Reply With Quote
Ok, so France gets bad intel saying we're going to attack them, say from torturing someone who they thought was a spy. They then start a preemptive strike by dropping a bomb on a military base.
Morally justified?
Why is that necessary? If you can minimize the loss of lives for your troops, you engage, why take the chance of sacrificing men.
Ok, so France gets bad intel saying we're going to attack them, say from torturing someone who they thought was a spy. They then start a preemptive strike by dropping a bomb on a military base.
Morally justified?
I'm pretty sure that sexuals would rather be able to serve openly. than worry about who they're showering and bunking with.
Because the intel might be bull . Minimizing the loss of lives of your troops is very arguable. If there was not going to be an attack at all, you actually unnecessarily jeopardized their lives.
You're the one saying preemptive attacks are not valid under any scenario.
So once we razed through the country we turn around and say "sorry"?
Like what we did when we invaded Iraq?
Who are you trying to fool yoni?
I'm sure they appreciate your support on their behalf.
All this assumes my chief concern is with heterosexuals being exposed to sexuals. It's not.
Why should sexuals be exposed to other sexuals. The military separates the sexes because of the problems sexual attraction causes. And, unless you're saying sexuals are different, in that respect, I don't see why they should be treated differently.
I think it is unfair to sexuals to force them to shower and bunk with other sexuals. It suggests they aren't as sexual a being as heterosexuals. That they aren't driven by the same natural urges, etc...
As far as the expense. DADT was a cheap solution. Bill Clinton recognized that.
They aren't. But what you responded to was before we were discussing preemption.
If you intercept information from an enemy about an attack, you have to act. It's their fault for preparing for it.
Well, they should.
Now you're just trolling. No one could be this stupid.
If there weren't two dozen other reason to be there, sure. But, as it is, there's nothing for which we should apologize -- aside from not doing it in 1992, possibly.So once we razed through the country we turn around and say "sorry"?
Like what we did when we invaded Iraq?
Who are you trying to fool yoni?
He caused a lot of misery and expense in the ensuing 12 years.
How do you know it's not a decoy or bull ?
You do have to react by being ready and investigating.
It's not like the US can't lock in a satellite/radar and tell right away if a plane is coming.
As I said above, because the military is slow to change, and it would cost more money.
I'm pretty sure they'll get over it.
DADT caused more problems than it solved. DADT wasn't very cheap when we were kicking out linguists who we had spent thousands of dollars training, right?
Why is it not valid? Why do you think you're going to be prepared to defend yourself in that situation? Do you think they're gonna tell you when they're going to come and kill you?
Why is it a stupid proposition?
Now you're just trolling. No one could be this stupid.
Are you suggesting sexuals are so base they don't have a sense of modesty or shame? That just because they are sexuals and have the same sexual organs they won't be embarrassed to be seen in the shower by another person? Perhaps someone they're attracted to and considering starting a relationship?
I'm not trolling. I think this is a serious issue.
So we made a mistake and we shouldn't apologize. That makes more sense coming from you.
Maybe they should have saved their pennies before lifting DADT.
Would you say that to a heterosexual woman forced to bunk and shower with a bunch of heterosexual males? Get over it?
I disagree. I think it's only a matter of time before some modest sexual sues for separate facilities.
Then the real fun starts.
Not saying it's not valid. I didn't take it as an extension of the preemption argument, since we weren't discussing it then.
As far preemption, we've discussed this. There's a difference between the other side thinking and carrying out the act.
Already provided plenty of examples too. If I tell you outright in the middle of the street "I'm going to kill you if you don't pay what you owe", you just kill me? That makes no sense. Morally or otherwise.
You'll make yourself ready and potentially denounce the threat.
Invading wasn't a mistake. Relying on faulty intelligence that only supported one of over two-dozen reasons we invaded, isn't something over which I would apologize.
Feel free to go over there and beg forgiveness.
Someday I hope you will become friends with a sexual person. Or at least have a conversation with one.
Maybe you need some friends who served in the Military too.
I don't think you know very many people at all, to be honest. And that's kind of sad.
Much to your chagrin we invaded due to faulty intelligence. It was a costly mistake. Feel free to say sorry to the families of those fallen in that war.
It would be valid if you vowed to kill me, ofcourse hyperbole withstanding, you ask the person if they mean what they say. Then you got to take them at their word.
In a civilized society, tho you wouldn't need that, you could just go to the cops. But if he shows up at your doorstep after being warned, you have every moral right to kill on the spot.
The only faulty mistake was that we occupied them and nation builded.
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with removing a dictatorship that doesn't allow for individual and human rights. Any free country has the moral authority to remove said individual.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions