[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Aug 6, 9:24*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:27*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

m...
On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to
demanding
that you agree with mine.

That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.

:remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
:military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no
osition.
:So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have
:no
osition.
:Good luck!!!!

Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to
the
military.
Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed
unsuitable
for deployment according to shhtard. *A position he supports due
to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.

Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
than any other group.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/re...sheets/msm.htm
MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and
adolescents
in
2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential
name-based
HIV
reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and
adolescents
in
the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].

Then there is the lack of an effective AIDS test
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...9113FF932A3575
5...
948
260
which places combat soldiers at risk in the event of emergency
transfusions.

That was 19 years ago. *Is the test better now?

Good point. *There are better tests.

http://www.health24.com/medical/Cond...92-814-1765,22..
.

but for typical tests a window period still remains.

http://www.health24.com/medical/Cond...92-814-1765,22..
.

Is there any reason to unnecessarily increase soldiers risk?

There is also the risk to our blood and organ supply by the lack
of an
effective
test.

On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering
bonuses
to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
first time of up to $150,000. *Such is the need. *We've also fired
some
300 such translators under DADT.

So it's official: *The military is more afraid of gay people than
they
are of terrorists.

Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.

ScottW

I guess that having translators isn't so important.

What kind of bigotry is evidenced by your conclusion that
the translators are terrorists?

ScottW

huh?

You've concluded that letting in translators while not letting
in gay people means the military is more afraid of gays than
terrorists, therefore you must be equating translators to terrorists.

That's one of the most strangest twists of logic I've yet read. What is
obviously concluded is that the military would rather pay huge bonuses
for new and retained translators which they may or may not get than keep
already trained translators who are gay. The need for translators is
obviously pressing, but not pressing enough to keep their gay comrades.


Now in reality I know you don't intend to equate translators with
terrorists, but it is a more straight forward interpretation of your
premise than your assumption that all translators are working to
prevent terrorism which is clearly not true.
More are working on reconstruction and Iraqi gov't support
than direct counter terrorism AFAICT, though definitive numbers
are not readily available.

All part of the War on Terror, right?


BTW, the actual number of arabic translators discharged under
DADT is 55. 300 were discharged with "language skills".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Yes, "important language skills". Are you happy with the $369,000,000
this is costing?


ScottW

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot yapped:

You've concluded that letting in translators while not letting
in gay people means the military is more afraid of gays than
terrorists, therefore you must be equating translators to terrorists.

Uh-oh. I think Witless hit his head on a hard surface.

Scottie, go have a lie-down. You're foaming at the keyboard.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 6, 6:03*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 6 Aug, 03:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.

I can read a resume.

But you have no expertise in determining what any of it means.

There is no "Doctor of Integrating Gays into the Military" degree
conferred anywhere that I am aware of.

Really????

Really.

I thought you might have one.
You could post it on the internet.

Here's a course that I took while in the military, Clyde:

http://www.deomi.org/

Perhaps this will help explain why I am more sensitive to
discrimination issues than others, including your pal 2pid.

LOL!!!
I just don't see you among the top ten or twenty experts
in this field.

Which field? The field of "Integrating Gays into the Military"?

military preparedenss, organization, personnel

At the unit level there won't be too many others with my experience
and training. At levels above division there will be.

AS a matter of fact, none of us here know
your real identity. there is no reason
for me to accept an anonymous poster as an expert in anything.

Ah, of course. This old saw.

Silly me!!!!
undoubtebly, you are an expert on any matter we talk about!!!

No. But I know what I know.

*I'll leave that to you and 2pid. That seems to be about all you have.

My personal belief is that my postings have shown my expertise in
military matters to those who can think.

and you retired at WHAt rank?

Major.

and you are more expert than any of the thousands attaining
that rank, or higher?

I am more of an expert on field artillery than any general who was not
branched field artillery. Rank is somewhat irrelevant as a mark of
"expertise" in some areas of the military. As a first lieutenant I
advised a full colonel (infantry) on fire support matters.

I would say that if there are any "harms" that could possibly come as
a result of allowing gays to openly serve in the military and
integrating them they would occur at the small unit level. I have
commanded three units, one of which had a large percentage of
minorities and female soldiers. I have been on staff at battalion,
brigade and division level.

If a four-star general commanded a small unit that did not have
females and minorities, I would say that my expertise exceeds his in
this matter.

READ MY LIPS!!!!
I don't perceive any particular harm.

Good. Other than prejudice, there aren't any.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 6, 4:01*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:03*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

I thought you might have one.
You could post it on the internet.

Here's a course that I took while in the military, Clyde:

http://www.deomi.org/

Perhaps this will help explain why I am more sensitive to
discrimination issues than others, including your pal 2pid.

They taught you that you were persecuted and a victim?

Too dumb to warrant an answer.

Get some anger management, 2pid. The dumb angry white guy role is
boring.