Gays in the Military

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
"I don't want any gay people around me while i'm killin' kids." -Hicks

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Np6_b-72H3E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Good point. Why are we fighting anywhere at all?

Why do we have a gazillion bases around the world?

Jeez...I sound like Ron Paul. :0074
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
One would argue the military is a great career choice for some regardless of the risk.Or even more, a tool to get a job as a police officer when service is complete.
 

MadJack

Administrator
Staff member
Forum Admin
Super Moderators
Channel Owner
Jul 13, 1999
106,215
2,420
113
71
home
One would argue the military is a great career choice for some regardless of the risk.Or even more, a tool to get a job as a police officer when service is complete.

A police officer :shrug:

:0003
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
The military is not a great career choice for anyone. Sorry. Get a loan, if you have to, and go to college. It sure beats being used by the government.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I wonder if other countries sell arms to other country's like the shitbag defense contractors we have here. Only in the great world of capitalism u can find a defense contractor selling arms to Iran.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I wonder if other countries sell arms to other country's like the shitbag defense contractors we have here. Only in the great world of capitalism u can find a defense contractor selling arms to Iran.
The only way we can create the kind of enemies to justify the military industrial complex is to first arm them. It's ingenious. We sell them our arms, tell them they're our buddies, then 10 years later we bomb the shit out of 'em. And the best part is, they never catch on... :142smilie
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
The military is not a great career choice for anyone. Sorry. Get a loan, if you have to, and go to college. It sure beats being used by the government.

I guess Army,Navy,and Air Force Academy would be considered as being used for the gov't/college education all rolled into one.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I guess Army,Navy,and Air Force Academy would be considered as being used for the gov't/college education all rolled into one.

Yes, it would be. I don't know how much you value your life, but a few thousand for risking my life is not enough. That is if you ignore the moral implications of killing innocent people around the world.
 
Last edited:

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
That is you ignore the moral implications of killing innocent people around the world.
That's why you have to get them while they're young, before they've had time to sort it out. It's been true since man first came down out of the trees on the savannas of Africa and began to organize into tribes.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Good point. Why are we fighting anywhere at all?

Why do we have a gazillion bases around the world?

Jeez...I sound like Ron Paul. :0074
....................................................................

There are 761 US Military Bases across the planet. 156 Countries with US bases. 46 Countries with no US presence. 63 countries with US Military Bases and Troops. 7 Countries with 13 New Military Bases since 09/11/2001. In 2001 the US had 255,065 Troops Posted Abroad.

.....................................................................

Mar 2 2011

In February 2011, the official results of a referendum in South Sudan indicated that South Sudan would likely become the world's newest and 196 th country.
However, the declaration of independence is not expected for South Sudan until July 9, 2011. At that point, this page will be updated.


.................................................................

There are only 40 fawking countrys in the world where we dont have a military base. Lets list a few of them off the top of my head.

Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Lebonan,


In other words if countrys dont hate us we drop a military base right in there. We promise them money and commerce to make it lucrative ?

This just seems so out there for our military complex machine. The money being spent on defense is untouchable for so many years.

Need a new Stealth bomber- 1 billion - check

Need to build a new submarine - 2 billion - check

where does this all end ?


OK lets think about this for a minute.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
According to some sources, Russia possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.[35] Other sources claim that the stockpile of the USA is larger.[36] Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces controls its land-based nuclear warheads, while the Navy controls the submarine based missiles and the Air Force the air-launched warheads. Russia's nuclear warheads are deployed in four areas:

2008.Land based immobile (silos), like R-36.
Land-based mobile, like RT-2UTTH Topol M.
Submarine based, like RSM-56 Bulava.
Air-launched warheads of the Russian Air Forces' 37th Air Army
Russian military doctrine sees NATO expansion as one of the threats for the Russian Federation and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional aggression that can endanger the existence of the state. In keeping with this, the country's nuclear forces received adequate funding throughout the late 1990s. Russia, with approximately 16,000 warheads, possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads.[37] The number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads on active duty has declined over the years, in part in keeping with arms limitation agreements with the U.S. and in part due to insufficient spending on maintenance, but this is balanced by the deployment of new missiles as proof against missile defences. Russia has developed the new RT-2UTTH Topol M missiles that are stated to be able to penetrate any missile defence, including the planned U.S. National Missile Defence. The missile can change course in both air and space to avoid countermeasures. It is designed to be launched from land-based, mobile TEL units and submarines.[38] Russian nuclear forces are confident that they can carry out a successful retaliation strike if attacked.[citation needed]

Because of international awareness of the danger that Russian nuclear technology might fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue officers who it was feared might want to use nuclear weapons to threaten or attack other countries, the Federal government of the United States and many other countries provided considerable financial assistance to the Russian nuclear forces in early 1990s. Many friendly countries gave huge amounts of money in lieu for Russian Arms purchase deals which kept Russian Agencies functioning just like they used to earlier with high efficiency. This money went in part to finance decommissioning of warheads under international agreements, such the Cooperative Threat Reduction programme, but also to improve security and personnel training in Russian nuclear facilities.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


It appears that instead of military bases that Russia just concentrates on making sure they can annihilate all comers in a nuke war.

It appears to save them about 90 billion dollars a year doing it this way :shrug:

Seriously - why does the US have so many bases ?
It just dont seem like the right thing to do these days.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
The old way of doing colonialism, practiced by the Europeans, was to take over entire countries and administer them. But this was clumsy. The United States has pioneered a leaner approach to global empire. As historian Chalmers Johnson says, ?America?s version of the colony is the military base.? The United States, says Johnson, has an ?empire of bases.?

Its ?empire of bases? gives the United States global reach, but the shape of this empire, insofar as it tilts toward Europe, is a bloated and anachronistic holdover from the Cold War.?

These bases do not come cheap. Excluding U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States spends about $102 billion a year to run its overseas bases, according to Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. And in many cases you have to ask what purpose they serve. For example, the United States has 227 bases in Germany. Maybe this made sense during the Cold War, when Germany was split in two by the iron curtain and U.S. policy makers sought to persuade the Soviets that the American people would see an attack on Europe as an attack on itself. But in a new era when Germany is reunited and the United States is concerned about flashpoints of conflict in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, it makes as much sense for the Pentagon to hold onto 227 military bases in Germany as it would for the post office to maintain a fleet of horses and buggies.

Drowning in red ink, the White House is desperate to cut unnecessary costs in the federal budget, and Massachusetts Cong. Barney Frank, a Democrat, has suggested that the Pentagon budget could be cut by 25 percent. Whether or not one thinks Frank?s number is politically realistic, foreign bases are surely a lucrative target for the budget cutter?s axe. In 2004 Donald Rumsfeld estimated that the United States could save $12 billion by closing 200 or so foreign bases. This would also be relatively cost-free politically since the locals who may have become economically dependent upon the bases are foreigners and cannot vote retribution in U.S. elections.

Yet those foreign bases seem invisible as budget cutters squint at the Pentagon?s $664 billion proposed budget. Take the March 1st editorial in the New York Times, ?The Pentagon Meets the Real World.? The Times?s editorialists called for ?political courage? from the White House in cutting the defense budget. Their suggestions? Cut the air force?s F-22 fighter and the navy?s DDG-1000 destroyer and scale back missile defense and the army?s Future Combat System to save $10 billion plus a year. All good suggestions, but what about those foreign bases?

Even if politicians and media pundits seem oblivious to these bases, treating the stationing of U.S. troops all over the world as a natural fact, the U.S. empire of bases is attracting increasing attention from academics and activists?as evidenced by a conferenceon U.S. foreign bases at American University in late February. NYU Press just published Catherine Lutz?s Bases of Empire, a book that brings together academics who study U.S. military bases and activists against the bases. Rutgers University Press has published Kate McCaffrey?s Military Power and Popular Protest, a study of the U.S. base at Vieques, Puerto Rico, which was closed in the face of massive protests from the local population. And Princeton University Press is about to publish David Vine?s Island of Shame?a book that tells the story of how the United States and Britain secretly agreed to deport the Chagossian inhabitants of Diego Garcia to Mauritius and the Seychelles so their island could be turned into a military base. The Americans were so thorough that they even gassed all the Chagossian dogs. The Chagossians have been denied their day in court in the United States but won their case against the British government in three trials, only to have the judgment overturned by the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. They are now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

American leaders speak of foreign bases as cementing alliances with foreign nations, largely through the trade and aid agreements that often accompany base leases. Yet, U.S. soldiers live in a sort of cocooned simulacrum of America in their bases, watching American TV, listening to American rap and heavy metal, and eating American fast food, so that the transplanted farm boys and street kids have little exposure to another way of life. Meanwhile, on the other side of the barbed-wire fence, local residents and businesses often become economically dependent on the soldiers and have a stake in their staying.

These bases can become flashpoints for conflict. Military bases invariably discharge toxic waste into local ecosystems, as in Guam where military bases have led to no fewer than 19 superfund sites. Such contamination generates resentment and sometimes, as in Vieques in the 1990s, full-blown social movements against the bases. The United States used Vieques for live-bombing practice 180 days a year, and by the time the United States withdrew in 2003, the landscape was littered with exploded and unexploded ordinance, depleted uranium rounds, heavy metals, oil, lubricants, solvents, and acids. According to local activists, the cancer rate on Vieques was 30 percent higher than on the rest of Puerto Rico.
?..
Its ?empire of bases? gives the United States global reach, but the shape of this empire, insofar as it tilts toward Europe, is a bloated and anachronistic holdover from the Cold War. Many of these bases are a luxury the United States can no longer afford at a time of record budget deficits. Moreover, U.S. foreign bases have a double edge: they project American power across the globe, but they also inflame U.S. foreign relations, generating resentment against the prostitution, environmental damage, petty crime, and everyday ethnocentrism that are their inevitable corollaries. Such resentments have recently forced the closure of U.S. bases in Ecuador, Puerto Rico, and Kyrgyzstan, and if past is prologue, more movements against U.S. bases can be expected in the future. Over the next 50 years, I believe we will witness the emergence of a new international norm according to which foreign military bases will be as indefensible as the colonial occupation of another country has become during the last 50 years.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Let's face it people, the "two party system" in this country is DEAD. It has devolved, along with the congress, into a worthless, childish, self-serving group of name-calling morons whose only claims to representation are those of rancorous rhetoric and passing legislation favoring their lobbyist lords and the elitist rich. We have NOT a republic, we have NOT TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION... legislators DO NOT REPRESENT THE COMMON PEOPLE.

It is time for a MAJOR reset of our "system" of government. Time for us to get control of the incredibly dysfunctional form our government has devolved into and hit the "reset button." This will require an effort equal to what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and trying to happen in Libya. Until we have common people in the legislature and running the government, you are just going to change the faces but NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. You may think these are unrealizable goals, but then, how realistic was it when the Colonial Army took on the British in the war for independence? We won that one, too, in case you've forgotten....

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. Term Limits.
8 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two 4-year Senate terms
B. 4 Two-year House terms
C. One 8-year Senate term and Two 4-Year House terms
D. One 8 year term for Supreme Court Justices
If term limits are requisite for the President, Vice-President, and State Governors, then they most certainly are equally imperative based on the same principles for ALL of our legislators and even the judicial high seats.

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

9. Make all lobbyists and special interest groups illegal. They have no basis or rights for their existence except the greed of the oligarchs they represent. This is the heart of our dysfunctional government system. This is "legal bribery" in America and the Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

10. All campaign contributions, corporate or private, cannot exceed $250 max. No candidate can use their OWN money to campaign with. This violates the constitutional principles of equal opportunities for ALL people in the nation. If candidates qualify for federal campaign monies, then that is what they can use. Otherwise, they hit the trail like everyone else for the last 200 years.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.Replies (124)
................................................................

this is from a blog

he makes alot of sense to me.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
The military is not a great career choice for anyone. Sorry. Get a loan, if you have to, and go to college. It sure beats being used by the government.

Also,the point I was trying to make was that even with schooling for civil service (police,fire,etc.)the chances for being hired are slim.

Some to increase their chances join a reserve unit to get veteran status.I know someone who is going thru this as I type.
 
P

PRO190

Guest
The military is not a great career choice for anyone. Sorry. Get a loan, if you have to, and go to college. It sure beats being used by the government.

Yes, it would be. I don't know how much you value your life, but a few thousand for risking my life is not enough. That is if you ignore the moral implications of killing innocent people around the world.

Exactly what I would expect from You! Let Everyone else Protect your Yellowbelly..
Thank God we actually have people that will serve to Protect Cowards like You! :0074
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Exactly what I would expect from You! Let Everyone else Protect your Yellowbelly..
Thank God we actually have people that will serve to Protect Cowards like You! :0074

Are you sure you are ready to come back in here again? Where have you been hiding? Behind Goiiing Gone?

I love your reference to God. What do you think God would think about your love of war?

As for the point I was actually arguing, I don't think my life is worth a few thousand dollars. I am assuming you think yours is not. I couldn't argue against that.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
I will venture a guess that my friend, who postponed his education by leaving law school to join the marines in September, 2001, is more noble, courageous and honorable than the lot of us posting in this thread. He served multiple tours and fought like hell to serve more, but wad sidelined with a severe back ailment.

He acted out of a selfless desire to protect our way of life and regrets nothing.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top