay showers.
 
I don’t think it’s a question of “fail”, I think it’s a question of whether this weakens the military.

I think this weakens our military.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I don’t think it’s a question of “fail”, I think it’s a question of whether this weakens the military.

I think this weakens our military.
Click to expand...

What about it exactly has weakened your military, and why hasn't this been seen in any other military that allows gays to serve openly?
 
GPS_Flex said:
I don’t think it’s a question of “fail”, I think it’s a question of whether this weakens the military.

I think this weakens our military.
Click to expand...

So you concede that men are cowardly and incapable of fulfilling their duties because they are easily distracted by what someone else does in their own home-life?

If I throw a 100$ bill out onto the theater floor will someone risk death to dive for it?

If I strip naked and swing my liberty bell for a little tune will someone be distracted enough to commit harikari?

If someone's not able to stick to their training in the face of a minor distraction - mental or otherwise - then they aren't a fit soldier worthy of the uniform - now are they?

Good bye.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
What about it exactly has weakened your military, and why hasn't this been seen in any other military that allows gays to serve openly?
Click to expand...

Didn't you know better hair makes you weaker?
 
Redress said:
Didn't you know better hair makes you weaker?
Click to expand...

Better sense of style and interior design, too.

It just goes to show that most people assume that "all fags are pink flamingos" - when most aren't that way.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So you concede that men are cowardly and incapable of fulfilling their duties because they are easily distracted by what someone else does in their own home-life?
Click to expand...

Strawman/irrelivant


Aunt Spiker said:
If someone's not able to stick to their training in the face of a minor distraction - mental or otherwise - then they aren't a fit soldier worthy of the unirform - now are they?
Click to expand...
No they aren't. So when a gay guy sues because his drill seargent was tougher on him than anyone else you will be the first in line to tell the gay guy to shut up and stick to his training right?
 
the day after the day after tommorow
 
GPS_Flex said:
What militaries?
Click to expand...

Well, lets see, Israel does, and they're still doing a pretty good job of holding on to their strip of land, and lookee here; it's a study the determined allowing gays to serve had no detrimental effect on the IDF. And here is a study conducted on the Australian military that showed allowing gays to serve openly had no detrimental effect. And here's a study for the Canadian military declaring exactly the same thing as the last two, gays serving openly has absolutely no detrimental effect on a militaries performance.

So, in your opinion, how will allowing gays to serve openly have a detrimental effect on the US armed forces?
 
GPS_Flex said:
What militaries?
Click to expand...
There are about 30 to 40 world wide; this was shown on MSNBC for about 5 seconds..These are the first rate, more advanced nations. In social matters, we seem to choose to be followers rather than leaders.

As to the adults , in the military -yes
in our Congress - no- many act like children, particularly the conservatives..
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Strawman/irrelivant
Click to expand...

LMAO you obviously dont know what a strawman is because that was a spot on question

it means if our serving men and women are so easily distracted in the ability to do their job we have MUCH bigger problems

common sense
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
In light of today's passing of the repeal of DADT in the senate, how long until the US military fails?
Click to expand...

You honestly think that our military is so namby-pamby that knowing there's a gay in one's platoon is going to make even a little bit of a difference? I don't think you know too many military men. They've got better things to do than thinking about who's boinkin' who.
 
MaggieD said:
You honestly think that our military is so namby-pamby that knowing there's a gay in one's platoon is going to make even a little bit of a difference? I don't think you know too many military men. They've got better things to do than thinking about who's boinkin' who.
Click to expand...

You should look at where I voted and notice the hint of sarcasm in my first post. :)
 
spud_meister said:
Well, lets see, Israel does, and they're still doing a pretty good job of holding on to their strip of land, and lookee here; it's a study the determined allowing gays to serve had no detrimental effect on the IDF. And here is a study conducted on the Australian military that showed allowing gays to serve openly had no detrimental effect. And here's a study for the Canadian military declaring exactly the same thing as the last two, gays serving openly has absolutely no detrimental effect on a militaries performance.

So, in your opinion, how will allowing gays to serve openly have a detrimental effect on the US armed forces?
Click to expand...

Because those countries don’t allow their members to sue the military for discrimination the way that the US does and this will further increase the military budget to deal with social issues rather than money spent on killing the enemy.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Strawman/irrelivant
Click to expand...

You're the one who says that it'll weaken the military.
You're suggesting what I wrote out in full: that men cannot fulfill their job duties and do what's necessary.

No they aren't. So when a gay guy sues because his drill seargent was tougher on him than anyone else you will be the first in line to tell the gay guy to shut up and stick to his training right?
Click to expand...

Issues like that happen all the damn time which is why a DS can't curse at soldiers among other things. - though technically it's not a lawsuit - it's a filed complaint - blah blah.

Or have you not been keeping up with military news in the last 20 years?
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Strawman/irrelivant


No they aren't. So when a gay guy sues because his drill seargent was tougher on him than anyone else you will be the first in line to tell the gay guy to shut up and stick to his training right?
Click to expand...

If the Drill Seargent did treat him differently than yes he would be liable under UCMJ, same as if he treated a black or white Soldier differently based on their race.

So do you have any MEASUREABLE ways to show that the military will be weaker. In other words have you measured now, and you will measure again at several points in the future, somethings that will show our military is weaker? In other words, do you have any data or did you just rip this turd straight from your ass? Because "I feel" is not an argument
 
GPS_Flex said:
Because those countries don’t allow their members to sue the military for discrimination the way that the US does and this will further increase the military budget to deal with social issues rather than money spent on killing the enemy.
Click to expand...

Right, if we see an increase in the amount of dixrimination lawsuits, I'll grant that as a valid point. But let me ask you this, do you think that'll cost more than booting out, say, a pilot that had served in 2 wars, and had had $25,000,000 spent on his training? And since DADT was implemented, it was discharged 13,000 personell, I think the collective cost of that is much higher than the cost of lawsuits.
 
Centrist77 said:
LMAO you obviously dont know what a strawman is because that was a spot on question

it means if our serving men and women are so easily distracted in the ability to do their job we have MUCH bigger problems

common sense
Click to expand...

It was an obvious strawman because I never anything about anyone getting distracted. I won’t allow you to color me a bigot so easily.
If you want to call me a bigot for having issues with what this legislation might do to our military, feel free to call me names.
If you want to have an adult conversation about it, don’t color me a bigot with your strawman questions.

How long have you been beating your wife, BTW?
 
spud_meister said:
Right, if we see an increase in the amount of dixrimination lawsuits, I'll grant that as a valid point. But let me ask you this, do you think that'll cost more than booting out, say, a pilot that had served in 2 wars, and had had $25,000,000 spent on his training? And since DADT was implemented, it was discharged 13,000 personell, I think the collective cost of that is much higher than the cost of lawsuits.
Click to expand...

That’s a good point. I hadn’t really considered that.

However, I can see the rewards for a single lawsuit being something insane like they were against tobacco companies or McDonalds etc. To be honest, I would support this legislation if I knew there was a fair way to prevent any kind of a “payday” lawsuit but it looks to me like we have opened up the ACLU lawsuit floodgates.


You make an excellent point and I plan to research and consider it more thoroughly.
 
GPS_Flex said:
That’s a good point. I hadn’t really considered that.

However, I can see the rewards for a single lawsuit being something insane like they were against tobacco companies or McDonalds etc. To be honest, I would support this legislation if I knew there was a fair way to prevent any kind of a “payday” lawsuit but it looks to me like we have opened up the ACLU lawsuit floodgates.


You make an excellent point and I plan to research and consider it more thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Those lawsuits wouldnt be mutli-million dollar events. I've never heard of the Army paying people money for a discrmination lawsuit, normally the goal of the accuser is simply to get the defendent kicked out of the military or serve jail time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom