Only clueless RINOs like HotAir's Allahpundit or hostile Liberal Democrats could find letting openly gay military personnel serve to be a wise social policy. The first are clueless SWPL folks, the latter profoundly hostile to every institution that supports America. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the Military will be an unmitigated disaster that will cost America dearly. Barack Obama would not have it any other way, but the larger issue is the stupidity of the RINOs who want to have their social liberalism and a functioning America. PC does indeed make you stupid.
As Ann Coulter noted, Bradley Manning is the poster child for letting gays serve openly in the military. Manning was by all accounts, a first-class screw up. But was protected because he was gay, even with DADT. Manning gave Wikileaks the confidential data, including classified diplomatic cables, military documents, and video, because he was angry over his break up with his Drag Queen Boyfriend.
This is the reality of Gay Life. Gays, are not, by and large, respectable, middle class, sober, and staid men who merely like to have sex … with other men. They tend to be like Bobby Trendy than John Wayne. Gay men are largely, flamboyant, emotional, flighty, and lacking in any real discipline. They are poor security risks (being ruled as Manning shows, by emotions and pique) even if they are serving openly. Gays are in short, far closer to one giant hissy fit from betraying their country over a break-up with a Drag Queen, than they are from John Basilone style sacrifice.
For this, we must blame Hollywood. People like Allahpundit simply reflexively accept whatever is shown on the screen. Lacking any real knowledge of gays (not attending say the Folsom Street Fair chronicled by "Zombie" of "Zombietime") squishy RINOs view whatever TV and movies depict as accurate and reflective of reality. The "nice" and staid, sober Gay guys are in reality, all variants of Bobby Trendy, to greater or lesser degree. While staid, sober, and responsible Gay men do exist, they are about as rare as Black Republicans. Just as the reality of Lesbianism is reflected by Rosie O'D0nnell, not Alyson Hannigan playing "Gay Now!" Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
The arguments of the pro-gays in the military camp are: 1. It is inevitable, because public opinion supports it, 2. it is like Desegregating the military under Truman, 3. other militaries like the Netherlands do this, and 4. the courts will do it anyway.
Is this inevitable? Nope. America has wanted its borders secure since the early 1990's, and the widespread majority support for building a massive border fence and deporting every illegal we can, has been stymied ever since. Americans tend to be deferential to serving combat military on what they need in terms of manpower, how the men are mustered and organized, and disciplined. Most Americans moreover are capable of being persuaded …
That Gays in the military are not like Desegregating the military. Because Black and White guys did not want to have sex with each other. In particular, ordinary White women can be told, it is like every icky Beta male lusting after you, now protected and able to "order you" on pain of facing death in battle to service them. Gays in the military GUARANTEES gay sexual harassment. With Gays protected, basically immune the way Muslims are, because of PC and multiculturalism and diversity, all of which have the force of law (one of the fruits, intended or not, of the Civil Rights movement).
The whole point of Civil Rights was to promote "fairness" and "equality" by discriminating against White men (later Straight White Men as the Gay Liberation movement gained power) in favor of everyone else: Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and of course, Gays and Lesbians. This means, as a practical and legal matter (including many Supreme Court decisions) Straight White guys have very few rights, almost none, against those higher in the "protected class" totem pole. Protected Class means in practice, that Major Hassan could scream that he wanted to cut off the heads of infidels, at Army conferences, and nothing was done until he shot and killed 14 people. Because he was part of the Protected Class (as was Bradley Manning).
The only type of Gay guy who joins the military, overwhelmingly, if we are honest, are those desiring sex with other men, in a hot-house, near male only environment. Most gays go into fashion, design, advertising, and other gay-friendly "flamboyant" occupations in civilian life. Sure, there are a few sober, patriotic gays. Just like there is at least one Chinese born Center in the NBA. But extrapolating from the Yao Mings of the world (rare, outlier folks) to the average is the mark of weak minds desperate to keep the PC myths they see on TV and movies, alive.
The flood of gays in the military will harass (with PC/Protected Class impunity) all the straight guys below them rank and power. Again, this is something Jane Average White girl can understand if put to her bluntly. As well as Joe Sixpack already getting it. The Marines in particular understand this. They don't want to share close, personal space for months, with a guy who wants to have sex with them.
For the simple reason that straight men find gay sex repulsive. Even more repulsive than straight women find the idea of having sex with beta males.
Ending DADT is not like Desegregating the military. Because put bluntly, White and Black soldiers did not want to have sex with each other, the other side being repulsed and unwilling. Marines view it as akin to Prison Rape. Which it is.
Yes, other militaries have openly gay soldiers. They also have pretend, toy militaries incapable of fighting their way out of a paper bag. The Dutch Peacekeepers surrendered Srebenica to Miladic and did nothing to stop the massacre. Because they had a pretend, toy military oriented towards politically correct gay soldiers, not an effective fighting force.
You can have a PC-driven, gay military. With tons of Bobby Trendys, and not much else. Or you can have the US Marine model. Not very PC, fairly brutal, but quite effective in molding an effective fighting force. No effective, large, and powerful military has gays serving openly. Yes, you can't eat all the chocolate you want and not get fat. And you cannot have gays in the military, serving openly with a fighting force actually capable of fighting. And winning.
But the saddest thing of all is a refusal to pick a fight with the courts. While it is true that the Executive, and Congress both have limits, and cannot do everything, rule everything, and regulate everything, the same is true for the courts. Courts cannot order military policy. It is outside their purview. Which is not universal. Judges are not god-like philosopher kings ordering everything in modern life. There are limits, and the public is well disposed to side with the military against Judges, often un-elected, extending their authority to the point of personally taking charge of say, the next Battle of Midway.
So what is likely to happen?
First, every active duty military personnel who can leave when their enlistment is up, will. Gay soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are like dumping Bobby Trendy as a protected and highly disruptive force right into a firefight. The military cannot make it work because it cannot be made to work. Already stretched thin and abused, by a hostile Media, Democratic Party, "activists" (anti-American elitists), and lawyers, most of the combat force is likely to quit. Gays being a burden just too much to tolerate. If you were in combat would you sign up again for having to protect a Bobby Trendy trying to have sex with you every night?
And, mission accomplished, no more effective US fighting force. Except nukes. Which will be all that a fabulously hip, cool, edgy, politically correct nation will have left for its defense. No more kicking the can down the road, with limited use of combat troops alongside proxies to keep the lid on regional flashpoints that threaten to become global ones. Instead, EVERY conflict will nuclear, or result in abject US surrender of strategic objectives. This pattern of Western Weakness has been seen before: 1932-39. It is unlikely to end any better than the last time.
Western people want to live in John Lennon's "Imagine." A fantasy of PC utopia where no human conflict exists, and everyone is so hip and cool and "at the end of history." A desire fueled by the desperate need to avoid conflict, at any and all costs. Which results in Western weakness, and conflict anyway. Merely at greater cost. So moral superiority and status-mongering can take center stage. Perhaps this is inevitable in societies that produce staggering amounts of wealth and tend to have, in one form or another, minor aristocracies over and over again.
But the world is not built this way. Gays in the military means a military that does not work. Is at best a toy, play military useful for parades and social engineering but nothing else. One that is "fabulous" but fighting-effective.
Posts
39 comments:
Wow.
What a hateful bigoted, not very smart screed.
Perhaps, Mr. Genius Whiskey you could riddle me two questions:
A. How do the poor straights stuck in the military with gay guys already there survive? Ohhhhhhhhhhh..I think I KNOW the answer you are going to give. Let me see if I'm wrong.
B. Gays already are mistreated and harrassed in the military. Why haven't one of these pinko commie fags (to use YOUR terminology, I'm sure)already long ago leaked and leaked and leaked? Why isn't there a positive well-known epidemic of gay guys betraying their country?
I think I know why. It's because you are full of hot air and too much whiskey.
As to whether gays can effectively serve openly in a military, I could point out the ancient Spartans.
Finally, to answer your question about why THIS is inevitable and immigration reform isn't: there's no significant political interests lined up against the repeal as opposed to the many interests who benefit from the cheap labor and votes that illegal immigrants bring.
Clarence
Both Whiskey's and annonymous's comments are worth what they had to pay to post them - nothing.
These rants are an indulgence in narcissism. Can we get back to the real world now?
Serving in the military is a privilege and not a right.
The conservative response has been a non-committal "meh".
Oh, and I await the inevitable billion dollar discrimination, harassment/whatever lawsuits from liberal law firms on behalf of gay soldiers looking to get paid.
Whiskey, just from reading comments by former and current military men, I think very few personnel will quit over this. But no one is asking questions about how this will work in practice. Will it be grounds for discharge if you proposition someone you work with, for example.
I wonder why it is hateful to acknowledge that human biology finds gay relationships distasteful at best. As a student of military history, I can not recall a historical precedent for this. People point to Sparta as a gay superpower, but they forget that it was Athens that ended up dominating the Mediteranean. Demographics is destiny and the enshrinement of Gay culture discourages the birth of the next generation in numbers large enough to continue the local culture by PC promotion such as this (by implicating that parents are both environmentally and socially unacceptable) or onerous taxes that make child bearing financially unaffordable thus reducing the numbers for the military 25 years later. As a black man the only fault I can really find with this is the focus of White Men, being black and middle class everything said here is more or less accurate depending on a persons upbringing and biological drives regarding their views on gay sex. But the fact is no nation has ever survived any length of time as a major power without being conquered by promoting gay sex lifestyle.
Lot of fairies here givin you shit,huh?
You put my thoughts into words better than I could have.
All I know about gays from my encounters with them is that they sexually harass every guy, straight or not, within their field of vision.
I've had gays sexually assault me after I made it explicitly clear that their attentions were not wanted and that I would bust their fuckin heads open for trying any faggoty shit on me.
Then I have to beat a fag's ass and people call me a gay-basher or a homophobe. Like I'm supposed to put up with some faggot trying to grope my balls to prove how "progressive" I am.
If the little motherfuckers don't have enough respect for me to honor a very simple request like keep your fucking hands to yourself,fuck no,I don't have any respect for them. Gays are fucking obnoxious sexually-harassing assholes. They try to paint us all as imagining this shit or making it up because we're "backwards" or something, but every faggot I've ever met has risked getting his head stomped in to sexually grope or harass me against my will and I can't believe that's just bad luck.
I feel for the dudes in the military because now they'll have to set up claymores to keep the sick fucks from trying to suck their dicks while they're asleep in addition to worrying about the enemy cutting their throats.
"Gays already are mistreated and harrassed in the military."
Of course you are, you won't keep your fucking hands to yourself. That pisses people off. I don't give a fuck what you do to each other at your gay bars or in your homes but you don't put your hands on me or I will cut them off. I don't even hug my father. I don't like ANYBODY touching me, let alone some faggot.
I understand perfectly why the "poor" little faggots get mistreated, they're all one step away from a fucking shower rape on a straight guy and then want to pretend it's no big deal and the STRAIGHT people are being unreasonable. You motherfuckers are completely impossible to deal with in any civil sense, the only option left is to actually KILL you,because as my experience has taught me,not even stomping a mudhole in your ass will keep you from getting up to your stupid faggoty shit.
Gays will get my respect when they learn that "I'M NOT GAY,KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS TO YOURSELF" means "I'M NOT GAY,KEEP..YOUR..FUCKING..HANDS..TO YOURSELF!!!!"
Very good article, but this is not the problem you think it is, Whiskey.
1) Openly gay soldiers will drive minorities out of the military. No black or hispanic wants to go back to his homies and cholos and get asked if some queer hit on them. This will reduce the incidence of non-whites getting military training.
2) Combat-trained white male soldiers will leave the military and go work for Diligence or Blackwater or some other emergent private contractor. Not only does this shift money toward white male dominated industries, it will also raise the effectiveness of combat operations. No problems with a pesky Uniform Code of Military justice or silly rules of engagement.
3)Abuse, openly-gay soldiers will simply get "Tilman-ed" in the field, just like the football star who tried to pull a John Kerry on US troops.
Ahh, but "no means no" only applies to women. Men aree exempt from any consideration because they're historical oppressors.
That's how the logic goes. That's how they can justify getting away with anything up to murder as long as the victim was white and male.
On another tack, I noticed you didn't mention Israel's army, Whiskey? It throws a but of a spanner in the "all armies with open gays are useless" because the Israeli army has always had gays in it. Of course the difference is that they're required to serve rather than merely allowed to serve. I bet if there was a similar National Service arrangement in the US, gays would be demanding to be let out for exactly the same reason they're currently using to get in.
It seems unlikely that there will be an en-masse quitting, particularly not in the current economic climate.
The danger to the military is not a short term one but it is real. Young men who join the military have often made their decisions hearing stories of military life from older friends and relatives. What sort of stories are young men thinking of joining up ten years from now going to hear?
Individual homosexuals who have served whilst "closeted" may come out and may be respected officers or enlisted men. This may mitigate against an immediate loss of personel, but long term as the MSM lionizes the first openly gay [insert rank/honour here] over and over again, the view of the military amoungst the people who ordinarily volunteer expecting to be in the infantry will change.
For those in support roles the military will be like working at the DMV with fancy dress. More and more that attitude will come to infect the combat units. Whiskey's "toy military" will become a reality.
One more point: I'd caution against saying it's going to be an immediate disaster because those who support the change will be able to turn around six months later and say; nothing happened.
Both Whiskey's and annonymous's comments are worth what they had to pay to post them - nothing.
These rants are an indulgence in narcissism.
Nonsense. Utter claptrap devoid of any reasonable position whatsoever. You side step the whole issue to inject what can only be called a "non-opinion". It is you that engage in narcissism.
Ot is certainly not whiskey, who has the stones to tell it like it is. He is right n target. You evidently like the moral courage to even debate him.
The "Anonymous" you cite, does join you in your narcissism, of that you are right, but you are only correct by accident.
Wow.
What a hateful bigoted, not very smart screed.
You are projecting.
It is you that are chuck full of inappropriate hate: Hatred for you nation and civilization; hatred for all that is good, decent and true.
You evidently have hatred for even basic reading skills for Whiskey preemptively addresses all of your so-called "objections" in his post. You are either too dimwitted or too blinded by your vile Leftist ideology to see this.
It is not hard, BTW, to anticipate your "objections" for they are just standard talking points of the hard left propagandists out there whose work it is to manipulate "useful idiots " such as yourself. They are not "yours" at all.
Your enemies (and they are your enemies, even if you are too befuddled to understand that) understand your immaturity and vanity quite well and use it against you (and your nation and civlization). This is clearly shown by little tantrums they manage to prompt from you: Perhaps, Mr. Genius Whiskey you could riddle me two questions:
You just repeat their talking points reflexively--even your tone and ad homimen rhetorical dodges are put in your mouth by them.
You play the role of a nitwitted, masochistic clown here, being lead to the slaughter by his own pompous self-importance,immaturity and imbecility.
In doing so you play your part in destroying this once great nation.
You are blithering idiot
Shame on you. One day, when you grow up, you will feel that shame, or at least I pray that you do.
Individual homosexuals who have served whilst "closeted" may come out and may be respected officers or enlisted men.
Ah...No they will not be "respect"; they will be despised and detested. That s the whole point.
In fact, in a real and uncontrollable combat situation they will be fragged by their own troops.
They may respect gays in whatever Starbucks you hang out in, but real men have nothing but contempt for such thing.
What idiocy.
(To the poster who mentions comments he saw by alleged military personnel.)
How do you know that those comments are actually from military people? How do you know if they have the job of training assault units and leading them into combat? Do they have real combat experience? What is the depth and breathe of their experience? How do you know, for example, that they are not just 20 something Jr. NCO's in support units?
Really, don't you think it is a rather poor way to evaluate things?
What if you are wrong? It is certainly counter intuitive that this will boost moral, reenlistment or recruitment.
Sounds to me like you have been manipulated, that you have been pulled into the whole Cultural Marxist black hole--manipulation "public opinion" to push moral relativism and moral equivalence.
Anonymous wrote:
In fact, in a real and uncontrollable combat situation they will be fragged by their own troops.
That's a not-unheard-of fate for incompetent superior officers who have gotten their men needlessly killed. Think of what might happen to a captain who sodomized one of his subordinates.
What's with all the Anony Mouses? Glad to see you're getting notorious enough to have your own trolls, Whiskey.
We should all be inured to lying politicians, but it has really raised my ire to hear Obama repeatedly call DADT a "policy which *harms* national security.” I'm even angrier at the politician-generals who have sold out their troops to advance their careers by earning diversity credits. I hated Schwarzkopf from the time I heard him describe military women as “combat multipliers”.
I laughed, in a sadly bitter way, at your line about sober gays being akin to black Republicans and Chinese NBA centers. I do draw some comfort from the fact that, as many netizens are noting, ending DADT does not mean that gay sex will become a staple of military life. Peer pressure will still keep outward displays of flamboyancy out of the barracks – in theory.
I say in theory because in my view the best point you raise is the one about homosexuals representing a politically favoured group, much higher on the totem pole than the Southern, rural whites who dominate the armed forces. How gays' protected status will alter the military dynamic remains to be seen. I hope it won't.
Gays , gays,gays-it has become a litany-ad nauseum. Enough already please !! If they do their jobs in a professional manner and keep their sexuality to themselves so be it. I have no problem with them in that case.
Interesting post Whiskey. I especially like this passage:
"The flood of gays in the military will harass (with PC/Protected Class impunity) all the straight guys below them rank and power. Again, this is something Jane Average White girl can understand if put to her bluntly. As well as Joe Sixpack already getting it. The Marines in particular understand this. They don't want to share close, personal space for months, with a guy who wants to have sex with them.
For the simple reason that straight men find gay sex repulsive. Even more repulsive than straight women find the idea of having sex with beta males."
I've leveraged it in a post scheduled for tomorrow over at my place.
I think you're exaggerating the potential impact of this, Whiskey. Homosexuals will probably remain a small minority of the armed forces; the current demographics & social orientation of the military (rural/macho-urban, Jacksonian, meritocratic) are anathema to many gays, who are either coastal elites (most of the one's I've known) or mid-american faux-elites (Bradley Manning himself, who railed against his "provincial" small town neighbors for not "accepting" him). A statistically insignificant number of gays will rush to enlist and will soon be deterred the regimentation and discipline. Not to mention the social ostracism once the fun of flaunting their orientation wears off. All the lawfare in the world can't compel respect, and military communities are quite good at ostracizing misfits peacefully.
The military tends to be slightly more homosexual to begin with during times like the present, when there is no large scale mobilization (two small wars being fought by professional, non-draftee forces). In fact the military may have been more homosexual during the interwar years of 1919-1941 than it is now. During the 1920's there was a massive sodomy scandal involving many sailors in the Pacific fleet. Sailors were stock homosexual characters in pre-WWII American pop culture. The male Navy officer corps and Army nurses of the 30's and 40's were described as mostly gay & lesbian - probably an exaggeration, but not wholly baseless. Many of the career "warhorses" in the Navy and Marines who fought in Central America and Haiti were confirmed or probable homosexuals (MOH winner "Red Mike" Edson of Guadalcanal, for instance). And yet despite the presence of so many gays, the Navy & Marines outfought the Emperor's best throughout 1941-45.
The main objective at present should be to prevent any type of "lawfare" or special treatment of gays. Stricter prohibitions on fraternizing & more extensive psychological screening (to prevent future Mannings) will probably be helpful. Even without them, the development of any sort of "gay" military culture in our already conservative military will likely be retarded, as it always has been historically, if and when a future military expansion occurs. As usual, the careerists will be "diluted" with a cross section of mainstram (and decidedly non-homosexual) American males. Not to mention the fact that more of these males will come from Central/South American cultures where homosexuals are even less common (and much more despised) than they are in the US.
First Anon --
I have no problem with gays living their private lives. I don't want a gay witch-hunt either. I'm fine with gays dominating fashion, entertainment, and other sectors, though I will note their cost: a culture hostile to Beta Males and an ugly Disney Princess Factory.
When it comes to National Defense, the rights of Gays to be absolutely fabulous ends with my desire for a robust protection of America's interests. I don't want to spend $20 a gallon for gas because America's Gay Friendly Military can no longer produce a proxy war deterrent ala "hold the line" in Afghanistan. Like it or not, Gays are far more towards Bobby Trendy than they are Sgt. Rock. A gay-friendly Military simply ceases to function. Leaving Nukes or Nothing. A total disaster. Switzerland and the Netherlands can afford a Gay Military -- they don't have to send out expeditionary forces to protect America's interests: cheap gas/oil, control of key sea lanes.
Sparta is a poor example to choose, based as it was on ... SLAVERY. Spartan warriors spent their entire lives training for warfare and fighting. Meanwhile a huge slave class did all the work in the fields, while serving as human targets for killing practice.
We had one civil war over slavery. We don't need another.
Israel's Army has not been very effective the more Gay Friendly it has become. Compare/Contrast the Six Day War (few Gays, mostly hardened Sabras) vs. the fiasco in Lebanon.
People who point to ancient Sparta as an example should also explain whether they're ready to adopt Sparta's brutal training methods.
Let me add, there is a huge difference between gays in the civilian workplace, where everyone goes home every night, and the military, where guys are right up against each other in tight quarters, in brutal discipline, often in dangerous combat.
It is one thing for your gay cubicle neighbor to go home and do whatever he does, be it watch Nurse Jackie or the Folsom Street Fair. It is another for that behavior to occur, unpunished, and PROTECTED (as it will be, inevitably) aboard a Navy Ship, or Marine Firebase.
As to whether gays can effectively serve openly in a military, I could point out the ancient Spartans.
No, I think you mean Thebes.
It's only a matter of time before an officer's right of "first night" (it sounds better if French) is affirmed by the courts.
Captcha can't discourage hate speech, apparently.
One aspect advocates of DADT repeal ignore is the medical. Gays are host to numerous maladies because of their sexual behaviors. Are the medical corps or VA over-staffed and in need of patients? Or did AIDS, Syphilis, and Gonorrhea suddenly disappear and I missed the news?
Soldiering is honourable, homosexuality is not.
The coin has been cheapened.
I doubt you'll see a huge flood of male homosexuals into the military for the same reason you don't see a lot of homosexuals in other physically intense jobs: they tend to not like that stuff. You'll see a bunch of nyah-nyah stories, and six months down the road Andy S. will say "See, the world didn't fall apart!". And he'll probably be right, unless we start seeing tolerance of gay harassment, at which point, recruitment will fall. I don't think that will happen, though. The military is very concerned about this issue, so they'll be working on it.
The big influx will be on the female side, and there you will see a drop in straight female recruitment. Lesbians are more a natural match for the military, and they'll have double PC protection, being both women and gay, but since women have little value in the military beyond puffing up headcounts, it won't make too much difference.
Homosexuals serving openly will like having women go through basic training with men (and eventually serve in combat) are agents of chaos.
One day, are ever more PC military will meet a well equipped, trained, and very non-PC enemy. I fear my country will face a defeat that will never recover from.
"The big influx will be on the female side, and there you will see a drop in straight female recruitment. Lesbians are more a natural match for the military, and they'll have double PC protection, being both women and gay, but since women have little value in the military beyond puffing up headcounts, it won't make too much difference."
Sorry, but I know this question is on everybody's mind....Do you think the openly rug-munching "soldiers" will still suck dick for promotions or get pregnant to avoid deployment or will women have to actually compete on a level playing field for once?
Sparta is a false analogy: their "homosexuality" was a product of tribal superstitions about transmitting courage from a veteran to a youngblood through insemination (similar ideas can be found in many archaic societies). See Spartan Reflections by Paul Cartledge, chapter 8 ("The politics of Spartan pederasty") for more info. "Tolerance" for different "lifestyles" had absolutely no part in the custom.
"On another tack, I noticed you didn't mention Israel's army, Whiskey? It throws a but of a spanner in the "all armies with open gays are useless" because the Israeli army has always had gays in it."
Nope. Israel's army prohibited open gays from serving until about the mid-90s. They studied the situation and concluded it wasn't that big of a deal.
Anecdotally, gays tend to serve in support or office capacities close to home and far from combat. Combat units are ferociously competitive and nowadays mostly headed by a "knitted kippa" religious officer corps, who have the discretion of picking and choosing soldiers in their unit. Not likely an open homosexual would make it into one of these units.
"As to whether gays can effectively serve openly in a military, I could point out the ancient Spartans."
The Spartans weren't what we'd call gay. The ancient Greeks were highly militarized pederasts.
I don't want to spend $20 a gallon for gas because America's Gay Friendly Military can no longer produce a proxy war deterrent ala "hold the line" in Afghanistan.
LOL. No. If we let Afghanistan go back to the dogs, oil prices won't go to $20/gal. First, if prices were seriously going in that directions, tar sand production would kick in, along with Obama just about breaking his neck to flip-flop on his deep-sea drilling moratorium. Just look at what he did with the tax rates when faced with the consequences.
Really, this whole think will represent a drag on our efficiency more than a wrench in the gears. Think of a corvette. If you add some dead weight, it'll slow down, but still be a fast car. Letting women in was like adding a 200 lb bag of sand in the back seat. Gays will be somewhere between a 10-25 lb bag, depending on the transition. It won't help efficiency, but it probably won't kill the machine either.
" Israel's Army has not been very effective the more Gay Friendly it has become. Compare/Contrast the Six Day War (few Gays, mostly hardened Sabras) vs. the fiasco in Lebanon."
Whiskey, this is completely stupid. First of all, Israel's army isn't gay friendly. Comparing the Six Day War with the 2nd Lebanon war is just ludicrous. In the Six Day War, the whole country felt as if it would die if they didn't respond. The Lebanon War was poorly planned. Even so the Israelis fucked up Lebanon but good and the Lebs won't be coming back for a second helping any time soon.
Agree with most of what Whiskey's saying here, especially the coming "pretend army" - we're halfway there already. The integration of black soldiers isn't exactly as wonderful as everyone likes to say. I've been there.
A ton of black soldiers aren't really suited to be in the army, there are a lot of ghetto-thug "baby-daddy" types who preach the usual "man keepin' me down" and "white man's army" BS.
These guys aren't going to run in and take a bullet for Whitey, especially since their political leaders (Rangel, Jesse Jackson etc), ministers, favorite rappers and TV/movie stars have been telling them since birth that all their problems and failures are the fault of white men in general and American white men in particular.
Hell, not only THEIR problems, but the entire world's problems! Why are people in Haiti starving? White Americans refused to help them build a stable society. Why are Cubans starving? White Americans embargoed them. Why are North Koreans starving? White Americans won't let the two Koreas work out their issues alone, without American interference. And so on.
Then you have the black women who join up, immediately get pregnant, and use their four year enlistment as an improved form of single-mom welfare (yes, I know it's not just black women who do this).
So yes, between black dysfunction, female entitlement mentality, and gay dysfunction, we're going to have a very PC/welfare army pretty soon. This will also leave the door open for transgender soldiers dressing up in Class A skirts for parade and other such ridiculousness.
As to Whiskey's comment about "nuclear or nothing," what makes you think we would ever use nukes? No one will ever attack the US in a straight-up fight again, at least not until we have gotten far more decadent and deteriorated than we are now.
Our enemies can only fight the US in two ways:
A) Lure US forces into "quagmires" around the world where they can hide among the gen pop and pick off soldiers a few at a time until US public opinion turns agains the war and the troops are withdrawn. Then our enemies can claim vistory and consolidate power in their own nations. This is already going on in Af/Pak/Iraq, obviously.
B) Smuggle dirty bombs, nukes, or Mumbai-style assault teams into the US and use them.
Neither of these strategies allows US leaders an excuse to use nukes in response. For option A, we can't nuke an entire city of 100,000 just because 5,000 jihadis are hiding there. (Actually I'd say we CAN, but our leaders aren't ready for that).
For Option B, the Mumbai assault team killing a few dozen civvies or a small dirty bomb would not provoke a nuclear response - it would be condemned by the UN as "disproportionate." Even if a nuke went off on US soil, how could we be sure who was behind it?
Even if we could ID the plutonium's signature as being from Pakistan for example, the Pakis would surely say it was stolen from them (by the Iranians perhaps?), and maybe that would even be the truth. Are we ready to incinerate a million people who had nothing to do with the attack, on a "maybe?" Our politicians certainly aren't.
Even if we did unequivocally know that the Saudis, for example, had detonated the nuke we would never nuke in response. The Saudis would arrogantly threaten us with a "second hidden device," and our leaders would fold like the empty suits they are. Our Leftist cohort would also agitate against any retaliation saying that (White) America deserved the attack for our many evil/oppressive acts throughout history.
Bottom line: The US will never nuke anyone short of an incoming flight of multiple ICBMs (which will also never happen). So the choice between "nuclear or nothing," in fact means we will have nothing. Nothing to deter attacks on us or our interests around the globe.
Whiskey's toy military is already here with blacks, females and now gays crying about their rights, rights and rights. Liberals are destroying the West with their ideals of non-discrimination, equality, multiculturalism, 'progress', tolerance, open-mindness, diversity and what not. The military has already degraded since the 70's thanks to the cult of diversity, the entitlement mentality and the discrimination lawsuits. But then again isn't it a good thing folks? It would be harder for them to stop something like secession no?
www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018200.html
By the way Whiskey look at this abomination in our ''national security'' --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018217.html
Liberals have also destroyed NASA with it's current leader more worried about reaching out to Muslims than to explore space. Pretty much ALL institutions are under the madness of liberalism right now folks. What's there that's left? The church? I's controlled by the cult of evangelicalism and it's heresies. The schools? K-12 and universities are all riddled with brainwashing into liberalism. Everything there is pretty much revisioned history. Gosh people global warming is right now being exposed for the fraud it is and liberals STILL uphold their appearance of ''tolerant, diverse, progressive, scientific and ever arrogant''. Liberals even ADMIT that evolution has not being proved! --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018162.html
Really there is nothing we can do. The country in all aspects is broken beyond repair. The economic collapse coming and the death of the dollar is the best ever happening to us. Liberals are like parasites sucking the host. Now that America is bankrupt and the money is gone they know they will not be able to further their disgusting activities anymore in many formats.
To the idea that outside of Sparta no examples of open homosexuality in militaries can be found, that's not true. Two leading examples of highly effective elite corps bearing a predominately homosexual culture are the Roman Praetorian Guard with the Mitras cults and the Nazi Waffen-SS. Being gay was even a prerequisite for the highest of honors, that of becoming one of the Furher's personal bodyguards.
As we see with Bradley Manning, a man who would betray his country in pique over the breakup with a drag queen, gays can have a whole different set of loyalties. These can be turned to work to advance the cause and standing of their own clique should such a clique be allowed to form. It's the Band of Brothers ethos taken to the logical, gay, extreme.
With repeal of DADT this has been given a green light. What do you think gays are going to do in the Pentagon, not form a clique? Formally or informally there will rise a gay soldier front across the board in the armed services and up through the highest levels of the Pentagon, over time. They'll be loyal to their group over all else, and they'll be advancing issues towards their advantage (and detriment of hetero white guy grunts), and they'll enjoy the blessings of a quasi-special protected class, to boot, as they carve out an elite brotherhood.
They will become a force you do not want to cross. They'll become a conduit for career advancement for gay personnel. And they'll be an easily pissed off group that you do not want to piss off in the barracks, on the ships, or in the corridors of Arlington.
Another DADT thought. Folks think gays are just like themselves, only gay. What could possibly go wrong with acknowledging this simple fact?
Ask the Pope what happened after Vatican II! That went so well!
The term "gay" is supposed to be a one-syllable synonym for "homosexual" because five syllables is just too many to pronounce, but I'm not sure it means the same thing. The term "gay" originally referred to criminals in London's East End, and could refer to a homosexual, prostitute, thief, pimp, or alcoholic. I sometimes wonder why the term "gay" isn't considered an epithet?
Historically homosexuals have served in the military units of the world, sometimes with great distinction. In Greece and in British Boarding School culture homosexual activity was the norm rather than the exception. Plato, and his mentor Socrates, were both homosexual and served in military units in Athens. Both, however, thought heterosexual marriage and child rearing were such essential functions that males who refused to marry and raise children should be fined. To not marry was considered an antisocial dysfunction. So homosexual participation in marriage and in the military were not parallel. It would have violated common sense to insist on something like same-sex marriage in classical Greece. Silly enough to laugh at.
I have to conclude that homosexuals in our society are, in aggregate, culturally dysfunctional... and the lack of outrage over the term "gay" goes along with this. It literally means an 'outcast' and one is left to speculate about the reasons for the dysfunction. Perhaps our society demands this kind of dysfunctional role, or perhaps it's just another manifestation of an epidemic of rejection? Either way, it can't be good.
Post a Comment