Well if you don't think it will adversely affect the military shut the fuck up!
What are you talking about? Your proposition was the military collapsing, which I never implied.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
The complexities of sexual orientation and the willingness to serve in the military is now akin to the preference of sandwich meat and whether or not it will, in fact, spoil one's dinner?
If you're too dense to understand a conceptual argument, where you're making literal comparisons, then you have no one to blame but yourself and maybe your education system.
If you believe that the U.S military is one of the best, if not the best military powers in the world, why would they try to imitate an inferior military?
WTF are you even talking about. The US military is the best because its equipment is the best. The personnel themselves have nothing to do with it. The US military is decades ahead of most nations, and is close allies with the nations that are even in the same tech generation. (britain france germany primarily).
Anyone can be trained to fire a gun, drive a tank, fly a plane (ok maybe not anyone as pilots generally are small in stature) etc etc so on. Be them male, female, she-he or he-she. (granted most nations limit females in combat), ***, *******, transexual, bi, hetero.
The US is not the best because of the people, they are the best because of their equipment.
If you believe that nonsense, then not only do you fail to understand the military, but team work in general. Just because you throw together an all star team, doesn't mean they'll win a game. It takes discipline, training and team work. All of those factors are mutually exclusive of equipment.
I'm not a history buff, but I thought the colonies "army" was inferior equipment wise in comparison to the British.
That and ****** have been in the military for ever, the only thing that is changed is that they allowed them to say they are *****. That is it, and most probably won't go around talking about it, because douchebags like you will more than likely treat them like sh*t. Even if they were your best friend foe years.
Maybe you should read before posting.
You hate ****. Its ok you are allowed to, just don't be naive and pretend that they magically poofed into the military because DADT disappered, nothing has changed, and you will likely never find out who is ***** or not. **** you might even be *****.
Making false accusations doesn't make your argument accurate. YOU ONLY DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE YOU'RE A RACIST!!!!!
I'll answer the question once it's a question about DADT and not about feeding
children. Surely you're smart enough to ask about the actual topic at hand, right? And if you feel the characters in each scenario are directly analogous, you can just ask the question using people related to DADT, right?
If your plan was to just keep saying "You won't answer because you know..." and I was supposed to feel shamed that I won't answer a reductive and flawed question about ham sandwiches asked by a guy who's too afraid to ask about DADT, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.
If you don't want to answer and want to play/be dumb, then fine, but don't act like what I'm saying is irrelevant.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Don't worry, Alma's already ignored my whole post, which according to his logic means he realizes he's lost the argument.
Ask yourself this? Have I ever ignored you,EVER? Really.... smh...