News Stories

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

this one though is widespread.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/russi...nd-brain-drain

Five thousand recruits dying a year because of hazing is insane. Something like that needs to be stopped. What does it have to do with allowing gays to serve in the military though?

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It is fortunate that we don't use conscripts in our military anymore.[/i]

cause what US have been doing after vietnam was to break out riots (iraq 1991) and do police work similar to what LAPD and OPD does on the street to combat the likes of Aryan Brotherhood & MS-13 (afghanistan 2001 and iraq 2003)

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Five thousand recruits dying a year because of hazing is insane. Something like that needs to be stopped. What does it have to do with allowing gays to serve in the military though?

If you have to ask that question, then you are in no position to judge the effects of DADT and whether it should end or not. Outsiders meddling into something they are not involved in. Something America is always blamed for(justifiably in most cases I admit), yet you and others are doing the same thing to us...

[Taufiq91]

Oh, and the responses by conservatives regarding this issue is hilarious:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts?q=1&;page=1

You've got to read the page. Your mind will explode!

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

What does it have to do with allowing gays to serve in the military though?

i'm sure gays did serve in their last major 2 major wars (not counting chechnya), but they didn't have to broadcast 'hey i'm gay pls give me xtra accomodations'

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you have to ask that question, then you are in no position to judge the effects of DADT and whether it should end or not. Outsiders meddling into something they are not involved in. Something America is always blamed for(justifiably in most cases I admit), yet you and others are doing the same thing to us...

Yes, because the article says the hazing is directed at gays, rather than intellectuals.

Originally Posted by flying ^

i'm sure gays did serve in their last major war, but they didn't have to broadcast 'hey i'm gay pls give me xtra accomodations'

This is relevant and not continuing a red herring, how?

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The Military won't be happy about this... Glad I'm not in it now.

i haven't followed this

does this act also ask for special accommodations?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by flying ^

i haven't followed this

does this act also ask for special accommodations?

Not really, all it does is forbidding the military from discharging people for being openly homosexual. The opposition is based on "soldiers might get distracted" or something like that, when not taking religious things into account.

[justinstrife]

Outsiders who have no idea what goes on in a certain country's military, shouldn't say what will or won't happen based on a certain policy change. Unless you're in the middle of it, you have no idea the outcome of those actions.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Outsiders who have no idea what goes on in a certain country's military, shouldn't say what will or won't happen based on a certain policy change. Unless you're in the middle of it, you have no idea the outcome of those actions.

Yet the people who are in the middle of it don't have much of an issue with gays serving. Or are you going to claim the study is wrong because you don't agree with its results again? If so, please point out the flaw in the methodology that makes it misleading.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The Military won't be happy about this... Glad I'm not in it now.

Actually they surveyed "the Military" -- most respondents (>60-70%) couldn't care less as long as everyone can do their job. Only the Marines showed some resistance and *they* have more problems with extreme evangelical issues (all the forces are having some isolated problems with extremist evangelicalism as a separate issue).

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually they surveyed "the Military" -- most respondents (>60-70%) couldn't care less as long as everyone can do their job. Only the Marines showed some resistance and *they* have more problems with extreme evangelical issues (all the forces are having some isolated problems with extremist evangelicalism as a separate issue).

As my dad spoke about this study earlier this evening when I told him about DADT being repealed, his words and I quote,"not everyone in the military serves in the trenches. When a majority of the Air Force and administrative personal don't care, that tends to give the gay supporters the results they want. However in the Navy, the forward Army and Marine personal, who have to share bunks, share showers, share foxholes, etc, DADT and repealing it, is a big freaking deal."

The majority of people in the Military don't serve under those conditions, so their opinions will be different than those who are on a ship, or in combat. If Gays want to serve without getting harrassed or worse, then keep quiet about it and do your job. Keep it under wraps. Yes Gays have been serving for millenia, but just because things are fine and dandy for them to flaunt their sexual preferences in Europe, doesn't mean it will fly here in the U.S. America is not Europe, never has been Europe, and never will be Europe.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Outsiders who have no idea what goes on in a certain country's military, shouldn't say what will or won't happen based on a certain policy change. Unless you're in the middle of it, you have no idea the outcome of those actions.

Not being a part of an organization or a country does not mean you cannot criticize that organization or country (especially if they are doing something that is generally considered bad). In fact, in terms of arbitration, it is mandatory that you need to be recused of specific involvement in the argument/case you are trying to form an opinion of.

Long story short, yes we can say that the extreme hazing in the military of Russia is wrong (though why this article popped up during a discussion of the repeal of DADT is still unclear).

That being said, I'm just coming back from a small (24 hour) party with some friends celebrating the repeal of DADT (realistically, it was a holiday party before we all drift apart for the rest of the year, but we found some extra celebration in the repeal of DADT). Good Times.

[justinstrife]

At least there will never be a question of why the Democrats will never get the support of the majority of the Military. They will always be lucky to get 20% of the Military's vote.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

At least there will never be a question of why the Democrats will never get the support of the majority of the Military. They will always be lucky to get 20% of the Military's vote.

The recent survey had 100,000+ sample respone to attain a statistic that represents a group of 3 million or so servicemen (not counting the spouse survey). Conversely, a Gallup poll takes a sample of 1000+ people to attain a statistic to represent 250 million plus people.

So, what you're saying isn't quite accurate, at least in regards to this specific issue.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

As my dad spoke about this study earlier this evening when I told him about DADT being repealed, his words and I quote,"not everyone in the military serves in the trenches. When a majority of the Air Force and administrative personal don't care, that tends to give the gay supporters the results they want. However in the Navy, the forward Army and Marine personal, who have to share bunks, share showers, share foxholes, etc, DADT and repealing it, is a big freaking deal."

The majority of people in the Military don't serve under those conditions, so their opinions will be different than those who are on a ship, or in combat. If Gays want to serve without getting harrassed or worse, then keep quiet about it and do your job. Keep it under wraps. Yes Gays have been serving for millenia, but just because things are fine and dandy for them to flaunt their sexual preferences in Europe, doesn't mean it will fly here in the U.S. America is not Europe, never has been Europe, and never will be Europe.

I do not understand the logic that servicemen currently stationed in American/European bases cannot make the same informed decisions as those currently serving in a hostile region. The recent survey clearly showed the breakdown of all the participants, as well as the statistics of when they served in Iraq/Afghanistan (etc). So, this argument that only Officers or desk jockeys filled out the survey is clearly false and really quite insulting to all servicemen and women (especially if you are implying that the armed forces are so easily swayed by politics that they would betray their own just to look good).

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

As my dad spoke about this study earlier this evening when I told him about DADT being repealed, his words and I quote,"not everyone in the military serves in the trenches. When a majority of the Air Force and administrative personal don't care, that tends to give the gay supporters the results they want. However in the Navy, the forward Army and Marine personal, who have to share bunks, share showers, share foxholes, etc, DADT and repealing it, is a big freaking deal."

The majority of people in the Military don't serve under those conditions, so their opinions will be different than those who are on a ship, or in combat. If Gays want to serve without getting harrassed or worse, then keep quiet about it and do your job. Keep it under wraps. Yes Gays have been serving for millenia, but just because things are fine and dandy for them to flaunt their sexual preferences in Europe, doesn't mean it will fly here in the U.S. America is not Europe, never has been Europe, and never will be Europe.

You realize that the navy and Coast Guard, the branches of service where they're on the ship, have the lowest disapproval ratings, right?

Also, serve openly is not the same thing as "flaunt their sexual preferences." Hell, most gays will still probably keep it to themselves. It just lifts a burden of them getting kicked out if they're discovered. They're not going to walk around limp wristed and wearing feather boas with their uniforms. The military isn't likely to attract that type of person, regardless of sexual orientation, and most gay people don't act like that anyway. They're mostly normal people.

Finally, America has the same cultural roots as Europe. The nation is a bit more conservative than Europe, but we don't have a radically different culture. Claims that what works elsewhere won't work here are just American exceptionalism at the expense of rationality.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by flying ^

this one though is widespread.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/russi...nd-brain-drain

Is that really how many soldiers they're losing from it? Five Thousand? Every year? That's only slightly less Deaths than the US has sustained fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Five thousand recruits dying a year because of hazing is insane. Something like that needs to be stopped. What does it have to do with allowing gays to serve in the military though?

Somebody said no country was having problems with openly gay officers. Someone pointed out male prostitution rings of young Russian military recruits seemingly orchestrated in part by gay commanding officers. Someone else decided to point out that the Russian militaries problem of hazing killing so many recruits as being a bigger problem.

[Ithekro]

One thing I find odd about the article about Russian hazing....they never say what the hazing was and why it is leaving people dead or fleeing the country.

[Sumeragi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina

Anyway, aside from the actual number, given that Russia already is strained filling up the numbers in their army while their male population is going down, I would have to say Russia does not have that much of a future.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina

Anyway, aside from the actual number, given that Russia already is strained filling up the numbers in their army while their male population is going down, I would have to say Russia does not have that much of a future.

The problem is Russia needs major military reform. They should follow the US and Chinese examples and transition to an all volunteer force. Of course that would result in a downsizing of Russia's military, and with NATO to the west, and China to the south-east, it's a difficult sale to make to the leadership, especially since Russia was a world power with such a system in place during the Soviet days.

Though wikipedia makes the article seem like it's inflating the numbers by an order of magnitude.