But is it the right way??? ********************************************************* 02-14-07, 03:38 PM coldfuse I was surprised to learn: "Fewer than 3 in 10 people ages 17 to 24 are fully qualified to join the Army. That means they have a high school diploma, have met aptitude test score requirements and fitness levels, and would not be barred for medical reasons, their sexual orientation or their criminal histories."
02-14-07, 05:15 PM FredPuli How does their 'sexual orientation' disqualify anyone from enlisting in the American military? Confused The British Army actively seeks to recruit gays.
02-14-07, 06:43 PM Scotty
quote: The British Army actively seeks to recruit gays.
Why would a Army actively seek gays?
02-15-07, 12:23 AM DorianGreyed It's not a new practice, and it's not only the Army. The Marines have increased their number of waviers, too.
The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, according to just-released Pentagon data.
Such waivers grew in the Army from 4,918 in 2003 to 8,129 last year. For the Marines, the total grew only slightly, from 19,195 to 20,750 (the higher Marine total is due largely to its stricter anti-drug rules for recruits).
Democratic Congressman James Moran recently expressed concern to Army leaders over the trend. "The percentage of recruits who have received medical, moral or criminal record waivers has doubled," he said at a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee hearing Feb. 9. "It was about 10 percent—it's now a little over 18 percent."
Interestingly, the waiver data suggests that the Iraq war may actually be a boon to the quality of people enlisting in the Air Force and Navy. Even as the Army and Marines have had to be a little less choosy about their recruits, the number of moral waivers issued for Air Force and Navy recruits has actually declined. The Air Force moral-waiver count fell from 2,632 in 2003 to 2,095 last year; the figures for the Navy were 4,207 and 3.502. - Time
I have to wonder how this is going to play out in the US in 5 or 10 years.
When you consider that a) bonuses have increased significantly b) the back door draft has been employed extensively c) various reserve units have been called in again and again and d) the presence of females in the service and in positions that they have rarely occupied before has increased a great deal,
this inrease in waviers is a strong indication that the services are in trouble. Any guesses how they got this way?
02-15-07, 01:28 PM newnickname
quote: Why would a Army actively seek gays?
Why would an army, especially one struggling to recruit enough people, arbitrarily disqualify any section of the population from joining?
I guess maybe it would have to be the problem of gay soldiers bursting into tears in the middle of battle because they broke a nail or something. Roll Eyes How old is your stereotype of gay people? Haven't you seen Brokeback? Smile
02-15-07, 02:32 PM Koz
quote: “How old is your stereotype of gay people? Haven't you seen Brokeback?”
I am not speaking for Scotty (or anyone else) but I think that gay people are not pursued for recruitment due to the living arrangements of military life much more than bursting into tears for breaking a nail Wink .
And no I have not seen “Brokeback Mountain ” and I have no intention of ever seeing it either. I am far from a homophobe, but I don’t like love story movies. (Of any gender, mixed or otherwise) You know, “ chick flicks ” Eek.
I did see the film Jake Gyllenhaal was in that was released just before Brokeback Mountain though Wink .
02-15-07, 03:19 PM frankvan In my army days we didn't even mix white and black troops. Roll Eyes But speaking of living arrangements, wouldn't it be less likely to create problems where everyone knew everyone else's sexual orientation? The present "Don't Ask/ Don't Tell" seems particularly short-sighted.
02-15-07, 04:04 PM Scotty
quote: Why would an army, especially one struggling to recruit enough people, arbitrarily disqualify any section of the population from joining?
I didn't think that we were talking about disqualifying any section of the population, I thought that we were talking about "actively seeking Gay people" to join the Army. Why would any armed Service do such a thing, especially since it is known to be a problem with the majority of service men.
quote: “How old is your stereotype of gay people? Haven't you seen Brokeback?”
No! I haven't, and I don't have any plans to do so. It is something that just doesn't appeal to me.
02-15-07, 05:43 PM DorianGreyed "Why would any armed Service do such a thing, especially since it is known to be a problem with the majority of service men."
Were you referring to the problems that the military had in accepting blacks, in accepting females, or accepting gays?
I think the military will get over any "problems" with accepting gays, but then, I may have more faith in ther military than some who don't agree.
02-15-07, 06:03 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
I didn't think that we were talking about disqualifying any section of the population, I thought that we were talking about "actively seeking Gay people" to join the Army. Why would any armed Service do such a thing, especially since it is known to be a problem with the majority of service men.
Known to be a problem? What exactly is the problem? Can you spell it out ?
Up to 2000 there were anti-'gay' laws in force for the British military. This had to change after a ruling by the European Court.The law was peculiar to the military: in civilian life such discrimination would have been illegal.In practice there were many homosexuals in all the armed forces but, naturally, they did their best to keep their sexual orientation from being widely known.
Our military wants the best men and women available. They were conscious that homosexuals would be reluctant to join, fearing that gays feared an anti-gay culture, whatever the law said.
So the army and air force send men to gay pride marches,to advertise and recruit. All the forces advertise in gay newspapers.
The British Army has had homosexuals in it for years:in WW2 Field Marshal Montgomery was, supposedly, a notable (and married Wink) example as were General Gordon of Khartoum in the C19 and the First World War leader, General Kitchener . As for the Royal Navy the remark about its traditions being 'rum, sodomy and the lash',attributed to Churchill, only reflected what the country already knew, had known for centuries, and turned a Nelsonian blind eye to.
02-15-07, 06:53 PM Scotty
quote: Were you referring to the problems that the military had in accepting blacks, in accepting females, or accepting gays?
I don't remember reading anything in this thread referring to blacks or women.
02-15-07, 07:14 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: Were you referring to the problems that the military had in accepting blacks, in accepting females, or accepting gays?
I don't remember reading anything in this thread referring to blacks or women.
O.K, you've narrowed it down to gays. Now could you elucidate ? What is the problem the "majority of service men have with gays" ??
02-15-07, 07:31 PM DorianGreyed You may have to type louder, frank. Scotty obviously has some trouble seeing your posts.
02-18-07, 01:44 PM Scotty
quote: O.K, you've narrowed it down to gays. Now could you elucidate ? What is the problem the "majority of service men have with gays" ??
I really don't think that you have to ask that question, Frank, because I know, that you know the answer.
Sorry, I have been out of town a few days.
02-18-07, 02:13 PM DorianGreyed 02-15-07, 03:19 PM frankvan In my army days we didn't even mix white and black troops. ********
02-15-07, 05:43 PM DorianGreyed "Why would any armed Service do such a thing, especially since it is known to be a problem with the majority of service men." Scotty
Were you referring to the problems that the military had in accepting blacks, in accepting females, or accepting gays? ******** 02-15-07, 06:53 PM Scotty
quote: Were you referring to the problems that the military had in accepting blacks, in accepting females, or accepting gays?
I don't remember reading anything in this thread referring to blacks or women. ******** 02-15-07, 07:31 PM DorianGreyed You may have to type louder, frank. Scotty obviously has some trouble seeing your posts. ************************************************** It's rather difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't pay attention to what is being said. I guess I have to point out the obvious.
Scotty, your line of reasoning, as shown in the following sentence,
Why would any armed Service do such a thing, especially since it is known to be a problem with the majority of service men.
was also said about "allowing" blacks to serve in the same way as whites in the military, and was said about allowing females to serve along side of males in the military, and admitting both to the military academies. Did any those actions cause the decline and fall of Western civilization? If not, then just possibly the line of reasoning isn't a valid one.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 02-18-07 01:54 PM
02-18-07, 02:20 PM Scotty
quote: If not, then just possibly the line of reasoning isn't a valid one.
Whether it is valid or not, that is the opinion of the majority of the troops. Gays will not be welcomed with open arms, like it or not.
02-18-07, 02:23 PM Scotty
quote: It's rather difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who don't pay attention to what is being said. I guess I have to point out the obvious.
I think that it was quite obvious from the beginning that we were talking about "gays", I was paying attention to the subject at hand. Some try to change the subject to satisfy themselves.
02-18-07, 03:32 PM frankvan Scotty, you keep referring to the opinion of "the majority of the troops". Since the ratio of gays to straights is estimated to be 10% of the population, and since only 3 in 10 (or 30%)of applicants can fully qualify, doesn't it seem counter productive to eliminate an additional one tenth of that source of recruits' leaving only 20% of potential troops to draw from.
At any rate, the question concerns how to satisfy best the shortfall between available forces and military needs. You ask why would anyone actively seek to recruit gays? That may not be obvious to some homophobes, but you seem to imply that the majority of military, of your acquaintance, are just that. Do you offer that as a personal opinion, or are you prepared to back it up with factual evidence?
Even if widespread aversion to associate with people you (or most of your friends) disapprove of is the unfortunate fact, since when is the U.S military run by popular opinion of the enlisees? Are you suggesting that accepting waivers for felons, highschool drop outs, and those convicted of misdemeanors is preferrable to recruiting gays with impeccable qualifications. Confused
02-18-07, 04:12 PM Scotty
quote: Are you suggesting that accepting waivers for felons, highschool drop outs, and those convicted of misdemeanors is preferrable to recruiting gays with impeccable qualifications.
No! Of course not, Frank. All I am saying is that I have learned over the years that most in the military that I have known personally, both Officers and Enlisted, would not be comfortable with gays in the Military. I have been active in Military forums, and that seems to be the position of most of the people that participate in the discussions.
02-18-07, 08:07 PM newnickname Why aren't most of the people who participate in those discussions comfortable? Are they frightened that their cute little bottoms will be stared at? Are they perhaps not very secure in their own sexuality? If you can have men and women serving together (although, aren't many against that too?) then why not straights and gays?
02-19-07, 05:52 AM FredPuli Don't suppose that, years ago, such people would have been 'comfortable' serving alongside blacks in the same unit either. By 'such people' I mean that there are and were always people who had, or have, an irrational prejudice against those who are not like themselves. That prejudice is not best addressed by allowing such people to dictate policy.They just have to learn to live with the fact that gays (or blacks) are admitted. With any luck their prejudice will diminish once they find themselves serving with gays. In WW2 the US military published a handbook to guide US soldiers who were stationed in Britain. It included the memorable advice that women officers here were treated, and to be treated, as the same as men. Our soldiers saluted and treated superiors as that, regardless of their sex.Possibly an anti-female bias existed in our army until the exigencies of war put men and women together in this way Wink
02-19-07, 11:22 AM Scotty
quote: Why aren't most of the people who participate in those discussions comfortable? Are they frightened that their cute little bottoms will be stared at? Are they perhaps not very secure in their own sexuality? If you can have men and women serving together (although, aren't many against that too?) then why not straights and gays?
Most of the people who participate are men who do not understand how two males could have sexual intercourse with each other, they consider this unnatural. Do you consider it natural?
I don't believe that they are frightened of anything, as most of them can handle anything that comes their way. Except maybe a homosexual advance toward them. Someone would be hurt.
These men are very secure in their sexuality, and do not care to be around activity that they consider abnormal.
02-19-07, 11:23 AM DorianGreyed "Don't suppose that, years ago, such people would have been 'comfortable' serving alongside blacks in the same unit either. By 'such people' I mean that there are and were always people who had, or have, an irrational prejudice against those who are not like themselves. That prejudice is not best addressed by allowing such people to dictate policy.They just have to learn to live with the fact that gays (or blacks) are admitted. With any luck their prejudice will diminish once they find themselves serving with gays. In WW2 the US military published a handbook to guide US soldiers who were stationed in Britain. It included the memorable advice that women officers here were treated, and to be treated, as the same as men. Our soldiers saluted and treated superiors as that, regardless of their sex.Possibly an anti-female bias existed in our army until the exigencies of war put men and women together in this way"
Fred, this is exactly what I was trying to get Scotty to understand. Sometimes, some groups need to be brought kicking and screaming into the present.
02-19-07, 12:22 PM newnickname
quote: ...Except maybe a homosexual advance toward them. Someone would be hurt.
These men are very secure in their sexuality, and do not care to be around activity that they consider abnormal.
And why would a homosexual make advances on a heterosexual? Why is it that homophobes think that every gay person they meet fancies them? How strange.
And the army is surely centred on an 'abnormal' activity. Killing people in industrial quantities with specially designed machines may be a necessary part of modern life, but it's hardly any less 'abnormal' than homosexuality, which has been around as long as there have been humans - animals, even.
(Sorry about that stray post above - maybe some nice administrator will delete it.)
02-19-07, 12:46 PM Scotty
quote: And why would a homosexual make advances on a heterosexual? Why is it that homophobes think that every gay person they meet fancies them? How strange.
And the army is surely centred on an 'abnormal' activity. Killing people in industrial quantities with specially designed machines may be a necessary part of modern life, but it's hardly any less 'abnormal' than homosexuality, which has been around as long as there have been humans - animals, even
I guess in your sheltered life you have not been submitted to homosexual advances. It happens in the real world, pal. It happened to me once on a train, the Travelers Aid was homosexual. I had to get rid of him. It happens to heterosexual people quite often.
Your second comment is so ridiculous, I won't even comment.
02-19-07, 12:51 PM DorianGreyed The nice administrators were busy, so I deleted it.
02-19-07, 01:36 PM newnickname
quote: Someone would be hurt.
Why? If a member of the opposite sex made unwelcome advances to you, wouldn't you just find a polite way to say no - you weren't interested or you weren't available?
Why the need to 'hurt' or 'get rid of' a homosexual who does the same?
Actually, there's no need to ask why. It's fear - a violent and angry reaction based on fear. Fear of what exactly, it's difficult to say - that somehow you seem homosexual, perhaps, so you'll suffer the same fate as homosexuals in a homophobic environment, or that (eek!) there might be a tiny little hidden part of you that is... oh no! Don't even say it!
Of course I've been submitted to homosexual advances in my life. I used to be gorgeous Smile. I didn't feel the need to do anything further than tactfully indicate that the advancer was barking up the wrong tree, however. What's the big deal?
02-19-07, 01:56 PM Scotty
quote: Why the need to 'hurt' or 'get rid of' a homosexual who does the same
I "got rid" of him by saying that I did not go for such activities, period. Why do you assume things that you have no idea about?
Some young Marines that I knew would have hurt someone that made unwanted advances toward them, I know because they told me so.
quote: that somehow you seem homosexual, perhaps, so you'll suffer the same fate as homosexuals in a homophobic environment, or that (eek!) there might be a tiny little hidden part of you that is... oh no! Don't even say
This maybe true in your case, but i can assure you that it is not the case with me.
quote: What's the big deal?
Nothing I guess, if you like that sort of thing. Wink
Oh, BTW if you have had homosexual advances toward you, why the question then about
quote: And why would a homosexual make advances on a heterosexual?
Doesn't make sense if you know that they do make advances to heterosexuals.
02-19-07, 02:06 PM newnickname (Sorry, I guess I should have said, "And why would a homosexual knowingly make advances on a heterosexual?")
So if there's no big deal, and all you have to do is say that you don't go for such activites (big, manly period) why the objection to gay people being enlisted? What's the problem?
quote: Some young Marines that I knew would have hurt someone that made unwanted advances toward them, I know because they told me so.
Not meaning someone of the opposite sex, I guess. Why would they hurt someone who mistakenly made an advance toward them, do you think?
02-19-07, 02:54 PM Scotty
quote: (Sorry, I guess I should have said, "And why would a homosexual knowingly make advances on a heterosexual?")
Same answer. They do !
quote: (big, manly period)
Do you have a problem with manly men?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I wonder, Scotty, have you ever considered the possibility, that some of us are neither homosexual NOR homophobic. When anyone, male or female, made advances on me (in the days when I was also quite gorgeous), I simply said, "That's very flattering, but, No Thank You. I swing the other way." Well, not really in the rare instances when the proposition came from a female! Are you quite sure the only possible answer is a violent one? I have met some gay men who were pretty damn big, tough, and athletic. Please be careful, the 'someone' who gets hurt could be you! ************************************************************* 02-19-07, 04:09 PM juanruiz
quote: Since the ratio of gays to straights is estimated to be 10% of the population,
Sorry to interrupt here, but this is a misstating of Kinsey's own findings, which themselves have since been repudiated by a number of researchers.
02-19-07, 04:29 PM Scotty
quote: Are you quite sure the only possible answer is a violent one? I have met some gay men who were pretty damn big, tough, and athletic. Please be careful, the 'someone' who gets hurt could be you!
Frank, I did not handle my situation with violence, I merely told the guy that I did not go for that S###, and told him to be on his way, and that was the end of it.
I said that I knew some young Marines that would hurt someone if they were approached in that manner, they told me so.
Being an O and G, I had to handle myself differently.
02-19-07, 06:58 PM frankvan Juan is right. I used the figure of 10% of the general population for gays. That appears to be the oft-quoted figure the gay community prefers since it provides them greater political clout. However, it seems that other figures based on studies by the Univ of Chicago: 3%; Science Magazine 4.1% for men and 2.6 % for women; U.S Center for Disease Control: less than 3%, etc. Kinsey, who was probably more my contemporary, based his figures apparently including prison inmates, which skewed his results. It seems that homosexual behavior is common among "normally" heterosexual inmates ?? I'm not quite sure what that implies. Any port in a storm, perhaps? Confused
02-19-07, 07:12 PM juanruiz
quote: I'm not quite sure what that implies. Any port in a storm, perhaps?
It means hold on tight to that bar of soap in the shower.
02-25-07, 08:14 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: I wonder, Scotty, have you ever considered the possibility, that some of us are neither homosexual NOR homophobic. When anyone, male or female, made advances on me (in the days when I was also quite gorgeous), I simply said, "That's very flattering, but, No Thank You. I swing the other way." Well, not really in the rare instances when the proposition came from a female! Are you quite sure the only possible answer is a violent one? I have met some gay men who were pretty damn big, tough, and athletic. Please be careful, the 'someone' who gets hurt could be you!
Sounds like you were quite a lady's man back in your day Big Grin Bet you were a real studWink
02-25-07, 10:45 AM coldfuse Who said frankvan's day has passed? I have it on good authority that he is a.k.a. "the Sean Connery of Baltimore."
02-25-07, 03:25 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: Who said frankvan's day has passed? I have it on good authority that he is a.k.a. "the Sean Connery of Baltimore."
NOW THAT'S A MAN!!! Big Grin
THAT'S A REAL MAN!!! Wink
02-25-07, 06:44 PM frankvan Dammit, 'fuse, you've blown my cover!
03-08-07, 09:50 AM newnickname '“Gay men and women have continually served our country with honor and bravery, and we should honor their commitment and never turn away anyone who is willing to serve their country because of sexual orientation,” he [presidential candidate John Edwards] said. These words were of particular resonance, coming on the heels of the announcement by the first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq that he is gay. Or, in Coulter’s parlance, “a faggot.”'Coulter’s Slur Puts Spotlight on Edwards
03-13-07, 08:29 PM newnickname 'Gay sex immoral says US general...
...A 2005 government audit said 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the ['don't ask, don't tell'] policy.'news.bbc.co.uk
'The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq...
...As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.'salon.com
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: 'Gay sex immoral says US general...
...A 2005 government audit said 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the ['don't ask, don't tell'] policy.' news.bbc.co.uk
10,000 ? ! Somebody must have asked or somebody must have told Roll Eyes
Incidentally, have there been any notable American commanders who are now known, or believed, to have been homosexual? In the British forces there have been several. Some were national heroes e.g General Gordon. Naturally they were safe enough provided they were discreet.Officers came from an officer class: many still do, particularly in 'cavalry' regiments.Such men had been at Public Schools Wink They knew about such matters but, above all, understood the expression 'not in front of the servants'.Unless the man behaved like a complete fool and acted outrageously nobody was going to do or say anything. What the non-commissioned and ordinary soldiers got up to was another matter. We'd cheerfully throw any homosexual soldier out. If a man showed the extreme, even reckless, bravery and strong powers of leadership of such as Gordon a grateful nation was not going to pry and nobody was going to publish. The only hint the public got was in the obituaries of such men in the serious papers, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, where the code to tell the world that a famous man was homosexual was to put the words 'he never married' as the last, and otherwise irrelevant, line Wink. This statement, in those exact words, was always meant, and understood, to mean rather more than a bald statement that the man was unlucky in that he had never found a wife Smile
This attitude towards homosexuality pervaded all walks of life at the top. Many years ago,when homosexual acts in private were criminal acts, most counsel in London knew which judges were homosexuals. Some were judges at the highest level. One, in particular, always seemed to have some beautiful young man at his table (probably a nephew, just up from the country to visit. My, he must have had a big family Smile) . However they all shared the same ethos. Nobody was ever going to say openly what we all knew and understood.Why would we? It may have seemed the height of hypocrisy to employ a homosexual judge who could jail other homosexuals for years for doing what he himself indulged in but that was the way it was.(In practice in London there was some effort to avoid this unhappy coincidence but, on circuit, it was inevitable that it would happen )Why should or would the officer class be any different?
03-13-07, 09:54 PM DorianGreyed I first posted the link above simply because the Salon link was to just a portion of the article. Now, having read it, I feel it important to post some of the article.
“This is not right,” said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. “This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers,” he said angrily. “If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight.”
--- On Feb. 15, Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division’s 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier’s “physical profile,” an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier’s physical limitations because of medical problems — from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers’ profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.
Eight soldiers who were at the Feb. 15 meeting say they were summoned to the troop medical clinic at 6:30 in the morning and lined up to meet with division surgeon Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, who had arrived from Fort Stewart, Ga., and Capt. Aaron K. Starbuck, brigade surgeon at Fort Benning. The soldiers described having a cursory discussion of their profiles, with no physical exam or extensive review of medical files. They say Appenzeller and Starbuck seemed focused on downplaying their physical problems. “This guy was changing people’s profiles left and right,” said a captain who injured his back during his last tour in Iraq and was ordered to Iraq after the Feb. 15 review.
Master Sgt. Jenkins, 42, has a degenerative spine problem and a long scar down the back of his neck where three of his vertebrae were fused during surgery. He takes a cornucopia of potent pain pills. His medical records say he is “at significantly increased risk of re-injury during deployment where he will be wearing Kevlar, body armor and traveling through rough terrain.” Late last year, those medical records show, a doctor recommended that Jenkins be referred to an Army board that handles retirements when injuries are permanent and severe.
A copy of Jenkins’ profile written after that Feb. 15 meeting and signed by Capt. Starbuck, the brigade surgeon, shows a healthier soldier than the profile of Jenkins written by another doctor just late last year, though Jenkins says his condition is unchanged. Other soldiers’ documents show the same pattern.
One female soldier with psychiatric issues and a spine problem has been in the Army for nearly 20 years. “My [health] is deteriorating,” she said over dinner at a restaurant near Fort Benning. “My spine is separating. I can’t carry gear.” Her medical records include the note “unable to deploy overseas.” Her status was also reviewed on Feb. 15. And she has been ordered to Iraq this week.
I would really like to hear comments about this article from those who support bush's war.
03-14-07, 07:20 AM Koz I don’t support what you call “bush’s war” but this article is slanted garbage in my humble opinion.
The source of this “breaking news” has some questionable (at best) material on their site; but at least they are openly biased Roll Eyes .
I do however support those serving in the military and it is clear to me the writer of this article does not.
03-14-07, 09:20 AM DorianGreyed If what Jenkins and the others said is true, how can that article be interpreted as not supporting the troops? Sending injured personnel into a war zone doesn't seem supportive to me. ________
A relate aside - My sleep apnea has never been bad enough to require a mask, but there have been times I chose not to drive because of the very real possibility of suddenly falling asleep. Waking up at the wheel of a car going down the highway is not an experience I want to have again. It was bad enough when I made the decision to drive when drunk; making the same decision while sober and knowing that I could fall asleep while driving is inexcusable. 03-14-07, 10:07 AM Koz It is biased and one sided. The author is showing you only what he wants to show you. Sure there are some people in the military that have persistent injuries that are being sent to Iraq against their wishes. This is what he is showing you.
What he is not showing you is what duties those with these specific injuries will be performing?
From the article: “Did they send anybody down range that cannot wear a helmet, that cannot wear body armor?” Robinson asked rhetorically. “Well that is wrong. It is a war zone.”
The man asks a rhetoric question and then answers it as a fact that a Soldier was sent down range but was physically unable to wear a helmet or body armor. Who is this Soldier? If a person is deemed fit to serve but has a physical condition those needs are met.
He might be sent to Iraq, but I wholeheartedly and sincerely doubt he was sent “down range” and into battle. There are many other positions he could fill that do not require him to be put in such a position. He just does not want to go.
Accusing officers of forging documents is a very serious charge, where are all the facts?
The author is also not showing you the hundreds of injured military personnel who are actually fighting to be reinstated to full duty so they can be with their unit, but that doesn’t fit into what he is trying to say so it is omitted.
03-14-07, 10:49 AM DorianGreyed The reporter seems present both sides of this issue.
The top of the article stated what seems to be a fact, and then asks a legitimate question.
At Fort Benning, soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war. Is this an isolated incident or a trend?
Two people, the division surgeon Lt. Col. George Appenzeller and Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., the brigade commander, were both essentially were quoted denying the claims made by the eight soldiers.
Apparently, the reporter saw medical files, since he compared files from late last year with the ones from February of this year. If the files actually say what is claimed, then the issue needs looking into.
We all know that the military, for the most part, has lowered standards in the recent past in order to meet quotas, and we all know that, in some cases, quotas have been lowered in order to meet those goals. When those facts are added to these claims at a time when our military presence is being increased in Iraq, wondering if the Army is sending people who shouldn't be sent just to have the right number is not out of the unreasonable.
The fact that hundreds of injured military personnel are actually fighting to be reinstated to full duty so they can be with their unit has no bearing on the issue at hand, nor would the fact that some have risked legal action in their desire not to go to Iraq. The issue at hand is the claim that the soldiers in the article have made. Obviously, all the facts, both supporting the claims and refuting them, are not in. But that doesn't mean that the matter should not be reported on.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
