I...doubt that...

The Russain were fighting for thier very exsitence!
Had Russia fallen?
Things would be very different today no doubt.
There does exist the same Law under U.S. Military Justice
that would allow you to be shot if you turn and run from Battle.

Human nature is to run for safety.
Some can put that aside even if it means certian death.
Humans are a pack animal so will follow the pack when danger is there.
Why do you see mass deaths at Stadiums and such?
From stomping and other panic reactions no less!
That is the pact instinct!

Ask yourself this.....
If your in a Mall and someone yells FIRE, you see the fire and everyone else is running.
What would you do?

Don't bravo this but post your first instinct!

Thats shocking, but it sounds like a big famous 1950s movie that was a development of 1940s stories.
Kids nowadays eh

The best way to accommodate gays in the military is to get away from the fancy semi-private barracks rooms and go back to the double squad bay like what they had in ww2.

And Skybirds right. If you're going to have heteros, homos and bisexuals sharing bunk beds then you might as well stick the women in the same quarters too and abandon any pretense of making sexual distinctions.

Even so there likely wouldn't be much funny stuff going on in this kind of public setting:

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uplo...1209422413.jpg

If DADT was implemented in the military correctly and in accordance to the law, this would be true. The biggest problem I have with DADT is that it has never been implemented correctly. Third party reporting is specifically prohibited in DADT but the majority of homosexuals being kicked out were outed by third parties.

What do you mean by third party?

Ok more than all the other countries put to together or China alone. According to some studies China lost between 10-20 million, still short of the Soviet's 24 million. If the lost estimate if corrected than it might be more than all combined.

Under DADT, if a third party (another person in the military) reports to the commander that "that guy is gay" the commander can not investigate any further unless there is evidence of a crime. The military was only supposed to kick people out if the homosexual military member self identified. That's the whole purpose of DADT

1. The military does not ask.
2. The homosexual military member does not tell (meaning exhibit homosexual behaviors)

Even with DADT, homosexual behavour is still against the UCMJ. But if a military member does not engage in homosexual behavour but one of his buddies finds out about it, the homosexual member is not supposed to be "asked" (Don't ask don't tell).

The problem is that commanders have not been following the letter of the law. Military members who have not engaged in homosexual behavour nor have they self-confessed have been and still were (up until recently) discharged based on a third party identification (or "outing")

When I was in the military as a Security Officer, I had to interview members for accesses. One of the questions we used to ask pertained to homosexuality. When DADT passed, I not only could not ask any of our homosexual questions, if I knew that the person was a homosexual or if I were told the person was a homosexual, I could not act on that knowledge or information, unless the member self-confessed. That was how DADT was supposed to work.

One of the reasons I am in favour of repealing DADT is that the military, over the years, drifted away from following the law. Commanders were considering the fact that a member told another member that they were homosexual counted as an official self-confession. And that is not how it was supposed to work.

Aren't there greater worries for people in combat? :lol:

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Yes, that condoms are out of stock........:o

Uh-oh! Better have a doctor look that over. :arrgh!:








Aaand the classic jingle that's been burned into my psyche since junior high:

Peter-Rooter. That's the name. You just flush your troubles, down the drain.


Someone here is bound to remember that one.

You are absolutely right, that's for experts :huh:

Well if you know a better way of water proofing the muzzle of an M-16 I'm all ears... :O:

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/w...me_6838big.jpg

Why not waterproof the rifle and the rifleman with the ease and convenience of one condom ? :DL