Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[BigSqwert]

I guess provide me a link that shows when a dolphin used a tool, built shelter, created a mathematical system, took over it's environment etc. etc.

 

Ah I get it. As long as you have opposable thumbs you're considered intelligent because you can then use them to build things.

[StrangeSox]

This is a pretty ridiculous derail, but "on par with" does not mean "equivalent to." Dolphins and humans both belong to a pretty small group of highly intelligent animals, along with some other mammals like pachyderms and chimps and some birds like New Caledonian crows.

 

All of that is an irrelevant derail from the ridiculous assertion that animals can't be gay because they don't form social relationships on the human level, which is just a derail from the "natural" vs. "normal" conflation, which is a derail from why DADT was a terrible policy.

[BigSqwert]

Well stated. ^^^

[bmags]

On the other hand the different types of bars derail was awesome.

[StrangeSox]

Well stated. ^^^

[BigSqwert]

Lets hope Pawlenty doesn't become President. He'll be aiming to reinstitute DADT.

[southsider2k5]

How come the aim to get women into combat hasn't taken on as big of a media event as DADT?

[BigSqwert]

How come the aim to get women into combat hasn't taken on as big of a media event as DADT?

I'll claim ignorance here....so women still can't be in combat??

[NorthSideSox72]

How come the aim to get women into combat hasn't taken on as big of a media event as DADT?

I seem to remember some pretty big stories on that too, so I am not sure what you mean.

 

And I think there are still some combat roles even now that don't have women - submarines just recently started allowing women, I think.

 

[StrangeSox]

Women still aren't part of front-line infantry AFAIK.

[southsider2k5]

I'll claim ignorance here....so women still can't be in combat??

 

I'll even link NPR for you.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/13/132882277/Pa...Women-In-Combat

[lostfan]

Women can be "in combat" in the literal sense (after all, they have guns) but they aren't allowed in pure combat-arms roles like infantry, armor, or special forces.

 

In the Army there are 3 types of jobs, there is combat (the ones I listed that exist only for direct combat and are the ones women aren't allowed in), combat support (intelligence, supply and logistics, medical, etc. jobs that aren't directly related to combat but get close to it and sometimes directly in it), and combat service support (clerical jobs that have nothing to do with combat, and while it's possible for them to be in some kind of combat, they almost never leave the big basecamps)

[Balta1701]

Women can be "in combat" in the literal sense (after all, they have guns) but they aren't allowed in pure combat-arms roles like infantry, armor, or special forces.

 

In the Army there are 3 types of jobs, there is combat (the ones I listed that exist only for direct combat and are the ones women aren't allowed in), combat support (intelligence, supply and logistics, medical, etc. jobs that aren't directly related to combat but get close to it and sometimes directly in it), and combat service support (clerical jobs that have nothing to do with combat, and while it's possible for them to be in some kind of combat, they almost never leave the big basecamps)

Problem with this logic is...it really doesn't work any more, considering that combat support people, especially in these last 2 campaigns, have been heavily involved in actual combat, as I'm sure you know.

 

The nice benefit for the army though is that they don't have to offer them combat/hazard pay even though they're in combat, because they're not combat troops. Thus saving the taxpayers money and helping balance the budget.

[lostfan]

Problem with this logic is...it really doesn't work any more, considering that combat support people, especially in these last 2 campaigns, have been heavily involved in actual combat, as I'm sure you know.

 

The nice benefit for the army though is that they don't have to offer them combat/hazard pay even though they're in combat, because they're not combat troops. Thus saving the taxpayers money and helping balance the budget.

Not true. Everyone who goes to a combat zone gets hazardous duty pay.

 

I had a combat support role and combat wasn't my job but I saw it and my DD214 has a Combat Action Badge on it (this was made about 5 years or so ago because infantrymen had the Combat Infantryman Badge, but that's outdated because in modern warfare infantrymen aren't the only ones who see combat)

[Balta1701]

Not true. Everyone who goes to a combat zone gets hazardous duty pay.

 

I had a combat support role and combat wasn't my job but I saw it and my DD214 has a Combat Action Badge on it (this was made about 5 years or so ago because infantrymen had the Combat Infantryman Badge, but that's outdated because in modern warfare infantrymen aren't the only ones who see combat)

You're correct I misunderstood what I was reading/citing. My apologies. More specifically, even if they're in combat, the fact that they're not officially listed as in combat units can prevent them from moving up the chain of command to higher rank.

[lostfan]

You're correct I misunderstood what I was reading/citing. My apologies. More specifically, even if they're in combat, the fact that they're not officially listed as in combat units can prevent them from moving up the chain of command to higher rank.

that mostly applies to high-ranking officers, not really an issue with enlisted types or junior officers though (you are only competing against people in your same job for promotion)

[Texsox]

Yeah, cause that extra bump for hazardous duty is so lucrative