TexasCHLforum.com

I hate to be a pessimist, and certainly not pointing fingers at anyone, but I think this nation is finished. Oh, the end won't come this year, or next year. But I think we're on the fast track to reach the end, and I'm afraid it won't be pretty when it arrives.

And we'll do nothing but pick up speed once Hillary becomes POTUS.

What can we do? Anything? I'm praying, but I'm not sure God is listening any more, honestly.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-us-sa ... itics.html

Report: US sailors ill-prepared for Iran encounter in Gulf
Weak leadership, poor judgment, a lack of "warfighting toughness" and a litany of errors led to the embarrassing capture and detention by Iran of 10 U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf in January, according to a Navy investigation released Thursday.

Six officers and three enlisted sailors have been disciplined or face disciplinary action. The report said the boat captains and crews were "derelict in performing their duties,"

The partially censored report also cited instances of unnamed sailors violating the military's code of conduct while in captivity. One sailor made "statements adverse to U.S. interests" during interrogation. A different sailor encouraged fellow crewmembers to eat food offered to them while being videotaped by the Iranians.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

thatguyoverthere wrote:I hate to be a pessimist, and certainly not pointing fingers at anyone, but I think this nation is finished. Oh, the end won't come this year, or next year. But I think we're on the fast track to reach the end, and I'm afraid it won't be pretty when it arrives.

And we'll do nothing but pick up speed once Hillary becomes POTUS.

What can we do? Anything? I'm praying, but I'm not sure God is listening any more, honestly.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-us-sa ... itics.html

Report: US sailors ill-prepared for Iran encounter in Gulf
Weak leadership, poor judgment, a lack of "warfighting toughness" and a litany of errors led to the embarrassing capture and detention by Iran of 10 U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf in January, according to a Navy investigation released Thursday.

Six officers and three enlisted sailors have been disciplined or face disciplinary action. The report said the boat captains and crews were "derelict in performing their duties,"

The partially censored report also cited instances of unnamed sailors violating the military's code of conduct while in captivity. One sailor made "statements adverse to U.S. interests" during interrogation. A different sailor encouraged fellow crewmembers to eat food offered to them while being videotaped by the Iranians.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

This kind of hits home to me. When I was a junior officer in the US Navy in the late 80's, I was sent from my destroyer on a handful of small boat operations in the Mediterranean and North Africa. None of them consisted of more than a few hours or 10-20 NM. I had no specific training for the tasks, though I had certainly received code of conduct and military law training in officer accession. We were armed with a total of one M-14 and a 20 round box magazine of 7.62. The selector was welded to semi...Now this was a utility boat from a '60s vintage destroyer. There was no navigation equipment other than a paper chart and a depth finder that looked like it came from Uncle Buck's bass boat...

So I "kind of" feel for the sailors...While they had modern riverine patrol boats w/ navigation and armaments, I wonder if they felt like they would be backed up by their commanders and this administration??? I'd like to think I would have been up to the task if the same thing had happened to me in '89. These sailors were poorly trained and led no doubt, but this article smells of butt covering by the higher ups.

ScottDLS wrote:
This kind of hits home to me. When I was a junior officer in the US Navy in the late 80's, I was sent from my destroyer on a handful of small boat operations in the Mediterranean and North Africa. None of them consisted of more than a few hours or 10-20 NM. I had no specific training for the tasks, though I had certainly received code of conduct and military law training in officer accession. We were armed with a total of one M-14 and a 20 round box magazine of 7.62. The selector was welded to semi...Now this was a utility boat from a '60s vintage destroyer. There was no navigation equipment other than a paper chart and a depth finder that looked like it came from Uncle Buck's bass boat...

So I "kind of" feel for the sailors...While they had modern riverine patrol boats w/ navigation and armaments, I wonder if they felt like they would be backed up by their commanders and this administration??? I'd like to think I would have been up to the task if the same thing had happened to me in '89. These sailors were poorly trained and led no doubt, but this article smells of butt covering by the higher ups.

When this happened I knew the sailors lacked training and would take the fall. Pathetic.

thatguyoverthere wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Men can serve, women can serve, why not someone who identifies as the opposite gender?

mr1337 wrote:

thatguyoverthere wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Men can serve, women can serve, why not someone who identifies as the opposite gender?

How about the morale of the unit? Does that not count? This modern day political correctness is what is wrong and bringing the country down the path to self distruction. Why should the feelings of a single individual in a unit who wants to identify as something he/she is not even remotly jeopordize the closeness required of an entire unit. They will never be accepted and no rule or regulation will change that. Have you served in a branch of the military?

Salty1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

thatguyoverthere wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Men can serve, women can serve, why not someone who identifies as the opposite gender?

How about the morale of the unit? Does that not count? This modern day political correctness is what is wrong and bringing the country down the path to self distruction. Why should the feelings of a single individual in a unit who wants to identify as something he/she is not even remotly jeopordize the closeness required of an entire unit. They will never be accepted and no rule or regulation will change that. Have you served in a branch of the military?

If someone's feelings are hurt because a transgender person is in their unit, that's their own problem. You can't take away someone's rights based on feelings, I thought that's what this whole forum was about. Rights for everyone, no matter their gender, identity, creed, race, or religion. So no, you should not keep someone from joining the armed forces just because you don't agree with how they identify themselves. Everyone should be treated equally and be given equal rights and protections.

In the first place, one gives up certain rights whenever they enlist. For instance, you can't make political speech when in uniform (unless you are black females graduating from West Point, but that's another subject.)

My question every time they try another stupid social experiment in the military, how does this make us a better fighting force? I'm afraid being the best fighting force in the world is somewhere around priority #48 in today's military.

Good news is if I struggle with the male APFT (Army physical fitness test) I can at least ace the female standards - they can no longer discriminate! ;)

Can't wait for the first time a man (one born that way) busts out of Ranger School and asks to be re-evaluated under female standards.

mr1337 wrote:

Salty1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

thatguyoverthere wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-officials ... itics.html

Pentagon ends ban on transgender troops in military
Transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, the Pentagon announced Thursday, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Men can serve, women can serve, why not someone who identifies as the opposite gender?

How about the morale of the unit? Does that not count? This modern day political correctness is what is wrong and bringing the country down the path to self distruction. Why should the feelings of a single individual in a unit who wants to identify as something he/she is not even remotly jeopordize the closeness required of an entire unit. They will never be accepted and no rule or regulation will change that. Have you served in a branch of the military?

If someone's feelings are hurt because a transgender person is in their unit, that's their own problem. You can't take away someone's rights based on feelings, I thought that's what this whole forum was about. Rights for everyone, no matter their gender, identity, creed, race, or religion. So no, you should not keep someone from joining the armed forces just because you don't agree with how they identify themselves. Everyone should be treated equally and be given equal rights and protections.

you neglected to answer my question if you have served in the military. From your response it seems clear that you never have. Unless somebody has served and experienced how tight a unit needs to be to operate efficiently you have no idea on the damage that can be done. The unit will not accept them which in itself causes a problem for the pure sake of so called political correctness. You seem to want the entire unit to have a problem rather than keep morale high where men are men and women are women. One has no so called rights when enlisting, what the military is doing is creating yet another protected class of people within the ranks. If a person cannot figure out what sex they are and wants to identify as something they are not how can they be depended upon to complete a mission?

What kind of fitness test would transgendered person be required to take?

If it's dude who is now a woman, and he (sorry if I'm offensive) tests as a woman, how is that fair or equal to other males and females who were assigned to test according to their God given private parts?

Lifting ones "equality" at the expense of someone else is not equality, it analogous to pouring water from one end of the pool into other.

Moreover, what about the quality of our military if this is now norm, to shift the bar into whichever path leads to least resistance?

Without quality, there can be no equality.

I can't believe that our Nation has sunk so low. Just 10 years ago I wouldn't have even fathomed this conversation/debate. World gone insane.

you neglected to answer my question if you have served in the military. From your response it seems clear that you never have. Unless somebody has served and experienced how tight a unit needs to be to operate efficiently you have no idea on the damage that can be done. The unit will not accept them which in itself causes a problem for the pure sake of so called political correctness. You seem to want the entire unit to have a problem rather than keep morale high where men are men and women are women. One has no so called rights when enlisting, what the military is doing is creating yet another protected class of people within the ranks. If a person cannot figure out what sex they are and wants to identify as something they are not how can they be depended upon to complete a mission?[/quote]

I had the same thoughts about prior service.

Rhino1 wrote:

you neglected to answer my question if you have served in the military. From your response it seems clear that you never have. Unless somebody has served and experienced how tight a unit needs to be to operate efficiently you have no idea on the damage that can be done. The unit will not accept them which in itself causes a problem for the pure sake of so called political correctness. You seem to want the entire unit to have a problem rather than keep morale high where men are men and women are women. One has no so called rights when enlisting, what the military is doing is creating yet another protected class of people within the ranks. If a person cannot figure out what sex they are and wants to identify as something they are not how can they be depended upon to complete a mission?

I had the same thoughts about prior service.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

I have never served in the US Military (hat tip and solute to everyone who has or still is ), but as a firefighter, I know that bond is very strong and morale can go downhill quickly if you throw in a troubled individual in the mix (yes, someone who refuses to accept their sex based on how they came out of their mother's womb is troubled in my opinion).
I can only imagine that this bond is even stronger in the Armed Forces and that bringing transgendered individuals will in effect drive the morale down.

I can also tell you that if I was bit younger and considered joining, I'd probably pass on that if this insanity was going on.

Now that I'm thinking about this, maybe that's precisely the plan here. To drive the morale down amongst current members and get them out as quickly as possible and drive the enlistment #'s down.

Hmm.

I served 8 years and left as an O5. I really don't care about the transgender issue. Hypothetically, a phenotypic male (normal male organs) now wants to be a female. Are they going to send him to a civilian doctor that does that operation at tremendous expense as I don't think any military doctors are trained in that surgery? At the same time our wounded can't get service at a local VA hospital and if they go to a private doctor most won't accept them as the government doesn't pay enough to cover the visit. What are they going to do with pregnant active duty soldiers that want abortions? The military won't provide them and the active duty female has to pay for one herself. Are they going to convert phenotypic women into men, again the surgery is expensive and not provided by the military?
Life was simple in the don't ask-don't tell. How come the idiots running the show are not talking about defeating ISIS?

rotor wrote:How come the idiots running the show are not talking about defeating ISIS?

Because, if I may just say what I think, they are playing for the other side. What we have here is a soft, gradual invasion.