If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Political correctness gone mad???
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
After reading and hearing about certain stories for a few days I have decided that political correctness has been taken to new heights.
My main point is about equality. Everyone loves equality, it is essentially a good thing. But having equality for everyone in the workplace and in normal life isnt good enough for the politicians. For some bizarre reason they have decided to extend it to the military. Im not against homosexuals or ethnic minorities being in the army, I am not a racist. What I am concerned about is their bizarre desision to allow disabled people to "join up" and take jobs as cooks and medics and other "light duties". What the politicians fail to understand is that in a war zone ALL miliatary personnel may be called upon to fight, that includes cooks and medics. A disabled person would not be able to fight effectively and would be a hinderance to their colleagues. The politicans have forgotten that an army needs to be an efficient fighting force, not tied down by obligations to political correctness and human rights. What use is a sentry who is deaf or is missing a limb? He is putting his own life and the life of his comrades in jeopardy. The government needs to wake up and realise that an army is no place for people who cannot or will not fight for a cause and realise that upon entering, individuals must give up some human rights upon entry or the whole force will simply break down. Politicians who have never even seen a rifle, let alone used one should be forbidden from making stupid decisions that jeopardise our national security for the sake of "political correctness".
My main point is about equality. Everyone loves equality, it is essentially a good thing. But having equality for everyone in the workplace and in normal life isnt good enough for the politicians. For some bizarre reason they have decided to extend it to the military. Im not against homosexuals or ethnic minorities being in the army, I am not a racist. What I am concerned about is their bizarre desision to allow disabled people to "join up" and take jobs as cooks and medics and other "light duties". What the politicians fail to understand is that in a war zone ALL miliatary personnel may be called upon to fight, that includes cooks and medics. A disabled person would not be able to fight effectively and would be a hinderance to their colleagues. The politicans have forgotten that an army needs to be an efficient fighting force, not tied down by obligations to political correctness and human rights. What use is a sentry who is deaf or is missing a limb? He is putting his own life and the life of his comrades in jeopardy. The government needs to wake up and realise that an army is no place for people who cannot or will not fight for a cause and realise that upon entering, individuals must give up some human rights upon entry or the whole force will simply break down. Politicians who have never even seen a rifle, let alone used one should be forbidden from making stupid decisions that jeopardise our national security for the sake of "political correctness".
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Are you sure that they get sent into the field?
What you're saying is right - it takes a lot more than just the troops to have an army. There are always the support staff. I understand what you're saying Whowhere, but only as a last ditch effort would they call upon the support staff to fight.
Saying that disabled people should be allowed in teh army needs a bit more defining. I'm colour blind, and thus cannot join the airforce - i'm not sure about the army. My eyesight is also quite miserable, so I prob wouldn't get in to any defence force. By this definition I am disabled as far as getting into the defence forces is concerned. Going with teh tradition sense of disabled - I doubt they will let in ppl with serious physical disabilities (missing limbs etc) or serious mental disabilities. But there are many people out there that have minor disablities, and as such would still be able to play a role as a part of the support staff that the army so heavily relies on.
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.
[This message has been edited by Turtle (edited 22-12-2000).]
Regards having disabled people in rear-echelon support roles, some commentators seem to be missing the point that several have raised on this board: *any* serviceman *might* be called on to fight hand-to-hand. Basic GDT (Ground Defence Training) is required by all 3 services. So, second-liners like cooks, docs and nurses *do* need to be able to fight effectively. The people safe at HQ are not exempt from this - to have people with no combat experience giving orders to servicemen in the heat of battle would be the height of idiocy.
Finally, let me state that Lord Nelson, Douglas Bader etc. were permitted to *continue* to serve, and did not enlist in their one-eyed/no-legged state. Furthermore, they had proven themselves to be superb defenders of the Realm, and were valuable officers in which the Crown had invested much time and money. Thus, retaining them was the logical thing to do, particularly in the case of Bader, since the RAF was desperate for pilots at the time.
The military have a nasty job: killing. leave them to it, giving them the best people and equipment possible, or else they will get slaughtered in battle, and the civilian population they are duty-bound to protect will be the next to bear the brunt of our politically correct naivete.
Mac
sorry about that, i tend to laugh at inopportune moments, like if someone informs me someone has cancer or someone's dead. terrible.
p.s. my dad met douglas bader. irrelevant.
I must point out that the government is seriously considering allowing people with MAJOR disabilities into the Army and RAF. Not people who are colour blind or slightly deaf, but people with serious disabilities, people in wheel chairs or people who are deaf/blind.
the poor sod had a numb mouth for hours
It's just a flesh wound (Monty Python).
lol
I understand GFM <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
j9
Ni! Ni! Ni!
(Sorry, non-Pythonists just won't get that one.)
i laughed at one of my friends when she told me her nan had cancer the other day.. god that was awful, my other friend did it too!! she just said it in such a weird way it was almost as if it wasnt real.
It's better to regret things you've done than things you haven't.
And the most annoying thing i can possibly imagine is mis-quotes arrrrrrrrgh, like the taunting french knights, can people please get that right?!?! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/mad.gif">
*deep breaths*
*deep breaths*
ahhh, much better <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">
Trouble is MB, there are sketches which have different versions!!! Like the Four Yorkshiremen, we used to dream of living in a corridor.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
j9
...of course we had it tough,
every day we'd have to get up half an hour before we went to bed, work 25 hours a day down the mills and when we came our father would chop us in half with a big knife and dance on our graves
if we were LUCKY!
lol!
Now you see, on my record (I think, Matching Tie & Hankerchief) it says something more along the lines of -
we used t ave t get up, half an hour before we went to bed & lick road clean wit tung, then we used t work 24 hours down t'mill, and pay t'mill owner for permission to come to work, then when we got home our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing alleluia. (or was it thrash us with broken bottles...... if we were lucky)
You try telling the kids that t'day, they won't believe ya.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
j9
ps, don't quote me though lol
[This message has been edited by j9j9 (edited 25-12-2000).]
sorry im off on one again.
It's better to regret things you've done than things you haven't.
it's was still pretty gosh darn funny
Python will always be funny however it's quoted <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
j9
Mac
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.
Me, I think anyone capable of killing someone is disabled.
I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away.
When it boils down to it, some people have to kill. If lets say Russian soldiers invaded the UK and were systematically going through every town and raping the women then burning the town afterwards, would you not think "those bastards are destroying our homes"? Would you not want to fight for your country?
As for women not fighting in the front lines this is because of the risk. Not to them, but to the men. It has been proven in a study of soldiers that if a male soldier saw a female comrade fall in battle he would be more likely to go back and help than if it was a male comrade. If every male soldier did that we'd have a problem. Your point about people who kill being disabled is another aspect, women are far more reluctant to take life than men, they value life far more than we do, as you have proven with your statement. This isnt meant to sound sexist as it is grounded in fact. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but not enough to make a force on the battlefield.
As for the ability to kill being a disablity - I personally would consider myself disabled if I *weren't* capable of killing to protect someone or something I loved.
but to answer it, I would expect men, women and children, disabled and able bodied, to do what they could to resist such an invasion, but I hope I would not be prepared to endager anyones life but my own.
I would also expect people to cooperate with the invaders to protect their own position, families or possessions. "proven in a study" is a poor debating point. It makes the accompanying point difficult to argue against as it makes the arguer appear to be denying facts.
1) A study is fairly pointless.
2) Studies don't prove anything - but can show a tendancy.
Without further information on the study in question, I can't comment on likely bias, methodological problems, or the peer review it has been through.
However, other countries have no difficulty putting women on the front line in mixed squads.
the female of the species is far deadlier than the male
but perhaps is much harder to mold into an unquestioning killing machine are you sure of these grounding "facts"?
I'll certainly cede that the English consider it to be uncivilised for women to fight, as they are the graceful sex & all that.
Yup, never heard of the 'amazons' (yeah ok, not quite fair). It's a cultural thing that says women don't fight, although obviously encouraged by the fact that women aren't as physically strong in general (no longer anywhere near as important) and bear children (fairly easily avoided nowadays if desired).
I can't be bothered to argue this really, I think CR is doing well enough already. We could start a seperate topic about the European Rapid Reaction Force or whatever it's called... that's quite interesting.
???? Military junket man speaks <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">. Assuming that wasn't a joke or sarcastic remark: Democratically elected politicians have to run the military. It has to be democratically accountable, and controlled. This might occasionally stop the military being 100% efficient, but it also stops the military being able to do whatever they like, and makes them justify their acts. You can't easily break some control off to other areas - boundaries are hard to define, and would make for a confused control structure, which could possibly introduce more inefficencies.
Im not debating whether or not the politicians should run the military, of course they should. Im concerned that they are running it in a terrbily inefficient way and in a way that shows no consideration whatsoever to the jobs the military has to undertake. It is all well and good sending troops in the name of peacekeeping to far away countries that the average person has never even heard of or in sending thousands of troops to join the "rapid reaction force" but the politicians think that they can do this on the tiniest possible budget with outdated equipment, they speak highly of the military but do not back it up with adequate funding. The SA-80 rifle and Clansman radio being 2 examples. If the money is diverted to another cause that will have something to show for it in the end, like developing vaccines for diseases, then fine. But the government hasn't even done this, it has squandered the money on projects with no recognisable outcome that improves our lives.
The British army is classed as the most highly trained and effective in the world, we haven't lost a war in over 2 centuries, what other country can boast that? But without funds or adequate equipment how can we keep this achievement?
As for women in the military, it isnt anything to do with "women being the gentler sex". It is basic pyschology. A man is far more likely to risk his own life and the lives of his comrades to protect a woman, this is human nature. In most cases if a man sees a woman in danger he will instinctively help. This could be disasterous on the battlefield, in battle soldiers are trained to leave their fallen comrades behind if it will jeopardise the lives of the squad or unit as a whole. How well will the training last against instinct?