How about trying this to stop the war?

Question

Why don't we replace all the troops on BOTH sides with strickly gay guys !

See, now we know why the cons don't want gays in the military !

Answer 1

Gays are in the military and they serve proudly. Why don't you think there aren't gays in the service?

Gays, just like any one else just can't openly discuss their sex life. Why do you have a problem with this?

Just to set the record straight, Bill Clinton signed 'DADT' into law and had more gays kicked out when he was president than the 12 years of Regan/Bush. Somehow I doubt any one would accuse Clinton of being a 'con'.

Answer 2

Actually, instead of replacing the soldiers with gay men, let's replace the line officers with the President, the VP and the cheifs of Staff -- essentially where they should have been in the first place. I fully think that those who get us into a war should be out there fighting it with their soldiers, instead of remaining thousands of miles safely behind the lines.
Do that on both sides and see how fast the war gets stopped or at least how fast a peace table gets called.

Another way might be to give everyone knives and swords only. When you actually have to look into a man (or woman's) eyes and kill them instead of shooting them from a hundred feet away you think twice.

But I am **really really fond** of the first option. Get those fat buggers out of their desks and on the front lines.

Answer 3

Too bad some of the top translators in the military are gay. Without them we'd loose, oh I don't know, around $80 million dollars! Which we did when they fired 30, and now they're suffering from it.

Actually, the don't ask, don't tell system is quite ingenious. It works so well for anyone to get out of the military. They just have to declare they are gay, even if they're straight. Haha, so much for the system working.

Answer 4

lol, but I agree with hunterhous, the Spartans did it, in ancient Greece, and there was the Theban Sacred Band, which was a unit of 300 gay couples, the thought was they would fight harder for each other than for the city state. They were right, they didn't surrender, even to the bitter end. Alexander The Great was gay, his lover wasn't Hephaestion, but Bagoas, a young Persian man.

The Vikings had no problem with gay men making love to each other, they'd likely kill someone like myself on the spot instead. But they were hard men too.

But it was funny, I see what you mean, and so you get a star...

Answer 5

What?

Do you or does this have a point?

You should read about the Sacred Band, 300 devoted, loyal fighting men, 150 pairs. They fought valiantly and were considered the secret weapon. It was believed that a pair of lovers would fight to save each other, at any cost, and it was true. They were a force to be feared.

So, again, what's your point?

Answer 6

Some of the best warriors and soldiers in history have been gay. The battles would still continue, but with more style!


I can't believe this, but I agree 100% with Jello....just goes to show you never know.....

Answer 7

and the point of putting us there would be what? you'd hope we'd all kill each other. If that happened who would you hate on then? Or is your point that we would get along better so the fighting would end and then we'd all work to impeach Bush? :)

Answer 8

i'm sure that the iraqis won't mind. having sex with men or boys is just their way of strengthening bonds between em. this might be the way to solve the problems in the middle east.

Answer 9

sounds good to stop the fighting...it stinks!

Answer 10

I don't see your point.