Even though we have really different world views, neither of us are idiots.

Why is it wrong to kill an animal just because it's smart? Many animals kill animals that are just as smart or smarter than themselves. That's just their diet. Real life involves killing. Civilization has made so many people so sheltered. It's the way the world works.

Why do threads on stupid people getting justice always have one devil's advocate? I can understand in some instances, but I honestly don't care in this if it sets a precedent--we can reverse that later. For now, bring justice where justice is RIGHTFULLY DUE.

And amazingly the devil's advocate isn't me!

then why did people in the past seem to have no problem at all saying things like movies were not free speach, or a more recent example, that women dont have the right to an abortion?

That isn't idiocy, it's lack of compassion.

The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality

cannot speak. Many of the greatest minds of history would be squelched if this were true, not that these people are any of them. But if we make this exception fo

don't expect jedigandalf to understand, he hates freedom

I do huh?

I don't hate freedom. It is an excellent concept and our system of government, I think cannot get any better. However, I really do not think it can work if such hate-filled demonstrations and people are allowed to continue. Yes, as Emon has sad, the majority is not always right. See: United States of America pre 1970s-ish and "colored folk." Not our brightest moment. But equally letting these people continue their hateful rhetoric in the guise of protecting free speech for all isn't that great either.

Many said that freedom should be for all in the world or at least this nation. I think that is very bad. There are individuals/groups in the nation that really do not deserve freedom and must be silenced or shackled. WBC deserves no freedom. They wish to tear down human progress spread their hatred. In my eyes, they do not deserve their freedom and thus it should be revoked.

Freedom is for those who actually play nice with the other kids, not for the bullies that beat them up.

*your actions/text have shifted your alignment 3 points towards Lawful Evil*

I like internet

...
Even if some of the motivations of some people is from bigotry, remove those people, and nothing will change because women and open gay relationships have no place in a combat unit.
...

That's really not a good example of writing. It lacks grace and sounds stuffy. It's always the same when he's trying to sound pretentious.

Even though we have really different world views, neither of us are idiots.

That's really not a good example of writing. It lacks grace and sounds stuffy. It's always the same when he's trying to sound pretentious.

most african nations, most of western eroupe, canada, australia, new zealand, japan, many pacific island nations, and quite a few central asain nations would all disagree with you on the part about allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military. basicly, the list of nations that ban homosexuals from serving openly in the military is primarily made up of nations where homosexuality is illegal outright, or are just starting to give rights to GBLT people.

Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland all allow women to serve in all forms of military duty. most of the other nations that have major military forces are ones that are not going to be giving their policies away any time soon, or are countries where women are behind in a large number of rights.

WTF are you talking about? No countries allow women in all forms of military duty. None, zero, zip, Nada. Israel is probably the closest, many of my instructors when training with them were females (really, really, attractive Jewish women. They ARE my weakness) especially in the expert marksman programs.

Make no mistake, women are often in combat in Iraq these days. And not by Jessica Lynch style accidents either. We take women on presence patrols and raids, because only women are allowed to search the local women. They exchange fire and kill bad guys like anyone else. But only on these sorts of patrols, except in very large historical accidents.

I'm not going to tell you that women are not aggressive enough to be fighters. They can be as fine of fighters as anyone.

I am going to tell you this. I know men who will pick your ****ing house up, put it on their back, and walk to the moon. Every, single, time, that I have been in a unit with a woman, and we have gone on a road march/ruck hike/pack run, they have not been able to pull their weight. No matter how good of a runner they were, how many pull ups they could do, whatever. Most of them could out bench press me because I am a weak ***** and I still out marched them, because I am built for it.

But I can out walk them, and out run them with 120 pounds on my body any day of the week. Women do not have the musculature, or skeletal structure to sustain heavy load marches.

Israel also tried putting women in their commando units. It did not work. Men are naturally protective of women. There are exceptions, but this is especially true in the military where chivalry (although it is sometimes a farce) is a highly looked upon trait. When women in these commando units died, the unit's morale was destroyed.

I don't think women should be kept off the "front lines" because I want to protect them. **** that, they are people like anyone else and deserve the same care and protection I give to all of my Marines.

I don't think women should be kept off the "front lines" because they don't have the moral fiber (depravity, really) to kill someone. I've seen some girls who could certainly deal with killing another human.

I don't think women should be kept off the "front lines" because I am a bigot. They are not built for many of the tasks we undertake. There may be a few women in this world who are built enough to carry the loads we do. Those women are FAR fewer than you think. Mixing genders destroys unit morale. Look up the pregnancy rates in theater. Look up the rape rates stateside. Read about Israeli female deaths in combat. Grown men cry like babies when their male buddies die, they have complete breakdowns when female comrades die.

I think women should be kept off the "front lines" because combat is a ridiculous carnival of reality. Trying to introduce all the regular day-to-day tensions and concerns between the sexes is asking to introduce all of the civilized thought we go through each day. That is asking to remove the conditioning our fighters have gone through to be able to kill another human being. It's asking for ****.



I can ****ing give it to you all I want because it is 100% true. If you disagree with this you are wrong. Other countries may be able to make it work because of different cultures. That's awesome, that's great, woohoo, good for them. We are not those countries, it will not work for us. We have tried and it has failed. Do not tell me we have not tried either, because it isn't true. Women have attempted to become Special Forces operators. DID NOT WORK. Women have tried to become infantry lineman. DID NOT WORK. Do not suggest that women can perform the duties of the US infantryman unless you know what said duties entail. And you do not. Call of Duty and CS will not teach you anything about life in the military.

And because people seem to have the inability to read a piece of writing and summarize it for themselves, here you are.

Due to the current social state and culture of the United States military, open homosexuality is detrimental to the effectiveness of military units. By the same token, mixing genders in combat units has proven to be detrimental to the effectiveness of said units.

End of story.

spook, did you ever think that the problems with morale and other things when there is someone who is homosexual in the unit is caused by the constant stress caused by having to cover up who they are, even when not on active duty?

also, did you think that the reason that the US army has been doing so poorly in iraq and afganistan is because they use a methadology of get as many people in as possible that only have very basic training, instead of proper selection and giving them enough training (and equipment, which they are also trained in how to use). the fact is, that a heavily trained unit that is small in numbers will always do much better than just getting as many people as you can, giving them basic training, and putting them into combat.

and finaly, i have never even played CoD, and again, as i said, most of these problems are not caused by women being in the military, it is the fact that the US still seems to use the similar methadology of training and seting up that they used back when there was consription. They should put much more thought into just who they actualy recruit, where those people go, and stop extending the length that people serve while they are still serving. Getting told that you cannot go home (i know they can choose to stay, but the financial pressure on a number of people means that they cannot leave or their family not have enough money), after you have been expectiong to go home and see your family is a good thing.

Someone should add the word "army" after "us" in the thread title. I'm angry with spook because he's now discussing things I can't argue about, and now I don't get to have any fun.

You're just jealous you're not a tactical snob like me.

i am sure that if some tropps in certain groups told each other about even minor social viewpoints, friendships could be lost, and if there are people in the military who canot keep their personal beliefs from affecting their performance, then realy, the military may just not be the right place for them.

also spook, please tell me if your military is the best in the world, why hasnt it won the war yet? Also, the US military hasnt had a major desisive victory in war since world war 2, which they only joined part way in, and were only initialy wanting to participate on the pacific front, and only joined because germany declared war on them.

also spook, please tell me if your military is the best in the world, why hasnt it won the war yet?

...because doing so in a quick fashion would cost the lives of many innocent Iraqi civilians? Whereas al-Qaeda and similar organizations don't really care about the civilian cost, the U.S. military tries to mitigate the loss of civilian life. Thus, we can't do what would be necessary to completely wipe out the resistance, because the insurgents hide among the civilian population, whereas the insurgents don't care if they kill 40 civilians as long as they kill 10 coalition soldiers/workers.

(Note: I am in no way endorsing mass-bombings in Iraq)

It's not a war.

my point was that if they were the best army in the world, the resistance would not be able to function because the US would know where they were (know your enemy), not to mention they would also know how to win over the local population, reducing the number of new recruits the resistance gets.