US Allies: No problems with Gays in Military

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Run away from the truth lib boy..............you probably have a bumper sticker on your car that says Minds are like "parachutes they only work when open"



FYI, I am not justifying rape. I condone rape in almost every possible scenario.

Just saying that if you walk into a lions den with prime rib tied around your neck except to get mauled a time or two. When you place yourself in harms way to prove a point, I wont feel sorry for you in any way.

Thats what the rest of you peacenik dogooder people from Minnesota are for.

So if an attractive woman works in a mostly male office, she should expect to be raped, and not complain about it when it happens?

Military office..........yes higher than average probability. Keep to task here we were talking military not any general office.

[Col Hogan]

That's not the military I served in....attractive women....ugly women...all treated the same, and rape would not/was not condoned in any shape or fashion...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Thats great and I am glad, but in joining the military they are putting themselves in a bad spot.

Their choice.

[Grizalltheway]

Thats great and I am glad, but in joining the military they are putting themselves in a bad spot.

Their choice.

Bullshit. The official policy of the military is to allow women, and as long as it's that way, they have every right to not be raped while serving. And anyone who would try to rationalize rape is a complete Alphagriz, I mean dumbass.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Thats great and I am glad, but in joining the military they are putting themselves in a bad spot.

Their choice.

Bullshit. The official policy of the military is to allow women, and as long as it's that way, they have every right to not be raped while serving. And anyone who would try to rationalize rape is a complete Alphagriz, I mean dumbass.

[AZGrizFan]

Thats great and I am glad, but in joining the military they are putting themselves in a bad spot.

Their choice.

In 22 years in the military I never saw a woman mistreated. I saw a lot of them treated as GODS, even when they were three-bag ugly, but never mistreated.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Look guys I am not saying it's OK, but in the "real world" its happening just like the guys who posted the rape numbers proved.

All my point was is that iof your a woman and you go into the military you are putting yourself into a bad position. Is that right, no, but it is what it is.

Same thing as a white guy hopping out of his car in Compton to ask for directions at 2 am.
Same as a black guy showing up to try and see what up at a KKK meeting.


If you put yourself in bad situations, I wont feel sorry for you.

I apologize that this is too hard for some of you to grasp.

You know who you are......yes you do!

[Col Hogan]

Thats great and I am glad, but in joining the military they are putting themselves in a bad spot.

Their choice.

In 22 years in the military I never saw a woman mistreated. I saw a lot of them treated as GODS, even when they were three-bag ugly, but never mistreated.

AZ, help me understand....how have women put themselves in a bad spot by joining the military????

I guess in my 35 years of service and your 22 years of service, we were pretty dumb and didn't realize this...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Really, you cant see what I am pointing out?

If the military is so great for women then why are the stats posted about VASTLY different than in society?

Also I am glad that only you 2 ever served in the armed forces and can let us in on all it entails.

[bobbythekidd]

In 22 years in the military I never saw a woman mistreated. I saw a lot of them treated as GODS, even when they were three-bag ugly, but never mistreated.

Same here. I did see one chick taking on 10 or so guys on a picnic table, but she wanted it.

[Col Hogan]

Really, you cant see what I am pointing out?

If the military is so great for women then why are the stats posted about VASTLY different than in society?

Also I am glad that only you 2 ever served in the armed forces and can let us in on all it entails.

So, let me understand....you accept a story from the lib media to argue your point???

[CID1990]

Yeah. Reagan compromised so much with the Russians that they don't EXIST anymore as a country.

Kids these days. They don't use libraries anymore, just regurgitate **** their dads said.


You don't know your Reagan ****. You subscribe to the myth; the manufactured legend. He started off with tough talk, then negotiated down with them on missiles, warheads, everything. Actually became the peacenik you and Tfart despise. He had little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, too, Muffy; nothing more than a couple well-placed sound bites courtesy of his handlers - tearing down walls, evil empries, blah, blah, blah. Gorbachev gets the lion's share of credit.

Turns out, too, that, in the Soviet Union, we were kicking a sick bag lady that was doomed to collapse at anytime since the late 1960's. The Russians actually got the last laugh in the whole affair by forcing us to spend trillions beefing up our (still to this day) mediocre military to fight what was a decidedly crumbly paper tiger.

Regardless, and not looking out for its citizens, the military and Conk industrialists and arms merchants bellied up to the trough in Washington to contribute to the debt that took great pains by Bush 41 and Bill Clinton to dispose of, and still build up the military. Dude cuts taxes right off the bat, too. Then, in '83, he comes back with the biggest tax hike ever up to that point.

Suggest you read up on a little history and put down the Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, Coulter crack pipe you're gripping shakily in that sweaty fist. Reagan was a good person, but a medicore (at best) president. Don't be blind.

Talk about regurgitation. The Gorbachev line is classic liberal tripe. Gorbachev was as much an aparatchik as Andropov. He was putting every finger he had in the dike, and Perestroika was his last gasp. If Gorbachev could have held the politburo together he would have. So saying Gorbachev was somehow responsible for an intentional ending of the Cold War or collapse of the Soviet Union is JUST as disingenuous as saying that Reagan deserves ALL the credit.

In fact, if Gorbachev had actually been as brilliant as some idiots think he was, then the Soviet Union would have slowly embraced democratic changes while maintaining its hegemony in central Asia, much like modern China. The result would be a much more stable Russia today without all the chest beating we are now seeing.

Reagan's accomplishments have to be measured against what he was actually trying to do at the time, and that was to remove the Soviet grip from eastern European countries that were claimed by the Soviets after WWII. Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia were essentially owned and controlled from afar for nearly 50 years. It is well known that causing the Soviets to overspend in an attempt to keep up strategically was the primary cause for their pullback from eastern Europe which brought about the breakup of that part of the world. Remember SDI? It was FAKE. We were nowhere near having the technology to make it work, but the Russians sure thought we did. Why would we attempt a ruse like that for any other reason than to destabilize the Russian economy by forcing them into unsupportable military spending? Conventional wisdom in the Reagan administration was that if we made the Russians spend more than their economy could support, they would not be able to hang on to eastern Europe, which was exactly right. Nobody thought that the USSR itself would collapse. This is where the stories about Reagan not actually ending the Cold War come from. The breakup of the Soviet Union was an unintended consequence of what was ultimately a very successful foreign policy.

Whether the Russian military apparatus in the 1980s was crumbling and obsolete was never the point. Making the Bear look like a direct threat was simply politics. The point was that an economically weakened Russia could not maintain its vassals, nor could it continue to occupy Afghanistan or start any new expansionist projects. There are millions of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Turkomen, Georgians, Romanians, Estonians, Lithuanians and Ukrainians who are living in much better conditions today because of the end of the Cold War, and they aren't thanking Mikhail Gorbachev.

At the end of the day, the history of the Cold War simply proves that our system is more resilient than theirs was. A capitalist country with free markets can absorb much more debt than a country with state-controlled industries and a socialist economy. We can rail about capitalism these days all we want, but there is nothing that free market capitalism can do to bring about the total collapse of the West like the one we saw in Russia. Even the most hard line communist countries recognize that they have to have market reforms and guarantee certain personal freedoms in order to survive. In 50 years, Russia and China will be the strongest countries on the planet because of their free markets and full exploitation of their own resources. In other words, they are moving to look more like we looked in the 1980s. At the same time, we are going to be the engineers of our own demise through stifling market "reforms" (read: nationalization) and industrial decentralization accelerated by increasing anti-corporate legislation. We are moving to look just like they once did.

[Wedgebuster]

Kids these days. They don't use libraries anymore, just regurgitate **** their dads said.


You don't know your Reagan ****. You subscribe to the myth; the manufactured legend. He started off with tough talk, then negotiated down with them on missiles, warheads, everything. Actually became the peacenik you and Tfart despise. He had little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, too, Muffy; nothing more than a couple well-placed sound bites courtesy of his handlers - tearing down walls, evil empries, blah, blah, blah. Gorbachev gets the lion's share of credit.

Turns out, too, that, in the Soviet Union, we were kicking a sick bag lady that was doomed to collapse at anytime since the late 1960's. The Russians actually got the last laugh in the whole affair by forcing us to spend trillions beefing up our (still to this day) mediocre military to fight what was a decidedly crumbly paper tiger.

Regardless, and not looking out for its citizens, the military and Conk industrialists and arms merchants bellied up to the trough in Washington to contribute to the debt that took great pains by Bush 41 and Bill Clinton to dispose of, and still build up the military. Dude cuts taxes right off the bat, too. Then, in '83, he comes back with the biggest tax hike ever up to that point.

Suggest you read up on a little history and put down the Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, Coulter crack pipe you're gripping shakily in that sweaty fist. Reagan was a good person, but a medicore (at best) president. Don't be blind.

Talk about regurgitation. The Gorbachev line is classic liberal tripe. Gorbachev was as much an aparatchik as Andropov. He was putting every finger he had in the dike, and Perestroika was his last gasp. If Gorbachev could have held the politburo together he would have. So saying Gorbachev was somehow responsible for an intentional ending of the Cold War or collapse of the Soviet Union is JUST as disingenuous as saying that Reagan deserves ALL the credit.

In fact, if Gorbachev had actually been as brilliant as some idiots think he was, then the Soviet Union would have slowly embraced democratic changes while maintaining its hegemony in central Asia, much like modern China. The result would be a much more stable Russia today without all the chest beating we are now seeing.

Reagan's accomplishments have to be measured against what he was actually trying to do at the time, and that was to remove the Soviet grip from eastern European countries that were claimed by the Soviets after WWII. Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia were essentially owned and controlled from afar for nearly 50 years. It is well known that causing the Soviets to overspend in an attempt to keep up strategically was the primary cause for their pullback from eastern Europe which brought about the breakup of that part of the world. Remember SDI? It was FAKE. We were nowhere near having the technology to make it work, but the Russians sure thought we did. Why would we attempt a ruse like that for any other reason than to destabilize the Russian economy by forcing them into unsupportable military spending? Conventional wisdom in the Reagan administration was that if we made the Russians spend more than their economy could support, they would not be able to hang on to eastern Europe, which was exactly right. Nobody thought that the USSR itself would collapse. This is where the stories about Reagan not actually ending the Cold War come from. The breakup of the Soviet Union was an unintended consequence of what was ultimately a very successful foreign policy.

Whether the Russian military apparatus in the 1980s was crumbling and obsolete was never the point. Making the Bear look like a direct threat was simply politics. The point was that an economically weakened Russia could not maintain its vassals, nor could it continue to occupy Afghanistan or start any new expansionist projects. There are millions of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Turkomen, Georgians, Romanians, Estonians, Lithuanians and Ukrainians who are living in much better conditions today because of the end of the Cold War, and they aren't thanking Mikhail Gorbachev.

At the end of the day, the history of the Cold War simply proves that our system is more resilient than theirs was. A capitalist country with free markets can absorb much more debt than a country with state-controlled industries and a socialist economy. We can rail about capitalism these days all we want, but there is nothing that free market capitalism can do to bring about the total collapse of the West like the one we saw in Russia. Even the most hard line communist countries recognize that they have to have market reforms and guarantee certain personal freedoms in order to survive. In 50 years, Russia and China will be the strongest countries on the planet because of their free markets and full exploitation of their own resources. In other words, they are moving to look more like we looked in the 1980s. At the same time, we are going to be the engineers of our own demise through stifling market "reforms" (read: nationalization) and industrial decentralization accelerated by increasing anti-corporate legislation. We are moving to look just like they once did.

Ain't it about time you came out of the closet?