On 7/30/17 6:14 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, try thinking.

Oh, think about this: according to your bible, Adam and Eve had three sons.
...

Why should I think about that?


You mean, you don't think often about that work of fiction?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:58:18 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

I agree with this post...

"Nobody has the "Right" to serve in the Military.

The Military is not an equal opportunity employer.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for things such as:

Too fat. Too skinny. Too old. Too young. Too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, missing fingers. Poor eyesight. Even bad teeth. Bad back. Malnourished. Criminal history. Anxiety. Phobias. Drug addiction. Hearing damage. Even those in wheelchairs are denied entry into military service. Can't run the required course in the required amount of time? Denied.

The Military has one job. To go to War and Defend this Country and Allies. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. There are no exceptions made for being special, challenged or socially wonderful.

It's the same reason they don't allow diabetics, epileptics, or people with asthma in the military. It's a medical liability and cost issue. If you need constant medication, like a hormonal suppression regiment necessitates, you are not mission ready. That is the military, they discriminate based on ability and commitment.

You change YOURSELF to meet military standards. Not the other way around.

The Military does not need to accommodate anyone with special needs. The Military needs to maintain readiness." - Steve S

Well said. And it's for damn sure commanders don't need the additional worry of whether GI Joe
should be called Joe or Joanne on any given day.

I was talking to my wife about this and the hormone problem came up O
said it might be hard to explain to Private Caitlan that the last air
drop only had ammo and MREs, ho hormones for her.
My wife said Great, Cait will be going through menopause. Just give
her plenty of ammo and say "those people said you look fat".
Back up and hope there are no war crime investigations.

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:56:40 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/30/17 6:14 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, try thinking.

Oh, think about this: according to your bible, Adam and Eve had three sons.
...

Why should I think about that?


You mean, you don't think often about that work of fiction?

Well, I don't pay much attention to your fantasy novels

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:22:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I'm sure the 20,000+ sexual assaults of women military personnel in 2014
were committed by gay men, right?

If you actually read past the headline you would know it said 7
percent of military women and 2 percent of men experienced some sort
of "unwanted sexual contact".
Were the people harassing the men, women or were they gay guys?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:38:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:22:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I'm sure the 20,000+ sexual assaults of women military personnel in 2014
were committed by gay men, right?

If you actually read past the headline you would know it said 7
percent of military women and 2 percent of men experienced some sort
of "unwanted sexual contact".
Were the people harassing the men, women or were they gay guys?


....or transgendered gay women/guys.

On 7/31/17 11:08 AM, Justan wrote:
John H Wrote in message:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:38:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:22:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I'm sure the 20,000+ sexual assaults of women military personnel in 2014
were committed by gay men, right?

If you actually read past the headline you would know it said 7
percent of military women and 2 percent of men experienced some sort
of "unwanted sexual contact".
Were the people harassing the men, women or were they gay guys?


...or transgendered gay women/guys.


Or gay women harrassing straight women.
Or if more men would ante up we wouldn't have to enlist wives and
mothers to fill the gaps.


I was about to post that your comment was your dumbest ever but, in
reality, pretty much every post of yours is your dumbest ever.

The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:10:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.

You really can't blame our results on the military. You need to blame
the politicians who get us in civil wars where there will never be a
winner.
I will say that if you are really talking about combat troops, there
are physical constraints on some jobs where you need higher standards
that most men and virtually all women will fall short of.
You might be able to accommodate "special needs" soldiers in rear
echelon areas but if someone needs regular hormone shots to maintain
their chosen gender, they have no business being out in the field.
At a certain point, they may be more trouble than they are worth,
which is why we maintain minimum physical standards in the first
place.

On 7/31/17 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:10:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.

You really can't blame our results on the military.

We sure showed those Grenadians, eh? Of course I can blame "the
military" leadership. If the military has a plan and it is nixed by
politicians, the generals involved can resign their commission.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/31/17 11:08 AM, Justan wrote:
John H Wrote in message:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:38:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:22:32 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I'm sure the 20,000+ sexual assaults of women military personnel in 2014
were committed by gay men, right?

If you actually read past the headline you would know it said 7
percent of military women and 2 percent of men experienced some sort
of "unwanted sexual contact".
Were the people harassing the men, women or were they gay guys?


...or transgendered gay women/guys.


Or gay women harrassing straight women.
Or if more men would ante up we wouldn't have to enlist wives and
mothers to fill the gaps.


I was about to post that your comment was your dumbest ever but, in
reality, pretty much every post of yours is your dumbest ever.

The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.


Blame the politicians, they are the actual ones in charge.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:35:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/31/17 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:10:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.

You really can't blame our results on the military.

Of course I can blame "the
military" leadership. If the military has a plan and it is nixed by
politicians, the generals involved can resign their commission.

That is not the way it works. The military is under the command of the
commander in chief and congress. You really don't want them to make
the decisions to go to war themselves do you?
You had Johnson lying us into a wars, and then sitting up all night
deciding what they should bomb and what they shouldn't based on
political goals, not military ones. The US never lost a battle in
Vietnam and they still lost the war because we never allowed the
military to hold the ground they took the day before. There was never
really a strategic military objective, only tactical ones that were
achieved every time.
We did the same thing in Iraq. Nobody knew what a win was supposed to
look like. We achieved all of the military objectives.
At least in Kuwait, we had a goal and the military was smart enough to
quit when they achieved it. (in 100 hours)
Then the politicians moved the goal posts, bombed Iraq for another
decade, eventually invading, with no plan of what to do when they
succeeded. That was 26 years and five presidents ago and we are still
mired in the same ****. You can't blame the military for that.