Torture: Still doesn't work

[Yonivore]

Of course. And if a single soldier was in a situation where the objective could result in harm to his mother/father, wouldn't that be a distraction?

I'm pretty sure that the military wouldn't work well if they only allowed single childless orphans.

I wouldn't want my mother or father on missions either. You're the one that suggested having your wife there wouldn't be a distraction.

[Yonivore]

I think the point I was trying to make LnGrrrR is that our relationships, or sexual orientations, or private lives -- outside the life we create in the military unit to which we belong -- is irrelevant to the mission and all this political squabbling only serves to distract from the mission.

The military sees fit to separate the sexes in bathing and bunking for what I think are very good reasons; normal heterosexual human beings have a libido and are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Do normal sexuals have a libido and are they sexually attracted to the same sex?

If so, why should they be treated differently?

[ElNono]

It's only distracting if you give a . If you don't give a , then where's the distraction?

[Spurminator]

The military sees fit to separate the sexes in bathing and bunking for what I think are very good reasons; normal heterosexual human beings have a libido and are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Do normal sexuals have a libido and are they sexually attracted to the same sex?

If so, why should they be treated differently?

Because allowing that segment of the population to serve in the Military takes precedent over the narcissistic discomfort a few people like you might have over the prospect of showering and bunking with them.

[Ignignokt]

lmao idiot

Cuck

[Yonivore]

It's only distracting if you give a . If you don't give a , then where's the distraction?

You're not answering the question. Or, maybe, you're suggesting a completely coed military.

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Ignignokt]

Gtown, what if I thought you were going to kill me? What if I had what I considered to be good intel? Would it be then alright for me to murder you instead?

In a civilized society you would just have to go to the proper authority since we have means of dealing with conflicts. In war, the govt's duty is to prevent foreign attacks.

Prevention can be done by preemptive strikes. You could do that, or you could needlessly sacrifice your men and women serving you by letting the enemy attack first.

There's nothing immoral about preemptive strikes.

[ElNono]

You're not answering the question.

Sure I am. This alleged "distraction" is only an issue if you give a about it.
And if you do, under the way the military is currently operating, then maybe you're better off it.

[Ignignokt]

It's pretty easy, you have a situation where you know beforehand that a foreign enemy will conduct a raid and invasion, it would be smarter if you just took out his military bases, landing strips, and supplies to prevent carnage. The proper role of govt is to defend it's citizenry, not to sacrifice it's citizenry on an archaic St augustine just war principle.

[Yonivore]

Because allowing that segment of the population to serve in the Military takes precedent over the narcissistic discomfort a few people like you might have over the prospect of showering and bunking with them.

I don't think anything should take precedent over the mission of the military. And, I wouldn't be any more uncomfortable showering with a gay man than I would a gay or straight woman.

You miss the point.

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing sexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

And, the government is so good at resolving these issues, too.

[Yonivore]

Sure I am. This alleged "distraction" is only an issue if you give a about it.

And if you do, under the way the military is currently operating, then maybe you're better off it.

So, should people not give a about coed showers and bunks? Would that be more or less of a distraction than sexuals bunking with the same sex? Why?

[Ignignokt]

You don't have to die. You can defend yourself.

Sure assasinations and killings always happen at high noon in a duel.

[CuckingFunt]

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing sexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

It's already happening.

It's never not been happening.

[ElNono]

It's pretty easy, you have a situation where you know beforehand that a foreign enemy will conduct a raid and invasion, it would be smarter if you just took out his military bases, landing strips, and supplies to prevent carnage. The proper role of govt is to defend it's citizenry, not to sacrifice it's citizenry on an archaic St augustine just war principle.

You can have the military ready without "sacrificing the citizenry" or actively engaging the other nation over an alleged plot. Heck, it's not like the US can't actively monitor enemy bases for movement, etc.

Then again, if you had that kind of information, you wouldn't need to torture anybody.

[LnGrrrR]

I wouldn't want my mother or father on missions either. You're the one that suggested having your wife there wouldn't be a distraction.

Uhm... the military doesn't make me take my wife on missions.

[Spurminator]

By lifting DADT, the military is going to be forced to deal with the issue of allowing sexuals to shower and bunk with the same sex. It's going to happen.

They've dealt with it already and determined that sexuals will shower and bunk with the same sex. It's already happened.

And, the government is so good at resolving these issues, too.

Yeah from what I know about being in the Military, there's usually a lot of difficulty getting subordinates to fall in line.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the point I was trying to make LnGrrrR is that our relationships, or sexual orientations, or private lives -- outside the life we create in the military unit to which we belong -- is irrelevant to the mission and all this political squabbling only serves to distract from the mission.

Considering that this is the "Year of the Family" for the Air Force, I'd have to say that the military brass disagree with your statement.

[Yonivore]

Considering that this is the "Year of the Family" for the Air Force, I'd have to say that the military brass disagree with your statement.

Why are sexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

[LnGrrrR]

There's nothing immoral about preemptive strikes.

What if the preemptive strike is based on bad intel?

[ElNono]

Sure assasinations and killings always happen at high noon in a duel.

You need to pick a scenario and stick with it. Where did assassination came from?

[ElNono]

Why are sexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

How are sexuals going to be treated differently?

[Spurminator]

Why are sexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

at the ing irony here.

Yeah we certainly wouldn't want to treat sexuals and heterosexuals differently, right?

[Yonivore]

What if the preemptive strike is based on bad intel?

It's called a mistake. And, if there weren't at least two dozen other reasons for the preemptive strike, you'd have a point.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are sexuals going to be treated differently than heterosexuals? It's not a hard question.

I already answered. Because the military sees no need to separate sexuals from heterosexuals. Also, because it would cost a ton of money to build separate barracks. Also, because whether one is a sexual or not isn't obvious at first sight. Also, because separating heteros/ s wouldn't really do anything, as said could just stay in the closet.

[Yonivore]

at the ing irony here.

Yes, it's ironic that sexuals have fought this long and hard only to continue to be treated differently.