belfastuniguy

China and Russia, which i'm assuming are the big nations you are thinking ofquote> No actually Saudi Arabia comes to mind and the way it bans women from taking part in society....that includes driving. Add to that that Annapolis, West Point, and other military institutions are some of the finest universities in America. quote> Do you have evidence that shows that no gay people have been there??? Because I have evidence to counter such a thing, indeed Westpoint has a Gay support group Our army is volunteers onlyquote> Gays not need apply....

Although the terms civilized and developed are qualitative, so its left to ones opinion to determine whether a nation is "civilized" or "developed", which makes this somewhat difficult.quote> Well seeing as some of those nations do not have equal rights for all their citizens, no....they would not be classed as civilised Alexander the Great was never homosexual,quote> hhhmmmm You wanna check your classical civilisation education? I'll educate you if you wish, though I'd rather save you the embarrassment tbh. If having a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is so detrimental to an army, why has the united states been the largest military power in the world for the past 60 years, and not one of the 15 or 20 countries that allows openly gay troops? quote> Because a large part of your army is comprised of individuals of lacking education ability from disadvantaged backgrounds seeking stable employment and salary. Factor into that the gun-ho nature of some Americans. Also... You're NOT that largest military, the Chinese are. They were not dismissed because they were gay... They were dismissed because they couldn't follow a simple rule. Three words. They couldn't say three words [i am gay]. That's all they had to do. If you can't follow such an easy rule, i doubt you will be a good soldier.quote> Not even going to address that as it's one of the most retarded things I have ever read,

Enjoyment of gay sex is enjoyment of gay sex, sorry to be so blunt, but it is required. Time has no impact on that I'm afraid. They simply were not confined by the suffocating religious dominated 'morality' the western world has and in some cases is still subject to. I understand that people like yourself support the repeal but are unsure of the impact, but experience across the free world shows it has no detrimental impact whatsoever, Also....seeing as we are engaging in semantics, the American military is not the largest, that would be the Chinese.

I disagree.. I am sure if you have a group of backward rednecks with little education or soldiers with a massive personal insecurity complex then you may have an issue. In such a case maybe you could look at the quality of the aforementioned army, instead of how MASSIVE it is. The British Army is widely recognised as the best trained in the world, they instil respect and professionalism, that IMO contributes to tolerance as well as the fact the UK is somewhat less hyperbolic when it comes to 'gay' issues. Cultures are different, but such moves are required to further your society. by 2003 10,000 American military personnel had left or been discharged becuase they disclosed their sexuality. That does NOTHING for the 'good' of your army or the country. Indeed its an utter disgrace to waste 10,000 trained and in the majority of cases successful army, naval and air force personnel.

Pure and utter semantics, they engaged and indeed many enjoyed living a 'gay' lifestyle. Does not detract from my actual point pointing out the utter fallacy of Manticore's arguement.

Originally posted by: JollyBobber Originally posted by: dfwpike 9.8% unemployment and rising... record budget deficit... government takeover of health care... etc... etc So how's that Hope and Change working out for ya?quote> I don't think those are all Obama's fault. When he took over, things were pretty bad..... quote> That's accurate. He inherited the largest trade deficit in US history, falling living standards, a recession, an ever increasing number of Americans dying from preventable diseases and two wars. Do love how the Republicans like to shift the blame for their failure over 8 years.

Of course they did.....are you actually serious?

Duke's point stands, with the weight of some psychological research behind it. quote> Do link.. I very much enjoy seeing the links you post. It allows me to counter them

Whole wars hinge on a battle sometimes, and whole battles often turn on the actions of just a few men. quote> Indeed, people like Alexander the Great, Emperor Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Peter the Great and Edward II would agree wholeheartedly. But what would they know....they were only gays as would these people...American none the less Three retired high-ranking US military personnel have publicly declared themselves as gay in protest at the problems facing homosexuals in the armed forces. Since 1993, and the introduction of the "don't ask, don't tell" law - which permitted homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves - nearly 10,000 gays have been "separated" or discharged from the US armed services. The Department of Defense says the law is necessary as "homosexual conduct" can undermine the performance of the army. But Virgil Richard, a US Army Brigadier General, Alan Steinman, a Rear Admiral in the US Coast Guard and Brigadier General Keith Kerr, the highest-ranking military officers to acknowledge that they are gay, say the policy is a misguided one. They argue that forcing gays to keep their sexuality a secret has itself a negative impact on military performance, and note that Britain's decision to include gays and lesbians in the army has not had any discernible impact on the forces effectiveness in the battlefield.quote>

As discriminatory as the policy may be, there are, actually, practical arguments in favor of it.quote> What an absolute crock, in fact that entire post could have been made by the hyperbole entertainers on FOX (faux) News. Pretty much every other military in the civilised developed world had abolished such policies and he has done nothing to damage them. The British Army remains one of the best in the world and to be honest IMO it's THE best in terms of professionalism and respect. The policy is blatant discrimination and has resulted in thousands of well trained and at times outstanding military personnel being ejected from the US Military. So yeah.....I can really see the positive of such a policy. It's a long overdue law change in a nation that is supposedly a land of equals.....yeah right!!!

Barack Obama's peace prize starts a fight Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall in Oslo yesterday as Barack Obama was unveiled as the winner of the 2009 Peace Prize, sparking a global outpouring of incredulity and praise in unequal measure. Mr Obama was sound asleep in the White House when the Norwegian Nobel Committee made the shock announcement. It said that he was being honoured for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,” it added. International reaction ranged from delight to disbelief. The former winners Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu voiced praise, the latter lauding the Nobel Committee’s “surprising but imaginative choice”. But Lech Walesa, the dissident turned Polish President, who won the Peace Prize in 1983, spoke for many, declaring: “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.” Mr Obama’s domestic critics leapt on the award as evidence of foreigners fawning over an untested “celebrity” leader. Rush Limbaugh, the US right-wing commentator, said: “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama." Speaking later, Mr Obama said that he was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the unexpected decision and announced that he would donate the £880,000 prize, due to be awarded in December, to charity. “Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said. The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict, but yesterday's decision was clearly a political choice, with three of the past six peace awards going to Bush adversaries. In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth. The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for. Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.” But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: "I don't have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes."quote> The Times of London

Fantastic news, another step at addressing the backwardness of some aspects of American society. Obama to end military gay policy Obama: "I will end 'don't ask, don't tell'" US President Barack Obama has said he will end the ban on gay people serving openly in the military. He said he would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gay people to serve in the military if they do not reveal their sexual orientation. Mr Obama was speaking to America's largest gay group - the Human Rights Campaign - in Washington. He had been criticised by some in the gay community for the lack of action on gay marriage and the military issue. A big gay rights protest march is planned in Washington for Sunday. Disquiet Mr Obama was addressing thousands of gay and lesbian people at a fundraising dinner in the US capital. Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach Barack Obama Letting down gay supporters? He said the US had made progress on gay rights and would make more. On the military issue he said the US could not afford to lose those people who had much needed skills for fighting. "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Mr Obama said. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage." Mr Obama did not give a timetable for repeal of the policy, passed by Congress in 1993, under which thousands of service members have been discharged. The US president has repeatedly pledged to tackle issues important to the gay community. But he has faced criticism for what many in the gay community see as lack of action on his promises. Mr Obama asked the audience to trust his administration. "I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough. Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," he said. One issue causing disquiet among the US gay community is the issue of gay marriage, the BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Los Angeles says. Mr Obama has been criticised for not delivering on his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how local and federal bodies can recognise gay partnerships and determine benefits. In his speech, Mr Obama did call on Congress to repeal the act and he also called for a law that would extend benefits to domestic partners. In many places in America, gay people enjoy a high profile, economic and political clout, our correspondent says.quote> BBC NEWS

Exactly Meg. I don't think Americans were fully aware of the incredible disgust and at times hatred that a very large majority of the international world held for America, its polices and general attitude. Especially its disrespectful stance to global institutions like the UN and seeming inadequacies at dealing with certain issues. I also don't think Americans understand how the Obama Presidency has completely and utterly transformed their international reputation and global standing. His speeches in Berlin, Prague and Cairo has been fundamental in this process. Most of the criticism is coming from American Republicans, on that count I'm not exactly surprised. Indeed most criticism is coming from America itself. While I'm not exactly thrilled it has been awarded to him, I do understand the reasoning, I also take offence to the comments that the Nobel Prize is now worthless, it displays a shocking and somewhat obnoxious attitude to something you clearly have no understanding of. Indeed it is such attitudes toward international institutions that resulted in the woefully weak international reputation Obama inherited.

There's nothing not so about it. A referendum was promised if the Constitutional proposal was the final decision. It was not. I have read both the former constitution document and the Lisbon Treaty and they are different. So I'm rather more informed about the issue than most. The ratification of the treaty is nothing new, former treaties have been ratified in parliament, this is no different. The role of parliament also includes ratification of international agreements, treaties and policy.

He was voted back into power no that long ago,