The mass casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been relatively small in terms of past wars involving America.
The walking blood supply is one of the important issues in any discussion of permitting open homosexuality in the military.
If homosexuality is openly permitted, then one can no more complain about a US homosexual shacking up with a local than you can complain about a US heterosexual shacking up with a local.
Homosexuals are shockingly promiscuous in their number of partners and in their lack of standards in selecting partners. Any HIV test given prior to deployment would be obsolete within weeks given that the infectiousness of HIV infection is evident mere weeks after infection.
In short, would you want your child given a transfusion during a mass casualty on a battlefield? Just as important, would you want your child denied a transfusion because of suspect blood in the unit? Would you want to be a part of a unit where your blood could save the lives of unit members, but some blood in that unit no one would want to get near? Would that enhance morale?
Let me see if I understand this:
a soldier is bleeding out and they give him blood to save his life, which he is about to lose if he doesn’t get blood IMMEDIATELY.
But now they’re fussing because the blood given was unscreened and the soldier may develop an awful disease (rule out malaria as being awful. It is very treatable. I know.) at some unspecified time down the road and that disease while bad and may kill him may also be treatable.
Um, I’ll take door number one, please.
Sincerely,
W. Mitt Romney
Male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious disease and emerging antibiotic resistant bacteria in the US. Next time you give blood ask yourself why all the questions about homosexual behavior. The deviants will soon have the right to infect any child of their choosing and the law will protect them from prosecution.