Trump will NOT address the British Parliament

[InbetweenDreams]

[MENTION=24108]Doc[/MENTION] I am curious about your position about gay guys being in the army... I mean after all there are some guys who are straight who are pretty prissy and wouldn't belong in the army...

[NativeSon]

Technically speaking, we're the foreigners here, Doc?

In what sense? In the Kingdom Heaven? on the internet? Do mean we are always foreigners to somebody else?

I hope that answers your questions, please ask more I find them engaging.

In the sense that the founder of this forum is an Englishman. Technically speaking I'd say that makes this a UK website.

A large number of the most active users are from abroad. There's definitely an international flavor, I feel, when I visit this forum. And it definitely has an overall different feel than its US counterparts.

Also, the OP was referring specifically to a state visit and what that might mean to him. Nothing wrong with sharing ones thoughts, is there? Our commander in chief certainly has no qualms about doing so--any chance he gets.

Anyway, off to work.

Chow!

[Doc]

[MENTION=23180]InbetweenDreams[/MENTION] [MENTION=24108]Doc[/MENTION] I am curious about your position about gay guys being in the army... I mean after all there are some guys who are straight who are pretty prissy and wouldn't belong in the army...

The Army had at the time many gay men in its ranks and some of them were out, but they weren't gaying it up all the time so really nobody cared. The fear at the time was that we would get a bunch of what we here call camp types.

I was against it because it scared me, people would always joke that I was gay. Because I was clean, I cooked alot, I used to do all of my own sewing, my barracks room was the cleanest in the squadron and everything was color coded, folded neatly in my drawers or hung in my closet. My shoes and boots were dress right dress and I did things like take my uniform tops in at the waist as to cut a more dashing figure and got a haircut every week. I took alot of pride in my appearance and I guess that could be considered prissy. I just thought it was good soldiering. I also never had any girls in my barracks room ever, not even the easy slutty barracks rats that basically everyone had fucked at some point. I felt that an influx of gay soldiers would draw attention to me. I was already running around with other soldiers alot and was nearly caught.

[InbetweenDreams]

I do suppose it causes more internal issues particularly those who oppose the very idea of people being gay. However, I don't think the very camp types would make it in, if, that is, they hold everyone to the same standard.

[Doc]

You'd be surprised most guys have an open minded about homosexuality and dont hate gays at all, the big thing really is the most gays seem to be liberal and the military is largely conservative, the differences are more political.

The idea being oh no here comes the gay guy no more gay jokes or we will all get in trouble, soldiers hate being pc.

[InbetweenDreams]

Makes me think of PC Principal.... Yeah that is a a real popular thing, people get way too offended, Facebook is terrible with that sort of thing, people just looking, waiting to be offended or pissed off about something, absolutely crazy.

[Sherman8D]

My sentiments exactly, we all know women that are hardcore, but they are the exception to the rule and you don't make a rule for the exceptions. They get paid the same as us and physically are required to do less but that is what passes for equality these days and this is all done for the sake of inclusion. It bothers me because the military is not a social experiment. We also compete for the same promotion slots, but I need to do more than them.

Also my division, the 3rd infantry Division when I served in it had 4 full combat brigades with plans for a 5th, it now has 2 brigades and is being supplemented by troops of the Georgia Army National Guard. Like it or not part time national guardsmen are not of the same quality as regular troops. I served 4 years in the regular army and 1 in the reserves. As the regular army down sized the government planned to use Guard and reserves to fill the man power shortages. Having served in the reserves I can tell you that if our country had to rely on the reserve component we'd be seriously fucked, the reserves are without a doubt the least effective part of our forces and in my opinion not worth their pay.
I did not join the reserves but I was called back into service from the IRR and placed in a leadership position to act as a place holder for a year until the unit could find a Sgt to replace me, I worked for a YEAR in a job that I was untrained for as a military policeman. It is not uncommon in the reserves to have soldiers working in jobs they are not trained to do and as a result of this the reserve component is as a whole worthless.

The president is the commander and chief of the military and as such the buck stops with him, and rather than waste government money the military needs to be taken care of first.

I hope I have done a good job explaining it to you, the current state of our military breaks my heart.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your service. Secondly, I have thoughts and questions that must be said and answered. You see, I am in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Perception of Equality: In general, a person's rate of progress can be determined by measuring one's level of achievement with regards to some endeavor. We must also consider their max potential in that endeavor. For instance, let us consider a female soldier named Patricia and a male soldier named Michael who both have to carry some heavy iron weights. Patricia, has the max potential (determined by height, weight, bodymass) of carrying 8, but currently can only carry 6. Michael, has the max potential of carrying 10, but currently can only carry 7.

Who has done more "work" ? If one looks at it from a superficial viewpoint, he/she would think Michael has done more work because he has carried 1 iron weight more than Patricia. But let us use some cold hard objective math.

6/8 = .75 x 100 = 75%
Patricia has worked 75% of her strength

7/10 = .70 x 100 = 70%
Michael has worked 70% of his strength
[COLOR="Blue"]
Clearly, Patricia has exerted more work, or effort, in carrying those iron weights by 5% even though Michael produced more output[/COLOR]. This is the reason why it ~seems~ like men do more work than women, and the reason why equality here ~seems~ false. But people are not looking at this the right way.
Ofcourse, these kinds of things only apply to endurance or physical related abilities. Well, actually anything that be reasonably measured and is predictable.

Im not ok with that, but I certainly live with as long as it was equal. Another issue is that in a training environment women are guaranteed by regulation one shower a week, for medical reasons while men are given nothing. I did 28 days without a shower in the Georgia summer its not fun. More than medical its mental being sweat covered for a month is miserable. Its the special accommodations they get that chaps my ass. I was against it, most guys were, you need to understand for better or worse the army seems to be morally and culturally 40 years behind the rest of the country. Even the idea of homosexuals serving openly made me uncomfortable and I was gay and actively fucking other men the the entire time, and I was still like " Do we we need gays in our army?".

By medical reasons, do you mean for menstruating purposes? If so, that is not a "special accommodation," that is a ~reasonable accommodation~. This is similar to what people with disabilities get. A company provides a blind person a braille keyboard so that the person can do the work at the same pace as everyone else --not so they can unfairly outperform others. That's not to say, people can't abuse these required accommodations because people can. But they shouldn't . . .

[Emiliano]

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your service. Secondly, I have thoughts and questions that must be said and answered. You see, I am in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Perception of Equality: In general, a person's rate of progress can be determined by measuring one's level of achievement with regards to some endeavor. We must also consider their max potential in that endeavor. For instance, let us consider a female soldier named Patricia and a male soldier named Michael who both have to carry some heavy iron weights. Patricia, has the max potential (determined by height, weight, bodymass) of carrying 8, but currently can only carry 6. Michael, has the max potential of carrying 10, but currently can only carry 7.

Who has done more "work" ? If one looks at it from a superficial viewpoint, he/she would think Michael has done more work because he has carried 1 iron weight more than Patricia. But let us use some cold hard objective math.

6/8 = .75 x 100 = 75%
Patricia has worked 75% of her strength

7/10 = .70 x 100 = 70%
Michael has worked 70% of his strength
[COLOR="Blue"]
Clearly, Patricia has exerted more work, or effort, in carrying those iron weights by 5% even though Michael produced more output[/COLOR]. This is the reason why it ~seems~ like men do more work than women, and the reason why equality here ~seems~ false. But people are not looking at this the right way.
Ofcourse, these kinds of things only apply to endurance or physical related abilities. Well, actually anything that be reasonably measured and is predictable.



By medical reasons, do you mean for menstruating purposes? If so, that is not a "special accommodation," that is a ~reasonable accommodation~. This is similar to what people with disabilities get. A company provides a blind person a braille keyboard so that the person can do the work at the same pace as everyone else --not so they can unfairly outperform others. That's not to say, people can't abuse these required accommodations because people can. But they shouldn't . . .

Those are interesting questions, I'm curious what [MENTION=24108]Doc[/MENTION] 's perspective is.

I'm also kind of shocked that male soldiers aren't allowed a minimum shower a week. I mean unless we are talking about being in a combat situation where a shower is just out of the question, then I'd assume it'd be denied to women too... Like it you are in street warfare, you can't just knock on someone's door and be like, let me take a shower, the military promised me one per week. I would have thought the health and hygiene of our military would be a bigger priority.
Is it about conserving water?

[Doc]

Ok [MENTION=24231]Sherman8D[/MENTION] you first

An insurgent doesnt care how much effort you put in when he is trying to kill you, be 75% or 70%. Combat does not give an A for effort you either meet the standard or you don't. I was 110 pounds 5"6' when I enlisted I had to meet the same standard as the soldier who was 6"3' 225 pounds, I had to carry the same weight do the same stuff, and we both had to run 2 miles in a minimum 0f 15:36, if it was easier for him so be it. Life isnt fair.
I became a medic meaning that I had to carry the same weight as the other men in my platoon who were cavalry scouts, plus all of my medical gear and I had to keep pace on foot patrols. I also did more missions, because every mission required a medic and I was the the only one we had 22 scouts and usually only needed 12 or 15 per mission, they got to rest, I didnt. I worked much harder than my comrades.
Finally the enemy does care care about reasonable accommodations if your are menstruating you will still get killed, bullets do not care who they hit. The army does not need to accommodate women nobody puts a gun to their head and makes them join, its a volunteer force.

War is not reasonable, this is harsh but true. I hope that helps
[MENTION=21558]Emiliano[/MENTION]
Honestly taking an entire squadron of men out of the field to wash them, would fuck up a training cycle. Its not really worth it, also we don't always go to the field for 28 days straight it was unusually long, being our first training exercise after returning from Iraq. Usually gunnery or force on force exercises last 6, 8, or 14 days, and a long annual 21 day. It took 28 days because we combined 2 exercise in one so we could squeeze them in before Christmas leave. Had we not did that we would have had to go to the field after Christmas leave and that would have sucked. After Christmas most soldiers need to get back into the swing after 30 days of not running and eating all of the fattening holiday food while watching T.V. and being couch potatoes. The worst thing is smelling bad, but its not really dangerous just very unpleasant.


[MENTION=21558]Emiliano[/MENTION] " Like it you are in street warfare, you can't just knock on someone's door and be like, let me take a shower, the military promised me one per week"
I laughed trying to picture this scenario

[Doc]

[MENTION=18457]LONDONER[/MENTION] Ive hijacked your thread Im Sorry