What's new

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

I'm buzzed and not lucid enough to read and process this thread right now but my dad served in Vietnam (he still barely talks about it) and is a pacifist I would say.

Looks to me like lucidity is not a requirement for posting. And buzzed or not, you make more sense.

I understand the statement that opposing an unconstituional and unwise war is something that does "support" the proper use of military, which is not suppression of people in other countries who may present problems for "our" international corportates/oil cartels/ oil pipeline and drilling corporates like Cheney's Halliburton.

Being a "pacifist" opposed to useless foreign wars is not the same thing as being opposed to national security for Americans and protecting our freedom.
 
There are so many things that could potentially affect cohesiveness. People can have prejudive over race, background, where you live, religious background, or what you like. If you are professional though, you learn to get along, and work with others that are different. Let's face it there are a lot of things that can divide us besides being gay or straight. It's about how you carry yourself. If you are a solider you have a specific set of requirements. You aren't allowed to be sexual on duty in the military anyways. Things have changed. Watch AFN for 1 hour and you will see three commercials about sexual harrassment.

If a gay man or women is professional, and meets the requirements it's not his problem. If other people have a problem with someone different then they
are the ones hurting the group cohesiveness.
 
You equated being anti-war with spitting on, and generally not supporting, American soldiers.

I was attacking the idea that anti-war protesters showed their love and respect for the troops through their actions. They're mostly just politically motivated. You'll notice wars still continuing with Obama as president and yet not a peep out of the anti-war crowd.
 
Looks to me like lucidity is not a requirement for posting. And buzzed or not, you make more sense.

I understand the statement that opposing an unconstituional and unwise war is something that does "support" the proper use of military, which is not suppression of people in other countries who may present problems for "our" international corportates/oil cartels/ oil pipeline and drilling corporates like Cheney's Halliburton.

Being a "pacifist" opposed to useless foreign wars is not the same thing as being opposed to national security for Americans and protecting our freedom.

How does the military protect our freedoms? and how do they do so without engaging in wars with those who want to kill Americans?
 
Not a peep? You have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

pw_sign_14.gif
 
How does the military protect our freedoms? and how do they do so without engaging in wars with those who want to kill Americans?

When they come here to kill Americans.

just a few hints: when the Philippine government finds plans to hijack airlines and fly them into high-profile targets like the WTC, Pentagon, and Whitehouse, and gives you the information, you do something about it before it happens. Don't wait until you can use it as a provocation to start a war in a country not particularly relevant to the terrorists, but very relevant to our oil cartel.
 
When they come here to kill Americans.

just a few hints: when the Philippine government finds plans to hijack airlines and fly them into high-profile targets like the WTC, Pentagon, and Whitehouse, and gives you the information, you do something about it before it happens. Don't wait until you can use it as a provocation to start a war in a country not particularly relevant to the terrorists, but very relevant to our oil cartel.

Like what?
 
When they come here to kill Americans.

just a few hints: when the Philippine government finds plans to hijack airlines and fly them into high-profile targets like the WTC, Pentagon, and Whitehouse, and gives you the information, you do something about it before it happens. Don't wait until you can use it as a provocation to start a war in a country not particularly relevant to the terrorists, but very relevant to our oil cartel.

Agreed. Still don't know why Clinton avoided the issue and left it to Bush to figure out in the first 9 months of his presidency.

“In 1994, two jetliners were hijacked by people who wanted to crash them into buildings, one of them by an Islamic militant group. And the 2000 edition of the FAA’s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation, published this year, said that although Osama bin Laden ‘is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,’ adding, ‘Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.’”[4]

"The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in Brighton, UK.

[edited]

Forgot this one:

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/

"The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen."
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to convince us that you're dimwitted enough to fall for the most obvious propaganda, or am I missing something?

Who said this?

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
 
Like what?

Sounds like you missed the point.

There are folks right here at home who harbor ill designs against Americans. If they are just apolitical thieves/murderers/ the cops wait until they do something overt against the law. To go after them before they act is to create a police state with thought cops chasing phantoms or crimes that are just speculative possiblilities. If they are political enemies of the Constitution or the American government we at least have to obtain some objective proof of their plans before arresting/detaining them.

Iraq may have had some WMD, maybe even Russian advisors helping to set up the equipment/programs, maybe even had intentions to deploy these assets say against Israel, and obviously after the Desert Storm events they didn't like us much. But our actions there have not had an impact on Osama Bin Laden that I could be sure of, and the perpetrators of 9/11 had only incidental contacts with Iraqis. Saddam was not part of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attack.

We had about 40 relatives of Osama Bin Laden here in the US when 9/11 went down, and Bush cleared an airplane to fly them out of this country while all other air flights were grounded.

With an attack on US civilians like 9/11, we should have questioned the relatives of the known planner and organizer of the attack. We should have held these folks and demanded cooperation form governments in the Middle East to produce Bin Laden in exchange of these people, once we had determined they were not complicit and supportive of the attacks.

Pro-active militarism all over the world is not efficient to our security interests, our freedom, or our relations with other nations. Particularly when we neglect to secure our borders and act on intelligence reports about planned terrorism against our people.

Sending cruise missiles to take out every human being with a negative impression of the world cops is just over the top.
 
Sounds like you missed the point.

There are folks right here at home who harbor ill designs against Americans.

If they are political enemies of the Constitution or the American government we at least have to obtain some objective proof of their plans before arresting/detaining them.

With an attack on US civilians like 9/11, we should have questioned the relatives of the known planner and organizer of the attack. We should have held these folks and demanded cooperation form governments in the Middle East to produce Bin Laden in exchange of these people, once we had determined they were not complicit and supportive of the attacks.

Question relatives? All the FBI had to do was issue a search warrant for Moussaoui's computer (<---had the 9/11 plot on it) based on the following information:

1-he refused to consent to a search of his computer
2-he was in flight school
3-he had overstayed his visa
4-he was Muslim
5-he affiliated with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups in Europe

Anything on there stick out as possible probable cause?

1-he had a right to refuse the search
2-no
3-no
4-not allowed
5-everyone muslim who attended a mosque in Europe had the same offiliation
 
If part of this job is to actually read all 21 pages of this, I'm not sure I want it anymore
 
this discussion has taken more twists and turns than the Ho Chi Mihn Trail

DADT is still in the trail. Why are we fighting anyway, what are our national security threats anyway, why can't GLBT folks help us find the right answers anyway. Sure we are polarized as a people with so many issues we can't simply do our national business like keep Americans safe from foreign threats.

I think the problem has to do with progressive agenda pushers(not identically GLBT folks necessarily, just ideologued wishing to exploit the issues) getting in the mix and using a bad situation to further their causes. Yes, if there were no wars going on, the campaign would be going forward anyway, just not in little caravans of APCs in the hot deserts of western Asia/middle east, just not involving fears of sexual attacks in dark latrines in the middle of the night and soldiers dying from dehydration because they don't wanna hafta "go" in the dark. And if not for our actual deployments of soldiers in harms' way, the military brass would have a different equation about what they can reasonably do. Back on topic DADT.
 
If part of this job is to actually read all 21 pages of this, I'm not sure I want it anymore

hang in there. The reasson the "job", I assume you are a new moderator or something, is worth doing is because we need someone who doesn't really care who wins the thread debate just cares to keep it civil and in line with the forum rules.
 
Millspa, do you think our armed forces are now ruined as a result of the recent decision?
 
Back
Top