US Army to Sgt. Stout: "Thanks for the blood, now get the hell out."

[Tiassa]

Well, what you seem to be telling me is that the nature of combat is so luxurious that soldiers have time to worry about stupid things when taking fire.

I'm still reeling at the idea that all those combat veterans who talk about the intensity of combat situations are liars.

Imagine we're on the battlefield. You ask me, "Soldier, why aren't you fighting?" I say, "Gosh, Sergeant, I'm upset because I think my wife is banging my best friend back home."

What are you going to say to me? Are you really going to tell me to take some more time out in the middle of the battle to resolve my feelings about this? Are you the guy whose back I'm supposed to have?

If I'm worrying about things other than the people shooting at me, what happens to my odds of making it off the battlefield alive? And the chances of my fellow soldiers who depend on me?

I think it's very pertinent if our soldiers aren't adequately prepared to focus on the task at hand.

I'll remember that the next time some vet accused of an atrocity tells me the battlefield doesn't allow for such distinctions as innocence and guilt. Apparently, they have the opportunity. At least, if they can afford to be worrying about gays.

 

[Baron Max]

Well, what you seem to be telling me is that the nature of combat is so luxurious that soldiers have time to worry about stupid things when taking fire.

Well, actually that's partly true. Combat is mostly 90% boredom, 10% sheer terror and panic! Sure, there's lots of time, say waiting for the enemy to come within range, that people will think of all kinds of things ...sometimes weird, strange things.

I'm still reeling at the idea that all those combat veterans who talk about the intensity of combat situations are liars.

Who told you that? If you read that in anything that I wrote, then either I wrote it wrong, or you read it wrong. What I attempted to say was that "most" of those who talk a lot about combat "probably" didn't actually see combat or saw very little of it. (That's also true of World War II veterans, too ...partly the reason is that people who haven't see combat simply wouldn't understand ...just like you aren't understanding.)

As to the soldier who is overly concerned something, if the leader has anything to say about it, that soldier would NOT go into combat. Many instances happened where a man was pulled out of the squad because he got a "bad" letter from home, etc. In combat, the entire group must be focused on the issue at hand and NOT on something else ....or that squad is likely to die.

At least, if they can afford to be worrying about gays.

90% boredom, 10% sheer terror and panic. If in the 90% they begin to "worry" about the guy next to them being gay, then it may cause some problems of focus for that 10% sheer terror and panic. Why would you want to give our straight soldiers even a slight problem like that?

You want to put the straight soldiers at a possible risk JUST to allow a gay to serve in the military? JUST to have your way, you're willing to possibly put some of the others at risk? ...EVEN if that risk is only a mental issue like homophobia? Why? Is it THAT important to you?

I'll remember that the next time some vet accused of an atrocity tells me the battlefield doesn't allow for such distinctions as innocence and guilt.

I'm not sure what ye're saying here? During a firefight, soldiers seldom contemplate the various philosophies of the world! Pull the trigger, kill the enemy ...and keep pulling the trigger until there ain't no more enemy! What the hell does philosophy have to do with that? ....LOL!

Atrocity? That's something that someone, usually unrelated to the combat, sees AFTER all the bullets have stopped flying and the bombs have quit exploding.

But all-in-all, I'm not so sure about your post? It seems to me that you're confusing a lot of issues, yet trying your best to put it into some coherent thought? Really, your post is somewhat confusing to me ....tho' I'm not sure why.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Really, your post is somewhat confusing to me ....tho' I'm not sure why.

It's because your recollection of combat differs greatly from that of other combat veterans. That and you're trying to skew the issue.

Try a basic consideration: thirty years later, people still rehash the "atrocities" of the Vietnam War. In the current Iraq conflict, American soldiers have proudly described what amounts to atrocious behavior. Justifications of both include the intensity of combat. Sure, the marine who gloats of an innocent mother he chose to kill, "She was just in the way," sounds crass, even cruel. But we're supposed to sympathize with the conditions of combat. Mowing down children in Vietnam seemed awful, but we're supposed to sympathize with the conditions of combat. You don't know. You don't have time to make those distinctions. Men who have survived combat have gotten purple on these points.

But it seems to me that if Private Petey has time to wonder if the Private Butz has a mortar for him, then these purple-faced veterans upset at the peacenik condemnation of wholesale slaughter are all lying.

Man, maybe I should have been a soldier. It sounds sexy. Here I am worrying about danger when there's all sorts of dark romance to be explored.

Seriously, are we really entrusting our national defense to the headcases you're describing? Is the acceptance shown by Sgt. Stout's comrades, then, an aberration in which clear heads have unjustly prevailed?

 

[SpyMoose]

How old is Baron Max anyway? Why does he type like a 13 year old? He seems to indicate that he has been in combat against "yellow bastards" which I guess means either WWII or Vietnam, though I don't often hear Vietnam vets refer to "Yellow bastards" though that could just be because the media liked zipper heads, Charlie, NVA, Viet Cong, and NLF better than something with an explanative in it.

If it were someone’s job to watch your ass, wouldn't you prefer he have plans for it? Or do you think he should do it out of altruism? I think accurate observations about the sort of men who perpetually worry that fags are checking them out have already been made in this thread.

 

[Baron Max]

Tiassa, I've read your last post several times and I simply can't make clear sense of it all. I know the words and some have been put together to make sentences ...but in the context of the topic, they make no sense to me.

If you'd care to explain, I'd be happy to respond ...otherwise I don't know how to answer your points, even if there are any points.

Baron Max

Oh, or you could just call me an ignorant, stupid, old bastard and we can end the discussion altogether!

 

[Baron Max]

How old is Baron Max anyway? Why does he type like a 13 year old?

I'm almost 61. Typing? I don't know ....I try to type like I talk/think, so I must be mentally 13, huh? Thanks!!!

The "yellow bastards" actually came from a novel I was reading about the Korean War ...it just seemed to fit, so I threw it in. We had all kinds of names for Charles and the NVA.

As for gays in the military: Gays themselves admit to being different ...and as such, if they're going to be in the military, they should put together be in seperate units from non-gays. The simple fact that it causes normal guys to feel somewhat uncomfortable is enough to keep them out of the same units.

Hey, we could have a gay brigade! They could wear pink berets and the shoulder patch could be a big dick pushing into a pink asshole! Neat, huh?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

As for gays in the military: Gays themselves admit to being different

You keep saying this as if it means anything. Different, in the respect of where sexual and romantic attractions tend to lay, but that's hardly something that should disqualify them from being able to act like a professional and do their job.

Blacks are "Different" from your average white-male, and they'll admit that, but we don't make them serve in separate units anymore.

 

[Athelwulf]

Repeating all of the same old lines in favor of gays in the military also does NOT strengthen YOUR argument.

Do you say that to make yourself seem less at fault here?

If a gay soldier makes other, straight soldiers nervous or concerned, it might get them killed. A soldier has enough to worry about it combat and shouldn't have any more worries piled onto them ...even if that worry is unfounded!

It's so easy to twist this to everyone's liking. A Black soldier might make other, White soldiers nervous. A female souldier might make other, male soldiers nervous. A soldier that looks kinda funny might make other, not-so-funny-looking soldiers nervous. Where does it stop?

Having gays in the same unit and barracks with straight men is no different to having women in the same unit and barracks with straight men. How can y'all not see that? And would you advocate that? Would women go along with that?

You've pointed this out before, and as I said before, putting women in the same unit and barracks would end sexism and the obsolete ideas of "separate but equal", so I'm all for it.

Gays and lesbians are different to straight men and women and should be treated differently. How can y'all not see that?

Homosexuals are only as troublesome as you make them out to be. It's better to just learn not to worry about it. Because in the end, when their lives might end the next moment, they will be more interested in preserving their own life, possibly even yours, than entertaining themselves with any fantasies concerning you they may have.

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa, I've read your last post several times and I simply can't make clear sense of it all. I know the words and some have been put together to make sentences ...but in the context of the topic, they make no sense to me.

If you'd care to explain, I'd be happy to respond ...otherwise I don't know how to answer your points, even if there are any points.

I'll give it a whirl. We'll try an abstract example, and then a restatement of the issue at hand.

It has to do with argumentative integrity; that is, a broader concept must make sense when its smaller facets are assembled into a whole.

Imagine, first, an atheist or other critic of religion discussing issues with Christians. One of the problems with Christian faith, at least in this country, is that faith is an individualized concept. As a result, trying to get the whole picture is exceedingly confusing. An expression we don't hear much from abortion foes these days is that "God blesses each conception". The problem is argumentative integrity. What was God's purpose in blessing Charles Manson, for instance? Or, more relevant and contemporary, what of gay people? As the scientific evidence mounts that at least some gays are simply born that way, what is the purpose of God's blessing? After all, even without such considerations, redemption itself suggests that God blesses a conception that leads to the birth of a sinner; at the moment of your conception, destined to be a human being, you are unacceptable to the God that blessed you. We can see why abortion foes don't bust that one out as much these days.

Imagine a Christian FAQ for atheists. As you go from question to question, the responses might make sense individually. But when you put them together, as many atheists will point out, a nest of contradictions is often the result.

Does that make sense? If so, we're in good position.

In terms of warfare, imagine the hippie peacenik. Now, on the one hand, I've sat in a parking garage on a smoke break before and listened to a Vietnam vet talk about how they used to hook up Vietnamese prisoners to the field phone and crank the generator to shock the shit out of the gooks. Big fun, apparently. To the other, I've known a Navy man who got some sort of medal for taking shrapnel up the leg while clearing Vietnamese civilians out of the line of fire. In other words, this doesn't have to be about vets in general. Except that some vets will make it so.

We all know of the type. If we don't love the mission, we don't love the soldiers. The idea that our soldiers are too important to spend on a given mission somehow equals a hating of the soldier. They get pissed at peaceniks, like to lecture us on how we've never been in combat. We can't know, we don't know, so shut up, they tell us. You don't have time to make such pretty distinctions. Children with grenades, hookers with knives, &c. How dare we even think our military remotely capable of atrocities ....

And there's a lot of them.

But here you are telling me about how men can't keep their heads in the battle if they think someone's gay. It doesn't match up well with what other veterans like to tell, especially when lecturing someone who's never been in combat. Because it seems to me that if Private Petey is concerned that Private Butz is lusting him, he is not at that moment thinking about other things, like bullets and rockets and grenades that might be trying to kill him.

If he's got time to worry about Private Butz, then a whole lot of purple-faced, angry veterans are simply liars. Because between worrying about a kid with a grenade and wondering if Butz is a bugger, I know what my priority would be, and I don't think I need to see combat before I figure that out.

Make better sense?

 

[Baron Max]

Well, your "another whirl" didn't work! Wanna' whirl it again?

With the Christian-thing and the War Story-bullshit, you seem to be talking in riddles and nonsense, but ....hey, as I see it, it ain't got shit to do with the issue, so I'll ignore that part.

...it seems to me that if Private Petey is concerned that Private Butz is lusting him, he is not at that moment thinking about other things, like bullets and rockets and grenades that might be trying to kill him.

Well, ...the reason you can't see it is BECAUSE you've never been in combat! And worse, seem unable and/or unwilling to learn about it!

You seem to think that combat is "...bullets and rockets and grenades..." all the damned time! It ain't. In fact, combat is probably less than 5% of the time. So there's plenty of time for soldiers to think about other things than whizzing bullets and exploding grenades ...like Private Butz lusting after him! Or worse, Private Butz and Private Dong butt-fucking and sucking cocks behind the barricades and not paying attention on guard duty!

Because between worrying about a kid with a grenade and wondering if Butz is a bugger, I know what my priority would be, and I don't think I need to see combat before I figure that out.

Well, from that statement, I'd say you have your head waaaay up your ass or some other very dark, ignorant place! See my comment above ...and try to learn a little about combat before you post such uneducated, unrealistic garbage. Especially when talking to a veteran.

The other thing that I'd advise is to understand that anyone, soldiers or civilians, will tell you things about their lives, but they most often leave out all the boring, non-sensical, unexciting things. See? You're listening to and trying to learn about combat ONLY from old war stories (whether true or not!) ...and, worse, you're coming here and posting as though you've got it all figured out. Geez, what else have you figured out that way? Is that your usual way of learning?

...and crank the generator to shock the shit out of the gooks. Big fun, apparently.

See? You don't know, do you? But it's actually too much work ...it's much easier to jab sharpened bamboo slivers under their fingernails or thru the head of their dicks or testicles! Plus the radio is still available for making calls for air support and napalm drops on innocent villagers!

I can make up more such stories if you'd like ....it's kinda' fun ...you sure you don't want to hear more silly-assed stories like that? I love fiction, it gives wide latitude and people like you sometimes believe it ....and that gives me lots of laughs.

But I still say that gays and lesbians are a "different gender" (they practically admit it themselves!) ...and putting gay men in the same barracks as men is exactly the same as putting women in the same barracks as men - how can you expect NOT to have problems??

Put gays in the pink barracks and the pink squads!

I think gay men can withstand and fight in combat, but that doesn't mean that they should do so in the same squads or companies as the men. In much the same way as we don't have women in the same combat squads with men. Why is that so hard to understand??

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Well, your "another whirl" didn't work! Wanna' whirl it again?

Sure. Your recollections differ so sharply from those of other Vietnam vets that either you or they are wrong.

So what is your priority on the battlefield? The enemy that's trying to kill you, or worrying that Private Butz is staring at your ass?

It's that simple, Baron. If you say Private Butz, you'll be at odds with every vet in the country who gets upset when the public starts worrying about military conduct. And that's quite a few of them.

With the Christian-thing and the War Story-bullshit, you seem to be talking in riddles and nonsense

I would borrow a phrase from you to explain it, but that would just end the conversation.

Well, ...the reason you can't see it is BECAUSE you've never been in combat!

That's a poor excuse, since it's at odds with what most vets tell.

And worse, seem unable and/or unwilling to learn about it!

Well, I'm trying. That effort has been hampered because I'm 32, and if I'm to believe you, it means every combat vet I've ever spoken and listened to is lying. How do you expect people to learn about anything when the "educators" as such are all a bunch of pathetic, whining liars?

You seem to think that combat is "...bullets and rockets and grenades..." all the damned time! It ain't. In fact, combat is probably less than 5% of the time. So there's plenty of time for soldiers to think about other things than whizzing bullets and exploding grenades ...like Private Butz lusting after him!

I see. Nice dodge. At least you're still agile.

Well, from that statement, I'd say you have your head waaaay up your ass or some other very dark, ignorant place!

Again, I would explain why it seems that way, but it would end our discussion.

See my comment above ...and try to learn a little about combat before you post such uneducated, unrealistic garbage.

Well, we'll have to find some honest teachers before learning can take place. Such is the state of our combat veterans. At least, if I'm to believe you.

Especially when talking to a veteran.

Well, find me a veteran. Because I no longer believe you are a combat veteran.

The other thing that I'd advise is to understand that anyone, soldiers or civilians, will tell you things about their lives, but they most often leave out all the boring, non-sensical, unexciting things. See? You're listening to and trying to learn about combat ONLY from old war stories (whether true or not!) ...and, worse, you're coming here and posting as though you've got it all figured out.

I see. What's with the red herring?

Geez, what else have you figured out that way? Is that your usual way of learning?

I would answer the question, but your second paragraph pretty much confirms that the effort would be wasted.

See? You don't know, do you? But it's actually too much work ...it's much easier to jab sharpened bamboo slivers under their fingernails or thru the head of their dicks or testicles! Plus the radio is still available for making calls for air support and napalm drops on innocent villagers!

Well, see? That's what I get for taking the word of a combat veteran.

I can make up more such stories if you'd like ....it's kinda' fun ...you sure you don't want to hear more silly-assed stories like that? I love fiction, it gives wide latitude and people like you sometimes believe it ....and that gives me lots of laughs.

You could try being decent and honest, instead of further besmirching combat veterans. Maybe if you'd actually been one you'd understand that.

But I still say that gays and lesbians are a "different gender" (they practically admit it themselves!)

Do you even realize how massive the implications of such a legal position would be in this country?

and putting gay men in the same barracks as men is exactly the same as putting women in the same barracks as men - how can you expect NOT to have problems??

Well, I had thought our soldiers were well-trained, but you've certainly corrected that notion.

I think gay men can withstand and fight in combat, but that doesn't mean that they should do so in the same squads or companies as the men.

I do admit their chances of survival will go up in such a condition, as they'll be surrounded by smarter, better soldiers.

In much the same way as we don't have women in the same combat squads with men. Why is that so hard to understand??

It's not that hard to understand. I'm just not accustomed to thinking of our soldiers and veterans as being so damnably stupid.

But now that you've set me straight, I'll not make that mistake again.

Congratulations, Baron Max, I concede the argument to you. Our combat veterans really are as stupid as you paint them to be.

Happy now?

 

[Baron Max]

Tiassa, you're a difficult person to discuss anything with ...you seem to go out of your way to be non-sensical and rambling without direction? I have a very difficult time understanding you or your arguments/discussions. Sure, it might be because I'm stupid as a rock, but...?

So, I've decided that I just ain't gonna' respond to you anymore. This is supposed to be fun ...it ain't fun with you.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa, you're a difficult person to discuss anything with

It's a symptom of ... well, how did you describe yourself? Oh, yes, it's a symptom of being, as you put it, "an ignorant, stupid, old bastard".

I actually don't know what the hell your problem is, Baron. I mean, this is the second time you've hinted that your attitude is a ruse, and the second time that point is noted.

So if you intend to continue to demean according to group characterization, I can deal with it. If you wish to continue posting with no purpose other than to demean, provoke anger, or disrupt discussions--all for your amusement--I can certainly deal with it. If you wish to continue promoting hatred, I can most assuredly deal with it. If you wish to continue repeating your off-topic excuses for arguments, well, that's no problem, either; I can deal with that, too.

In other words, if you intend to keep dragging down discussions for your own hateful amusement, I am, without question, prepared to deal with it.

you seem to go out of your way to be non-sensical and rambling without direction?

Some things just aren't as simple as you.

I have a very difficult time understanding you or your arguments/discussions. Sure, it might be because I'm stupid as a rock, but...?

Honestly, Baron, your stupidity falls under an abstraction. See, when faced with such a character, I wonder whether it's that they're sinister or merely ignorant; but being sinister is just a sublimated form of ignorance.

At some level, you don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying. That is reflected in your flaccid, poisonous responses.

So, I've decided that I just ain't gonna' respond to you anymore.

Up to you. It's entirely up to you.

This is supposed to be fun ...it ain't fun with you.

Your problem. Entirely your problem.

 

[Baron Max]

Some things just aren't as simple as you.

I disagree. They ARE simple ....it's people that make them overly complex!!

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

I disagree. They ARE simple ....it's people that make them overly complex!!

Baron Max

And how do they do that exactly? Let me guess, they do it by contradicting your own Ill conceived opinions with reasoned arguments, or impassioned pleas to ideologies of egalitarianism? Those rascals.

 

[Tiassa]

And how do they do that exactly?

I can't speak for all people on this, but I do know it's a symptom of undertaking the advocacy of continued success in the human endeavor. For me, traveling in a car is easier than fixing one. If one looks at cars in terms of driving or riding along, cars seem fairly simple. Keeping them running, fixing them when they break ... that's a little more complex.