Have no fear Neha! I give you the Indian Navy MARCOS. They pretty much do everything the Seals do . Most nations in the world have come up with these sort of units since the advent of the British SAS. Personally I think we need to change the name of the Seals to something more ferocious, like US Navy Sea Lions or the US Navy Narwhales.
I always thought the haircut was for safety.... My dad (Retired Army, 101st Airborne) always told me that it was A) To keep everyone looking the same and B) For safety (short hair can't get trapped in things).
Nope. I actually think the Seals were a similar idea we came up with on our own (Originally named the Underwater Demolitions Team and came into existence at about the same time as the SAS in the early 40's during WWII). US Army Delta and the Green Berets are based of the SAS though, as are most other special forces units. A few have based themselves off the Seals like the Indian MARCOS but there really isn't much of a difference between the two anyway.
HUH? I was talking about I don't think every woman who serves should have to have a BUTCH hair cut....there's a difference between a butch hair cut and a woman with a short military regulated hair style.
This is absolutely correct. Delta Force was created by COL Beckwith and he said SAS was his inspiration.
America has a strong military because we have an organized support staff. We can supply our army anywhere. Our engineers can build bases in hostile areas and hold them. Sure we have the marines, bad ass mofo's, all of whom are trained to kill and make great invasion forces. Our Special forces are even more extreme, but they aren't that much better than the British or Israeli. I've heard people saying the US is actually worse than those two. You can only make individual human soldiers so good and most nations can match the training we put ours through. On topic, gays are fine in the military. They should be able to give blood too.
What??? Fight in the military fine. But give blood? NEVER! *totally kidding* Honestly, I don't even understand why sexual orientation is even an issue when it comes to stuff like fighting in the military. What relevance does it have to whether or not a person should be able to serve their country?
This changes from army to army, in the Israeli army woman need to have their hair in above shoulder length or bunched up in a ponytail or a bun. In non-frontline bases no one enforces that rule. I do think however that males having short hair is one rule all armies have in common. And on topic: I think the reason the u.s military is using to justify keeping gays out of the army is that it will hurt the unit's moral/cohesion. From my personal experience this isn't the case. I had three openly gay man working in the infirmary were I was stationed and I had no problem going to them when I was sick/showering with them. I also had a (closeted but everyone knew) gay man sleeping in my room, basically a bunk next to me, I really didn't mind him being gay just his personality.
That's so silly...I can understand that, for some people, working that closely with someone who was homosexual could be a difficult thing to do. However, I don't think the problem in that situation lies with the homosexual. I think it is with the person who can't accept them as a fellow member of the military.
Agreed, and here's why. The gay community in the U.S. military is very closed ranks, but once you are accepted and brought in, the numbers of gays and lesbians serving is staggering. Let me repeat that: STAGGERING Most people in and out of the service believe that gays and lesbians only represent a handful of people in uniform. Wrong. Every kind of wrong. A new science will have to be devised by Stephen Hawking to describe the exotic wrong particles (spin = 1 1/2) created by this belief. When the doors opened to me, just on the base where I was assigned (Templehof Air Base, Berlin) I was like, "No way! This is a joke, right?" So, the fact is, we are arguing the wrong question. It's not if gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve. The question is: Gays and lesbians are serving in droves. How do we integrate them into the mission?
I will refer back to the OP now and say that it does sound like it was incredibly selfish of your boyfriend to do what he did without consulting you first, considering he knew of the (very unfair/unjust) policy of don't ask, don't tell. So that's something I'd bring up with him, because it sounds more of a selfish way to get himself out of a place he didn't want to be without even considering consulting his partner about it. As for gays/lesbians in the military, everyone should have an equal right to defend the country they are supposed to have freedom in. ~Lynn
Ok, I know this thread has fallen by the wayside, but I came across an article about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in April 13th's Newsweek. I believe the title of the article is "The End of an Error," and I figured maybe some of you would be interested in reading it.
Yeah I never knew they were so homophobic in the American military..that's terrible! In the UK it's mainly accepted, not a big deal. Not that I'm in the army, but in my school, (an all girls) loads of my year are gay or bi. My good friend just came out. Straight girls sometimes get on each other for the laughs, or a straight girl on one who's lesbian. You should hear some discussions we have in lessons haha. It's used to be a joke that year 11 was all gay, when we were in year 10. The when we went into year 11, it sort of came true!! Hell, our school initals make 'SL(a)GS'! Sluts lesbians and geeks you could say. Oh dear.
No big deal. I was just surprised to see it again. Controversial threads rarely just scroll away. They usually get closed.
Yeah, I was kinda surprised this was still open...I just came across the Newsweek article and figured people might be interested in reading it, so I went hunting for the thread.
I never closed it, because it never threatened to become a problem. I probably should, though, when it dies down again.
I'm surprised I didnt see this when it was active. Regarding the OP (way back when) and other member's stories, this is shameful behaviour. Why should one's sexuality decide who's in and who's out? Disgusting. Furthermore, I have to question why there is such a strong prejudice against homosexuals in the US military. --Someone please enlighten me? I truly am clueless. I think I once heard that women weren't allowed because they are considered the weaker sex and would also distract the men, but that battle was fought, and now both sexes are in the military. How is it so different with homosexuals? To be perfectly honest, I dont know how homosexuals in the United States can deal with the prejudice. Where I'm from, no one really has a problem (and if they have a problem, it's always been my strategy to remind them that it's his/her problem, not the person who is homosexual) with homosexuality, however, for example, my dad is quite against anyone homosexual. "Unnatural," he says. I showed him limited research I was able to uncover from the late 80s test with rats on sexuality, but he reacted as I thought he would and dismissed the research --and me-- from his presence. Back on topic though, I dont know how homosexuals in the United States stand it. Most people claim to be accepting, and yet look at Prop 8. Only four states allow same-sex marriage, and it truly baffles me. How can we as a nation claim freedom with this behavior? It's propagandic (word?) and lacks any real logic or sense. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is no business of mine. Hetero-, homo-, bi-, pansexual... Whatever! Why do people try to rationalize that it's they're business? It's not.
Multiple reasons. At the time the law was inacted military culture was even less welcoming than it is now. Now I don't think its as much a problem as some might make it out to be. One thing is that demographically, a large segment of the armed forces come from the conservative regions of the US, especially the south. I wouldn't necessarily call it prejudice cause I don't think its that bad across the board of the armed forces (though I have heard the Navy and the Marines can be particularly nasty). I think that if the military attempted an open integration though that it would work with the way culture is turning in the US. Maybe one-hundred years ago it was about gender-bias. Now it's more of a concern about the psychological interactions between males and females and that psychology's effect on combat conditions. Now women are only excluded from combat duty but that's a bit of a misnomer cause battle lines aren't clearly defined in Iraq and there have been several instances that show women can perform on par with men for me (Two women have already been award Silver and Bronze stars for combat in Iraq). I think there are also fraternization concerns but the point of an armed force is to have a disciplined one. There are phyisical concerns but for practical reasons I think those concerns are negligable. We already exclude men who can't meet military standards of physical fitness. Hold women to that same standard and I don't see the complaint as valid anymore. My mom and dad have suggested the reason for their exclusion in the early 90's was a result of public outrage at the idea of young mothers going to war. I don't know if that's true but they were both in the army at the time so I assume they know something about it. Officially the military has avoided outright saying anything sexist as far as I know. They come up with "legitimate" excuses to keep women out and use those. Right now I think the real concern is on unit combat effectiveness and its connection to unit cohesion and psychology. I assume they'll work that out sooner or later cause women are going to get in eventually. I discourage the notion of a "free" military. The Miltiary isn't suppose to be free it's a organization with the sole intent of national defense and must take whatever path it needs to to ensure that it's duty can be performed to the fullest. If that includes being unjust or unfair that is acceptable. There is too much danger in war to weaken an armed force by subjecting it to the standards of a free society. The military is a neo-dictatorship and must be so to function. Not saying gays and women would weaken the USM, but that the standards of a free society are not always the best approaches for a military force.
I guess I have a lot to learn about the 'real world,' especially the military. I've been told on more than one occasion that I'm too idealistic for my own good. You make a good point. (I take this moment to mention that you always make good points. I enjoy reading your posts on topics which I want to learn more about, do not understand or may be controversial. ) When it comes to the armed forces, maybe you're right; it does need to be strict and selective to function at its best and be able to defend the free society we have outside of it. "Not saying gays and women would weaken the USM, but that the standards of a free society are not always the best approaches for a military force." -LOH This is the point I think I was trying to make with my less than adequete word babble in my previous post. Just like a straight man may not be cut out for the military, some gays and women might not be cut out, but the resistance felt within the military once they have proven themselves via physical tests, training, time served and promotions (I admit I know very little about how US armed forces operate) just like every other straight man does, the prejudice is still felt. I guess I should stop whining about how unfair things are and do something about it if I feel so strongly, huh?
Along that line, many Americans do not understand that when you're in the military you LOSE all your constitutional rights, which are replaced by the UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, you no longer have complete freedom of speech. If you're put at attention by an officer, you can be punished for speaking out. You don't even have the right to quit your job! Doing so during time of war could, according to UCMJ rules, get you in front of a firing squad. Point is simple, the military is a dictatorship with a minimal amount of civilian oversight. Consequently, civilian "laws" don't apply.
