Thread: FFS! Gay Pride Comes to Afghanistan Base

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 182 of 182
  1. #181  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Non-issue. Flags of all origins are flown in a deployment. I guess I just don't hate anybody enough to cry Bloody Mary...
    Yeah, it's only about standards, right? Who needs those?
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #182  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    So I have a feeling ody is going to politely correct me on this , but as a civilian who closely watches politics I think there is a lot wrong with the military establishment in the organizational sense (and I want to draw a distinction here between the bureaucracy and the individuals who are serving). The question of gays serving in the military is a part of it (this is a bureaucratic decision), and certain once one accepts the premise of gays openly serving what that means to the larger military culture and structure. But I suspect there are a lot of issues facing the military organization these days -- everything from issues protecting women who are serving, to budgetary matters (especially between branches), to rules of engagement, to care for veterans. And in the largest sense, questions about when a military response at all should be taken at the highest levels as opposed to diplomatic responses.

    So personally, I think in the 21st century, the biggest question I see is "what is the specific purpose of the military as an agent of the United States federal government." I'm not sure we've had a good answer since Reagan. Under Bush 41 it seemed to be about global strategic interests, under Clinton it was for PR purposes -- Clinton's military served as a global ambassador, Bush 43 was nation building and Obama is ???. But I don't think National Defense has been a serious consideration since Reagan. So what are we doing?

    So really, the issue of gays and everything like this that comes with it... I care, but I don't really. Because, again speaking as a civilian, what I'm really worried about is what the government primarily wants the military to do, and I'm afraid without a clear answer to that we'll just be wasting soldier's lives and wasting taxpayer money. I think the matter of gays openly serving is a symptom of that, but it's not really about that.
    Last edited by m00; 04-09-2012 at 07:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •