Reviewing DADT

[CommunityEditor]

Troops to have voice in DADT review

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 2, 2010 21:55:15 EST

The views of the troops will be an integral part of the nearly year-long review of the ramifications of open military service by gays, according to the parameters of the study released Tuesday by the Pentagon.

The word “poll” does not appear in Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ memo to the two officials — Gen. Carter Ham, U.S. Army Europe commander, and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel — who are leading what is called a “Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal” of the 1993 law that says homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

But Gates, who along with Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate on Feb. 2 that he supports President Barack Obama’s call for repeal, wants the two officials to stand up an intra-departmental, inter-service working group of unspecified size that is to “systematically engage the force.”

Gates said the views of a wide range of age, rank and warfare communities, as well as family members, “is a critical aspect that will undoubtedly lead to insights and recommendations essential to the department’s implementation of any change.”

Read More

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/military_dontask_review_gates_030210w/

------------------

What do you think about the process Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen have proposed for reviewing 'don't ask, don't tell?'

[Battleshort]

Yea!!!

Whoopie!!!

Another DADT thread!!!

[MRWOXFIRE]

In addition to all the other groups listed in the article, EVERYONE in the military should take this survey, not just random people. If we can all be made to take annual safety classes & thumb drive certifications every year, then we can get everyone to take the DADT Repeal Survey. Might more accurately reflect the true opinion of the force at large, instead of the skewed views of a "cross-section".

[Lauraroberts]

I completely agree, everyone in the Military as well as spouses should be surveyed so we can get a true idea of what we as a whole think. But there I go thinking again...

Laura Roberts

[MADAMESINCERE]

In addition to all the other groups listed in the article, EVERYONE in the military should take this survey, not just random people. If we can all be made to take annual safety classes & thumb drive certifications every year, then we can get everyone to take the DADT Repeal Survey. Might more accurately reflect the true opinion of the force at large, instead of the skewed views of a "cross-section".

Yes!! Sounds good to me. We'll see what happens.

[MADAMESINCERE]

I completely agree, everyone in the Military as well as spouses should be surveyed so we can get a true idea of what we as a whole think. But there I go thinking again...

Laura Roberts

uhhh no. It should be military ONLY. Spouses shouldn't have a say if they don't wear a uniform and show up to formation in uniform everyday.

[shredder]

uhhh no. It should be military ONLY. Spouses shouldn't have a say if they don't wear a uniform and show up to formation in uniform everyday.

totally agree. its the members most effected by this, and spouses are basically civilians in this area of concern.

besides, im sure some overzealously protective spouses will be all "oh we cant let them in cause then they will allow gay marriage and our kids will be exposed to that living on base, our last safe haven!"

[Variable Wind]

Yea!!!

Whoopie!!!

Another DADT thread!!!

I wonder what would happen if I reported the Moderator for Spamming.

[INGUARD]

"oh we cant let them in cause then they will allow gay marriage and our kids will be exposed to that living on base, our last safe haven!"

Who says that comment will only be limited to spouses? Soldiers will values/Chaplains/Single Soldiers/Parents can perhaps say the same thing. I think I can safely assume that. :cheers:

[INGUARD]

Yea!!!

Whoopie!!!

Another DADT thread!!!

Roger. I respectfully request the moderator merge all threads; regardless if its in the Navy/Army/CHAIR FORCE/Marine Corps thread. Just put them all in the DADT thread.

Its taking up server space :tongue:

[Variable Wind]

Who says that comment will only be limited to spouses? Soldiers will values/Chaplains/Single Soldiers/Parents can perhaps say the same thing. I think I can safely assume that. :cheers:

What about Gay parents?

[INGUARD]

What about Gay parents?

exactly. They despise the military!! hahaha

but I meant it as single parents. There are alot of female single parents on post that live on base housing and dont want to get confused falling for an attractive gay man that she cant have. ;)

[Lauraroberts]

Ok fair enough. I'm used to that as prior service I don't have a say either. I'll refrain from posting on the topic as well. I don't live on base, so that point is mute. I didn't say I was for or against DADT, simply stated my opinion.

[RONALD45]

How's about they actually poll the Gay and Lesbian community? I for one, would be interested in seeing how many of them would join the military once the ban is lifted. My theory is that the number would be so miniscule as to rule out lifting the ban in the first place. I mean right now we have less than 1% of America's population willing to serve. So out of that 1% how many are Gay and Lesbians that want to serve but can't. I mean I don't see the next Gay Pride Parade in New York City or San Fransisco ending at the local recruiting station.

[Lauraroberts]

totally agree. its the members most effected by this, and spouses are basically civilians in this area of concern.

besides, im sure some overzealously protective spouses will be all "oh we cant let them in cause then they will allow gay marriage and our kids will be exposed to that living on base, our last safe haven!"

But the Active Duty Spouse would NEVER say such a thing. Ok, well that would be interesting. And like it or not spouses are a part of the Military Community, and yes it will affect them as well, be it directly or indirectly. So I retract my earlier statement about not posting. As an Army brat, Air Force vet, and now Army spouse, I actually believe my opinion on things if asked are valid.

I see many here that may not even be a part of the Military community at all posting, so I suppose I'll have my say. LOL.

Laura:)

[MADAMESINCERE]

But the Active Duty Spouse would NEVER say such a thing. Ok, well that would be interesting. And like it or not spouses are a part of the Military Community, and yes it will affect them as well, be it directly or indirectly. So I retract my earlier statement about not posting. As an Army brat, Air Force vet, and now Army spouse, I actually believe my opinion on things if asked are valid.

I see many here that may not even be a part of the Military community at all posting, so I suppose I'll have my say. LOL.

Laura:)

I wasn't suggesting spouses shouldn't post on the boards at all. There are just some things where their participation wouldn't be "appreciated" lol. You're in a different category though if you were prior service. That means you might actually know what the hell you're talking about sometimes, not just what your spouse tells/told you. ;)

[Measure Man]

I wonder what would happen if I reported the Moderator for Spamming.

She would have to ban herself...and then no one could unban her...and the forum would spin violently out of control until it collapsed on itself into a black hole in the internet...

[DarkHeart]

She would have to ban herself...and then no one could unban her...and the forum would spin violently out of control until it collapsed on itself into a black hole in the internet...

There already is a black hole, it's called 4chan, and it will destroy us all.

[Variable Wind]

So get used to sitting in a fox hole wondering whether your battle buddy is watching your back or watching your backside!
mhmm...and would you feel the same way if it was a female in your foxhole too? Maybe we should kick all the females out too. :rolleyes:


Also, start writing down what you are going to tell your children when your on post next door neighbor is gay and your children see them hugging and kissing.
The same thing you would tell them if you lived off base and a gay couple moved next door. Everyone outside of the military somehow gets by, I am sure you will be okay...of course you could always move to an FLDS community. Thankfully the rest of America is not so fundamentally oppressive. again :rolleyes:


Say good bye to the God fearing majority an hello to the out of control minority.
I am a God-Fearing man...and God is the only entity above any man. That means that you are not above the gay man. Sorry slick, but in this nation all men are created equal.

and once more for the trifecta: :rolleyes:

[DocMac]

I think this whole idea of getting rid of the DADT policy is a bunch of crap and it doesn't matter if the majority of us think it is a bad idea or not. The leaders are going to do what they want and then force us to like their decision. If the command truly listened to what the Soldiers thought then we wouldn't be stuck with a crappy weapon, a uniform that couldn't blend with anything other then a couch, and a truly undisciplined lower ranking force.
So get used to sitting in a fox hole wondering whether your battle buddy is watching your back or watching your backside! Also, start writing down what you are going to tell your children when your on post next door neighbor is gay and your children see them hugging and kissing. Say good bye to the God fearing majority an hello to the out of control minority.

[MSMUROTC]

If we all did what we wanted to, we'd have ice cream for dinner and ponies for our birthday. Grow up. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because you want something doesn't mean it's right.

Say goodbye to the tyranny of the majority and hello to basic civil rights for the minority.

[Lauraroberts]

As members of the Military we swore an oath to honor all regs but any new regs that come down the pike so that is what we must do.

The older serving gays will keep on as they have, I'm concerned about the younger gays that will want to flaunt their victory and how that will set with those against the lifestyle.

Wrong or right this is what I'm asking about.

[MSMUROTC]

Is there anyone who has objections to this where the objection isn't at least partly based on religion? Just curious. Like someone who's atheist and is against DADT.

[MCGYVER]

I've said from day one that I personally have no issues (religious or otherwise) with the gays, it's purely business with me and I think (for all the reasons previously stated) that it's very bad business, won't enhance our capabiities, will lower morale, break down cohesion and be a VERY bad time for the military.

[NMWH1985]

I think this whole idea of getting rid of the DADT policy is a bunch of crap and it doesn't matter if the majority of us think it is a bad idea or not. The leaders are going to do what they want and then force us to like their decision. If the command truly listened to what the Soldiers thought then we wouldn't be stuck with a crappy weapon, a uniform that couldn't blend with anything other then a couch, and a truly undisciplined lower ranking force.
So get used to sitting in a fox hole wondering whether your battle buddy is watching your back or watching your backside! Also, start writing down what you are going to tell your children when your on post next door neighbor is gay and your children see them hugging and kissing. Say good bye to the God fearing majority an hello to the out of control minority.

Are you an NCO?

If you are, then if those under your charge are truly as "undisciplined" as you say they are, then fix the problem.

Our Army is wearing more SSI-FWS patches than anyone since Vietnam, and yet leaders bitch about the troopers being "undisciplined."
With a few exceptions, there are no bad soldiers, just bad leaders.

[DocMac]

Are you an NCO?

If you are, then if those under your charge are truly as "undisciplined" as you say they are, then fix the problem.

Our Army is wearing more SSI-FWS patches than anyone since Vietnam, and yet leaders bitch about the troopers being "undisciplined."
With a few exceptions, there are no bad soldiers, just bad leaders.

Yes, I am an NCO and my Soldiers do get squared away; however, I can only correct the ones around me I can not correct everyone elses. If you have been in the military for more then 10-15 years then you should be able to see the differences between that force and the force we have now. Also, don't give me this crap about we have more wearing the SSI-FWS patches. Being issued the patch doesn't mean you are disciplined, it means you have served overseas. Any Soldier can be put on orders to serve overseas but it doesn't mean that all of a sudden he goes from an unsquared away Soldier to a hero. If that were the case then there would be less article 15's being handed out overseas. We as an Army have lowered our standards and continue to do so for the new generation. Case in point look at the latest Army Times talking about lowering the PT standards at Basic. We stretch and stretch to accomodate the PC, when do we say enough is enough?

[Pullinteeth]

Is there anyone who has objections to this where the objection isn't at least partly based on religion? Just curious. Like someone who's atheist and is against DADT.

There are plenty of them. I know of several Athiests that think the policy is stuipd and homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly. I personnally think that DADT was a weak half measure that caused more problems than it solved and should be repealed. I don't think it would be feasible to go back to a complete ban on homosexuals serving after the repeal so the only logical conclusion is that if repealed, homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly. However, there are those that disagree with me and feel that DADT should be repealed and it should go back to a complete ban. I have yet to hear any feasible plan on how to do that without costing the DoD a ton of $ in either early retirment or separation pay.

[DocMac]

mhmm...and would you feel the same way if it was a female in your foxhole too? Maybe we should kick all the females out too. :rolleyes:


The same thing you would tell them if you lived off base and a gay couple moved next door. Everyone outside of the military somehow gets by, I am sure you will be okay...of course you could always move to an FLDS community. Thankfully the rest of America is not so fundamentally oppressive. again :rolleyes:


I am a God-Fearing man...and God is the only entity above any man. That means that you are not above the gay man. Sorry slick, but in this nation all men are created equal.

and once more for the trifecta: :rolleyes:

If a women was in my foxhole yes she would be a distraction and that is why she is not allowed to serve in combat arms. A normal instinct for a man is to protect the women so in doing so he might compromise the mission. Obviously leaders understand this and that is why women are not in combat arms. I do not believe women are weaker sex, and have seen some that would do just fine in a combat arms unit. However, there would still be a distraction.

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.

[Seasons]

If a women was in my foxhole yes she would be a distraction and that is why she is not allowed to serve in combat arms. A normal instinct for a man is to protect the women so in doing so he might compromise the mission. Obviously leaders understand this and that is why women are not in combat arms. I do not believe women are weaker sex, and have seen some that would do just fine in a combat arms unit. However, there would still be a distraction.

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.

So you stone people who divorce and remarry? You won't eat shellfish? You don't do any work on Sunday? Won't even touch a woman during her time of the month?

Your statement is utter bullshit.

[Pullinteeth]

If a women was in my foxhole yes she would be a distraction and that is why she is not allowed to serve in combat arms. A normal instinct for a man is to protect the women so in doing so he might compromise the mission. Obviously leaders understand this and that is why women are not in combat arms. I do not believe women are weaker sex, and have seen some that would do just fine in a combat arms unit. However, there would still be a distraction.

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.

How about the whole judge not lest yee be judged thing? Or is it ok to be a self-righteous prick in your Bible?

[Variable Wind]

Are you an NCO?

If you are, then if those under your charge are truly as "undisciplined" as you say they are, then fix the problem.
Our Army is wearing more SSI-FWS patches than anyone since Vietnam, and yet leaders bitch about the troopers being "undisciplined."
With a few exceptions, there are no bad soldiers, just bad leaders.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Measure Man]

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.

Just curious...do you explain to your children what the bible says about gluttony everytime they see a fat person?

Does it bother you to have fat dependents living on post?

[Variable Wind]

I do agree that most aviation is considered Combat Arms not all are given the combat identifier; however, you are mistaken if you think MPs fall under combat arms. They fall under CS, CSS and special branches. In CS, CSS and special branches yes women are allowed to serve but their primary role is not to fight a direct engagement.
Tell that to the Marines. What is every Marine first and foremost? I wonder how they get along with all those women distracting everyone. Of course, would you be opposed to allowing gays to serve in all non-combat arms MOSs?


You are right I am not without sin; however, I don't go around condoning sin and making justifications as to why we should allow sin to become the open norm. Again, there are countless members of the military who openly curse, drink to excess and are single while sexually active. All of these things are sins, and all are FINE in the military. Nobody is asking you to agree with homosexuality, what is being asked is that you allow them to serve without having to hide who they are. Homosexuality is not against the law, so how is it a justifiable disqualification from military service?

[Seasons]

What's the matter, Doc? No comeback to the Bible refutals? I mean, isn't that your only argument?

[Variable Wind]

If a women was in my foxhole yes she would be a distraction and that is why she is not allowed to serve in combat arms. A normal instinct for a man is to protect the women so in doing so he might compromise the mission. Obviously leaders understand this and that is why women are not in combat arms. I do not believe women are weaker sex, and have seen some that would do just fine in a combat arms unit. However, there would still be a distraction.
You mean INFANTRY. MPs and Air Crew are considered combat arms and women are allowed to serve. And if there is one thing that this war has taught us is that you could be a 92Y and still see combat. Thus your point is null and void.


If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.
Well then, I guess you can still tell your kids that ON post. As a Christian I do not judge others or claim to be without sin. I may not agree with homosexuality, but it is not my place to judge another, and its not your place either. Its GOD's job. So I take it by your logic, we should not have people in the military who get drunk, engage in premarital sex, take the Lords name in vain, ect. I mean, you cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to require EVERYONE ELSE to follow as well right?

Once more you get a big, fat :rolleyes:

[DocMac]

You mean INFANTRY. MPs and Air Crew are considered combat arms and women are allowed to serve. And if there is one thing that this war has taught us is that you could be a 92Y and still see combat. Thus your point is null and void.


Well then, I guess you can still tell your kids that ON post. As a Christian I do not judge others or claim to be without sin. I may not agree with homosexuality, but it is not my place to judge another, and its not your place either. Its GOD's job. So I take it by your logic, we should not have people in the military who get drunk, engage in premarital sex, take the Lords name in vain, ect. I mean, you cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to require EVERYONE ELSE to follow as well right?

Once more you get a big, fat :rolleyes:

I do agree that most aviation is considered Combat Arms not all are given the combat identifier; however, you are mistaken if you think MPs fall under combat arms. They fall under CS, CSS and special branches. In CS, CSS and special branches yes women are allowed to serve but their primary role is not to fight a direct engagement.
You are right I am not without sin; however, I don't go around condoning sin and making justifications as to why we should allow sin to become the open norm.

[Shrike]

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.
So that means that in accordance with Leviticus 20:13, you murder any gay men who you know have had sex with other men? And you are in turn teaching this murderous rule to your children?

Ever eat shrimp, crap, mudbugs, or lobster?

Do you kill you neighbor if you see him working on the sabbath?

Have you got a beard?

Do you wear clothes made of mixed fibers?

Do you go to Tijuana to the donkey shows and kill both the women and the donkeys?




You pick and choose parts of your religion to follow every single day. To single out one thing as bad while ignoring the others that you actively participate in is hypocritical. Your god is not fooled, and the god of the OT is an angry and jealous god.

[NMWH1985]

Yes, I am an NCO and my Soldiers do get squared away; however, I can only correct the ones around me I can not correct everyone elses. If you have been in the military for more then 10-15 years then you should be able to see the differences between that force and the force we have now.

I will cede to your experience on the issue, and simultaneously admit my lack of experience, but I also know human nature. And human nature is to always to refer to the time when we came up as "the good old days."

I will guarantee you that when you were coming up, your NCO's were bitching about the force being more undisciplined then when they came up, and their leaders, and their leaders, till we go back to the civil war when whippings were standard practice.

There are mechanisms to deal with malcontents. They may not be as direct as they once were, but they exist. So instead of beating the snot out of PFC Snuffy, we create a paper trail and when the time is ripe we hand him a pink slip. Or, if he's motivated enough to fix himself, he does it.



Also, don't give me this crap about we have more wearing the SSI-FWS patches. Being issued the patch doesn't mean you are disciplined, it means you have served overseas. Any Soldier can be put on orders to serve overseas but it doesn't mean that all of a sudden he goes from an unsquared away Soldier to a hero.

I am not saying that they are "heroes." But you have to agree that this isn't the 90's Garrison Army. Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines have been doing the deed now for about 9 years, and to me it is an insult to discredit them on a public forum as a rag tag bunch of idiots. Our military exists as an arm of political force, and we've been getting the job done, as opposed to just training to get the job done.

Soldiers today deal with more hardships than they did during the "golden years" of the peacetime Army. To discredit an entire junior enlisted corps that has seen more combat than any since Vietnam as "undisciplined" is (to me, maybe not to you) a cheap cop-out for leaders to pass the buck and avoid fixing the problem. As a leader, you have a job because of your Soldiers. Your job is enable them to succeed while simultaneously ensuring mission accomplishment. Leaders exist because of those who are led, and I think people forget that.



If that were the case then there would be less article 15's being handed out overseas. We as an Army have lowered our standards and continue to do so for the new generation. Case in point look at the latest Army Times talking about lowering the PT standards at Basic. We stretch and stretch to accomodate the PC, when do we say enough is enough?

The Army has lowered their standards. As a leader it's your job to work within your left and right limits to correct these deficiencies in your own small slice of the Army. A bitch without a solution is just that, a bitch. Leaders correct problems, they don't just lament the fact that the problem exists and then leave it at that.

[Seasons]

What's the matter, Doc? No comeback to the Bible refutals? I mean, isn't that your only argument?

[DocMac]

Tell that to the Marines. What is every Marine first and foremost? I wonder how they get along with all those women distracting everyone. Of course, would you be opposed to allowing gays to serve in all non-combat arms MOSs?

Again, there are countless members of the military who openly curse, drink to excess and are single while sexually active. All of these things are sins, and all are FINE in the military. Nobody is asking you to agree with homosexuality, what is being asked is that you allow them to serve without having to hide who they are. Homosexuality is not against the law, so how is it a justifiable disqualification from military service?

Wow, you talk about the Marines as if you truly know something ;so answer me this, How many female Infantry Marines are there? Better yet answer me how many combat arms a female is allowed to be in in the Marines?

Answer, NONE. A female Marine isn't allowed to be in any Combat Arms MOS, or as a Marine told me "they are not allowed in any position that puts them on the front lines."

Also, if you think drinking to excess is allowed in the military then explain command referal to ASAP. Plus as a leader if you see a Soldier drinking to excess it is your responsibility to say something. If you aren't a leader then as a battle buddy you should open your mouth and say something. As for cursing you are right as long as I am not cursing at someone I can say whatever I want. But, you can be sent to the commander for rude and obscene behavior filed through an EO report. Remeber anyone working in what they feel is a hostile environment brought on by co-workers has the right to speak to the command and the command is held responsible for fixing the problem.

Back to the subject of gays. I do not wish them to serve in the military openly in any MOS. If it truly weren't such a taboo thing then why do so many gays feel the need to hide it from their families and why are they so embarassed to talk about it. It is because it is not openly accepted in the U.S. nor should it be if we truly are a nation founded under God.

[Seasons]

Back to the subject of gays. I do not wish them to serve in the military openly in any MOS. If it truly weren't such a taboo thing then why do so many gays feel the need to hide it from their families and why are they so embarassed to talk about it. It is because it is not openly accepted in the U.S. nor should it be if we truly are a nation founded under God.

Wow. How stupid can you get? Its taboo only to people like you, Bible-thumping morons who can't decide which part of the Word of God they're gonna follow today. People with doubts of their own sexuality afraid that a gay man checking them out is gonna cause them to break down and go gay as well.

Yes, the nation was founded under God. But its moronic to think that can't change. We are intended to be a secular, accepting nation, with no religious bias. What makes your God better than mine? The Greek and Teutonic gods have a more ancient following than yours, does that make them better?

[NMWH1985]

Back to the subject of gays. I do not wish them to serve in the military openly in any MOS. If it truly weren't such a taboo thing then why do so many gays feel the need to hide it from their families and why are they so embarassed to talk about it. It is because it is not openly accepted in the U.S. nor should it be if we truly are a nation founded under God.

Two points:

1) If we are a Christian theocracy, we might as well not allow women or Non Christians in our military, but since we're not, and we're a Consitutional Republic, then whatever religious affiliation our founders had is a moot point. Read the Constitution. Where is God mentioned? Jefferson, a founding father, abhored much of organized religion and is famous for disregarding everything in the Bible except for Jesus' words. What you said in underlined reeks of ignorance. You need to take a civics class. You can't learn about our government in Sunday School.

2) Your argument in bold is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. You might as well be saying "Well, why would racism need to exist if not for minorities being so stupid?" Your resentment towards homosexuality does not prove anything.

My personal take on it is this: I do not think that every women who sees me wants to rape me. The same applies towards gays. I personally don't care as long as they can pull a trigger, turn a wrench, et cetera. I have the feeling that given military culture, allowing homosexuals to be open will not result in much more than a "Yeah, I'm gay" from the gays. I don't think it will devolve into a gigantic gay orgy on the parade field at Ft. Whatever or obscene displays of PDA. Just as a platoon commander does not come into work on monday bragging to his guys about how hard he nailed his wife last night, I can't see a gay PL doing this. Joes brag to Joes, but I can't see a gay 11B bragging about the pole he smoked to his straight 11b buddies.

It's not smart in terms of self preservation.

[NMWH1985]

Double tap.

[Variable Wind]

Wow, you talk about the Marines as if you truly know something ;so answer me this, How many female Infantry Marines are there? Better yet answer me how many combat arms a female is allowed to be in in the Marines?
Answer, NONE. A female Marine isn't allowed to be in any Combat Arms MOS, or as a Marine told me "they are not allowed in any position that puts them on the front lines."
Guess all the combat deaths in OIF/OEF are male then. I obviously have a better grasp on this than you. Yes, its obvious that women are not serving in the infantry, but they are still engaging in combat with males in OIF/OEF. Now hopefully that penetrated your thick skull you can realize your foxhole analogy was ridiculous.


Also, if you think drinking to excess is allowed in the military then explain command referal to ASAP. Plus as a leader if you see a Soldier drinking to excess it is your responsibility to say something. If you aren't a leader then as a battle buddy you should open your mouth and say something. As for cursing you are right as long as I am not cursing at someone I can say whatever I want. But, you can be sent to the commander for rude and obscene behavior filed through an EO report. Remeber anyone working in what they feel is a hostile environment brought on by co-workers has the right to speak to the command and the command is held responsible for fixing the problem.
I will go ahead and point out that you did not once point out how these are routinely and automatically practiced under the directive of DADT. Again, ridiculous point.


Back to the subject of gays. I do not wish them to serve in the military openly in any MOS. If it truly weren't such a taboo thing then why do so many gays feel the need to hide it from their families and why are they so embarassed to talk about it. It is because it is not openly accepted in the U.S. nor should it be if we truly are a nation founded under God.
Another falsehood. Several states recognize gay marriage and others recognize civil unions. And once again it is not against the law to engage in consentual homosexual activity.


So, once again I will ask: Can you give me a reasonable and justifiable reason to keep gays from serving in the military. Not "God doesnt like it" or "They might be attracted to me" because as previously outlined both instances are ALREADY allowed in the military because some sinful practices are acceptable and our military is a co-ed military. Jeeze you are a slow one.

[Pullinteeth]

Well then, I guess you can still tell your kids that ON post. As a Christian I do not judge others or claim to be without sin. I may not agree with homosexuality, but it is not my place to judge another, and its not your place either. Its GOD's job. So I take it by your logic, we should not have people in the military who get drunk, engage in premarital sex, take the Lords name in vain, ect. I mean, you cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to require EVERYONE ELSE to follow as well right?



Bravo! Bravo!!!

[Pullinteeth]

Wow, you talk about the Marines as if you truly know something ;so answer me this, How many female Infantry Marines are there? Better yet answer me how many combat arms a female is allowed to be in in the Marines?

Answer, NONE. A female Marine isn't allowed to be in any Combat Arms MOS, or as a Marine told me "they are not allowed in any position that puts them on the front lines."

Also, if you think drinking to excess is allowed in the military then explain command referal to ASAP. Plus as a leader if you see a Soldier drinking to excess it is your responsibility to say something. If you aren't a leader then as a battle buddy you should open your mouth and say something. As for cursing you are right as long as I am not cursing at someone I can say whatever I want. But, you can be sent to the commander for rude and obscene behavior filed through an EO report. Remeber anyone working in what they feel is a hostile environment brought on by co-workers has the right to speak to the command and the command is held responsible for fixing the problem.

Back to the subject of gays. I do not wish them to serve in the military openly in any MOS. If it truly weren't such a taboo thing then why do so many gays feel the need to hide it from their families and why are they so embarassed to talk about it. It is because it is not openly accepted in the U.S. nor should it be if we truly are a nation founded under God.

Show me any guidance that even suggests that you can kick out a soldier that drinks too much if it doesn't effect their job preformance and they commit no crime...Or better yet, show me the guidance that says you can kick out a soldier that mentions that this one time they got fitshaced... Or someone else says that he/she saw Otto get blotto... Are you seriously telling me that in your stupid little bubble everyone that drinks to excess faces consequesnces? You were bagging on the young bucks that haven't been in more than 10-15 years, I can tell you if that is your opinion, you haven't even been in a day.

[MCGYVER]

Guess all the combat deaths in OIF/OEF are male then.

No, only 98% of them.



Another falsehood. Several states recognize gay marriage and others recognize civil unions. And once again it is not against the law to engage in consentual homosexual activity.

Just because something is legal in the civilian world doesn't make it legal in the military. Some things are legal in Myanmar but totally illegal in the U.S. What's your point?


So, once again I will ask: Can you give me a reasonable and justifiable reason to keep gays from serving in the military. Not "God doesnt like it" or "They might be attracted to me" because as previously outlined both instances are ALREADY allowed in the military because some sinful practices are acceptable and our military is a co-ed military. Jeeze you are a slow one.

Unit cohesion, good order and discipline, morale, combat effectiveness/readiness (due to all previous mentioned items)

[Seasons]

Unit cohesion, good order and discipline, morale, combat effectiveness/readiness (due to all previous mentioned items)

Conjecture without fact still? I have yet to see you or anyone else actually PROVE these "points". Meanwhile:

) We have shown that homosexuals have been known to their units (even combat units) and the unit has not cared.

) We have shown that heterosexuals are just as likely to breach good order and discipline as homosexuals.

) We have shown that DADT negatively affects morale, the morale of homosexuals forced to hide their activities, or whose principles force them to repress their sexuality totally so as to not lie about their actions, as well as the morale of their friends who are forced to watch them continue to deny a part of themself without recourse.

) We have shown that homosexuals are just as effective and ready for combat as heterosexuals, in times more so (when compared to medical and criminal waivers).

[INGUARD]

a reason for gay to serve? I thought they are serving already lol

[Variable Wind]

No, only 98% of them.
Okay then math wiz, 2% is not equal to 0%. Women in the military are being confronted with combat situations.


Just because something is legal in the civilian world doesn't make it legal in the military. Some things are legal in Myanmar but totally illegal in the U.S. What's your point?
Not suprizingly you offer a piss poor analogy. The US military exists in the same nation as the US. I knew you wouldnt get my point, you havent shown an ounce of intelligent thought in this discussion thus far, why start now?


Unit cohesion,
It worked with blacks and women. So this is not a valid issue.


good order and discipline
Absolutely no reason why this would even be an issue.


morale,
Hardly, only 10% of military setivice members say that repealing DADT would cause them not to reenlist. Shows that most people really do not have as extreme opinions about gays as you do.


combat effectiveness/readiness (due to all previous mentioned items)
Well then, I guess that we dont have to worry about combat efffectiveness. :)

By all means, bring up some more pointless arguements that you have absolutely no evidence of. I can shoot your conjecture down all day mmkaythanks.

[Seasons]

hey I retracted my stupid statement towards you but yet you use it on others lol

a reason for gays to serve? I thought they are serving already lol

I guess that 40 percent that wants gays are all on this forum because everyone I come across in theater is against it and the constant homo references.

All day I hear this soldier tell this soldier "that was gay" or "you gay" or "stop acting like a homo"

Even in emails of all ranks

there is going to be alot of new anti-gay sensitive training once this is lifted.

Also, the reason people dont continue to debate this because of all the childish remarks (stupid, try again, ridiculous point). Lets be civil and respectful with one another and I know I have been guilty of this numerous times. We are all on the same team. I can see some people getting punched in the face if we were debating in an open location. lol Getting your point across by making it louder than others tactic and creating a gang will not help you convince others. ;)

Kinda like saying "lol" every other sentence won't make you relevant. Or funny. In fact it just sounds plain retarded. As to punching in the face, no. If I'm gonna get that worked up about something, I may as well go for the throat, lol.
See what I did there? I made a threat look like a joke! Only not. Christ, you must think people are pretty dense to dismiss your insulting demeanor just cause you keep tacking on overused memes. Least I'll admit to being an asshole straight up.

Yeah, people say that shit all the time. Know what? I don't care. Some people could use a thicker skin. And some people could use a lobotomy. Or a thesarus.

Lastly, I call people what they are. I don't care. If it bugs someone that much, maybe they should look at why they're being called that! Durrrr.

[INGUARD]

Wow. How stupid can you get? Its taboo only to people like you, Bible-thumping morons who can't decide which part of the Word of God they're gonna follow today. People with doubts of their own sexuality afraid that a gay man checking them out is gonna cause them to break down and go gay as well.

Yes, the nation was founded under God. But its moronic to think that can't change. We are intended to be a secular, accepting nation, with no religious bias. What makes your God better than mine? The Greek and Teutonic gods have a more ancient following than yours, does that make them better?

hey I retracted my stupid statement towards you but yet you use it on others lol

a reason for gays to serve? I thought they are serving already lol

I guess that 40 percent that wants gays are all on this forum because everyone I come across in theater is against it and the constant homo references.

All day I hear this soldier tell this soldier "that was gay" or "you gay" or "stop acting like a homo"

Even in emails of all ranks

there is going to be alot of new anti-gay sensitive training once this is lifted.

Also, the reason people dont continue to debate this because of all the childish remarks (stupid, try again, ridiculous point). Lets be civil and respectful with one another and I know I have been guilty of this numerous times. We are all on the same team. I can see some people getting punched in the face if we were debating in an open location. lol Getting your point across by making it louder than others tactic and creating a gang will not help you convince others. ;)

[INGUARD]

I can see this now when DADT is lifted.

A whole bunch of MASSA massages lol

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_disgraced_exrep_eric_massas_long_trail_of_bizar re_behavior_includes_home_shared_.html?page=1

Page 2 of 2)

"Stuart's at the edge of the bed ... and [Massa] starts massaging him," Clarke said. "Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.' "

Borsch confirmed his version of events in an e-mail sent to reporters who asked.

"In 1990, aboard the USS Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.)," Borsch wrote.

"I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it."

Clarke and another sailor told The Atlantic there were others, including Tom Maxfield, who allegedly found Massa in his bunk undressing him.

"He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him," Clarke said, adding no one complained for fear of retaliation.

An effort to get comment from Massa was unsuccessful. Knocks on the door of his home in upstate Corning went unanswered.

The ethics complaints in Washington allegedly involve groping three staffers. Republicans cried foul over reports the ethics committee is dropping the case, and so did watchdogs.

"The committee no longer has jurisdiction," said Melanie Sloan, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But since Massa departed alleging leaders conspired against him, she said the committee at least should detail the seriousness of the allegations.

"The harassment is probably much worse than we've heard," Sloan said, noting how quick Democratic leaders were to demand he leave.

mmcauliff@dailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_disgraced_exrep_eric_massas_long_trail_of_bizar re_behavior_includes_home_shared_.html?page=1#ixzz 0hsxfbaR4

[Seasons]

So? The guy has issues. Has nothing to do with him being a closet homosexual (watch Larry King Live where King asks if he's gay, his response is extremely defensive). Has everything to do with him having inappropriate relations with staff members. Would this be any different if those staff members were females? If he was a she instead?

No. People need to get it through their thick fucking skulls that heterosexuals are just as sexually promiscuous and criminal as homosexuals, if not more so (percent heterosexual/homosexual rapes reported, since people try and use rape all the time as justification of sexual prefence...when its not).

[INGUARD]

can see alot of Massa Massages when DADT is lifted lol

(Page 2 of 2)

"Stuart's at the edge of the bed ... and [Massa] starts massaging him," Clarke said. "Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.' "

Borsch confirmed his version of events in an e-mail sent to reporters who asked.

"In 1990, aboard the USS Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.)," Borsch wrote.

"I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it."

Clarke and another sailor told The Atlantic there were others, including Tom Maxfield, who allegedly found Massa in his bunk undressing him.

"He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him," Clarke said, adding no one complained for fear of retaliation.

An effort to get comment from Massa was unsuccessful. Knocks on the door of his home in upstate Corning went unanswered.

The ethics complaints in Washington allegedly involve groping three staffers. Republicans cried foul over reports the ethics committee is dropping the case, and so did watchdogs.

"The committee no longer has jurisdiction," said Melanie Sloan, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But since Massa departed alleging leaders conspired against him, she said the committee at least should detail the seriousness of the allegations.

"The harassment is probably much worse than we've heard," Sloan said, noting how quick Democratic leaders were to demand he leave.

mmcauliff@dailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_disgraced_exrep_eric_massas_long_trail_of_bizar re_behavior_includes_home_shared_.html?page=1#ixzz 0hsxfbaR4

[INGUARD]

can see alot of Massa Massages when DADT is lifted lol

(Page 2 of 2)

"Stuart's at the edge of the bed ... and [Massa] starts massaging him," Clarke said. "Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.' "

Borsch confirmed his version of events in an e-mail sent to reporters who asked.

"In 1990, aboard the USS Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.)," Borsch wrote.

"I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it."

Clarke and another sailor told The Atlantic there were others, including Tom Maxfield, who allegedly found Massa in his bunk undressing him.

"He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him," Clarke said, adding no one complained for fear of retaliation.

An effort to get comment from Massa was unsuccessful. Knocks on the door of his home in upstate Corning went unanswered.

The ethics complaints in Washington allegedly involve groping three staffers. Republicans cried foul over reports the ethics committee is dropping the case, and so did watchdogs.

"The committee no longer has jurisdiction," said Melanie Sloan, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But since Massa departed alleging leaders conspired against him, she said the committee at least should detail the seriousness of the allegations.

"The harassment is probably much worse than we've heard," Sloan said, noting how quick Democratic leaders were to demand he leave.

mmcauliff@dailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_disgraced_exrep_eric_massas_long_trail_of_bizar re_behavior_includes_home_shared_.html?page=1#ixzz 0hsxfbaR4



hey I retracted my stupid statement towards you but yet you use it on others lol

a reason for gays to serve? I thought they are serving already lol

I guess that 40 percent that wants gays are all on this forum because everyone I come across in theater is against it and the constant homo references.

All day I hear this soldier tell this soldier "that was gay" or "you gay" or "stop acting like a homo"

Even in emails of all ranks

there is going to be alot of new anti-gay sensitive training once this is lifted.

Also, the reason people dont continue to debate this because of all the childish remarks (stupid, try again, ridiculous point). Lets be civil and respectful with one another and I know I have been guilty of this numerous times. We are all on the same team. I can see some people getting punched in the face if we were debating in an open location. lol Getting your point across by making it louder than others tactic and creating a gang will not help you convince others. ;)

[Pullinteeth]

hey I retracted my stupid statement towards you but yet you use it on others lol

a reason for gays to serve? I thought they are serving already lol

I guess that 40 percent that wants gays are all on this forum because everyone I come across in theater is against it and the constant homo references.

All day I hear this soldier tell this soldier "that was gay" or "you gay" or "stop acting like a homo"

Even in emails of all ranks

there is going to be alot of new anti-gay sensitive training once this is lifted.

Also, the reason people dont continue to debate this because of all the childish remarks (stupid, try again, ridiculous point). Lets be civil and respectful with one another and I know I have been guilty of this numerous times. We are all on the same team. I can see some people getting punched in the face if we were debating in an open location. lol Getting your point across by making it louder than others tactic and creating a gang will not help you convince others. ;)

What the hell kind of job do you have that you have the time to ask each and every person you come across their opition on this issue? You had better hope you don't ask someone that is actually gay because it could be construed as a violation of DADT and you could be subject to disiplianry action.

[MSMUROTC]

http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/101393.html

[MSMUROTC]

(I don't know how this happened but this post is actually a response to the post below it ... I guess I have a 6th sense for bigotry ... or the forum's acting screwy)

I guess the diffence is that "we" are approaching the topic using facts, comparison studies, the latest in psychological literature, etc., and "you" (the royal you) are basically using bigotry, either as an excuse or (at least) as an explanation.

Basically, the only real argument is that it will "hurt unit cohesion". Why? Well, two basic arguments have been put forward:

1. God hates fags. Homosexuality is a choice, and homosexuals are immoral, etc.
2. Heavens forbid, *'I'm* not bigoted, but there are so many OTHER bigoted people in the military that this could never work.

Is there really any other argument?

And yea, we can use tell how hot the sun is. http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/101393.html

It's called science. You know, like the same sort of thing "you" people disregard if it differs from your opinion.

This is what it boils down to for me -- if someone's so intolerant that they can't work in the military with homosexuals, I'd rather not have you in the military.

[MCGYVER]

Conjecture without fact still? I have yet to see you or anyone else actually PROVE these "points". Meanwhile:

) We have shown that homosexuals have been known to their units (even combat units) and the unit has not cared.

) We have shown that heterosexuals are just as likely to breach good order and discipline as homosexuals.

) We have shown that DADT negatively affects morale, the morale of homosexuals forced to hide their activities, or whose principles force them to repress their sexuality totally so as to not lie about their actions, as well as the morale of their friends who are forced to watch them continue to deny a part of themself without recourse.

) We have shown that homosexuals are just as effective and ready for combat as heterosexuals, in times more so (when compared to medical and criminal waivers).

I believe the Sun is hot but I can't "prove" it. If you weren't such a tool you'd realize that what 99% of the people on this board are spouting is merely their opinion. I'm no exception. Pointing to what "some" other countries have done or are doing is not equivocal to "proving" that it would work in the U.S. military. They are completely different animals. Many countries do many things differently than the U.S. it doesn't make them (or us) better, it merely makes us different. You are stuck on stupid. You are not open to even the suggestion that you could possibly be in error in the slightest. I have stated REPEATEDLY that I don't "know" how it would work out if DADT is lifted but that I don't "believe" it would be a good idea. I stated the reasons I "believe" this . Attacking someones opinion doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like an asshole.

[Pullinteeth]

If a women was in my foxhole yes she would be a distraction and that is why she is not allowed to serve in combat arms. A normal instinct for a man is to protect the women so in doing so he might compromise the mission. Obviously leaders understand this and that is why women are not in combat arms. I do not believe women are weaker sex, and have seen some that would do just fine in a combat arms unit. However, there would still be a distraction.

If I were off post and my children saw this I would explain to them what the Bible says about it. Such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. As a Christian I do not have a right to pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to follow.

Well DOC, I owe you an apology. You have obviously been out of the military longer than I have been in it (15+ years) and you are entitled to your opinion. However, I would ask you, as someone that has been out nearly two decades, how is your opinion relevant to today's military? I know you feel nostalgia for your younger days but c'mon!! Times they are a changin...

[MCGYVER]

This forum no longer relevant?

[Seasons]

This forum no longer relevant?

Considering the number of posts that randomly vanished over this weekend, I'm no longer sure what I said or what is left to say. Bloody annoying.

[Variable Wind]

The problem with this is that not everyone's opinion is created equal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if someone's opinion is ignorant, irrational, and/or flies in the race of all logic and reason, why shouldn't it be attacked?

An opinion is not sacrosanct. An ignorant opinion should have the contempt it deserves heaped upon it. If that hurts the feelings of the person who stated the opinion, then perhaps they should educate themselves on a subject before they blather about it.

In essence, McGuyver attacked YOUR opinion, making him exactly what he called you...by his own logic.

[Shrike]

I believe the Sun is hot but I can't "prove" it. If you weren't such a tool you'd realize that what 99% of the people on this board are spouting is merely their opinion. I'm no exception. Pointing to what "some" other countries have done or are doing is not equivocal to "proving" that it would work in the U.S. military. They are completely different animals. Many countries do many things differently than the U.S. it doesn't make them (or us) better, it merely makes us different. You are stuck on stupid. You are not open to even the suggestion that you could possibly be in error in the slightest. I have stated REPEATEDLY that I don't "know" how it would work out if DADT is lifted but that I don't "believe" it would be a good idea. I stated the reasons I "believe" this . Attacking someones opinion doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like an asshole.

The problem with this is that not everyone's opinion is created equal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if someone's opinion is ignorant, irrational, and/or flies in the race of all logic and reason, why shouldn't it be attacked?

An opinion is not sacrosanct. An ignorant opinion should have the contempt it deserves heaped upon it. If that hurts the feelings of the person who stated the opinion, then perhaps they should educate themselves on a subject before they blather about it.

[MCGYVER]

The problem with this is that not everyone's opinion is created equal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if someone's opinion is ignorant, irrational, and/or flies in the race of all logic and reason, why shouldn't it be attacked?

An opinion is not sacrosanct. An ignorant opinion should have the contempt it deserves heaped upon it. If that hurts the feelings of the person who stated the opinion, then perhaps they should educate themselves on a subject before they blather about it.

So, just so I'm tracking here, you are the ONE person who decides whose opinions are valid and whose aren't? Okay, now I get it. What a P.O.S. you are! So high and mighty. I feel humbled to be able to even post on the same forum as you. LOL You and chucks knee have at least one thing in common (probably more).

[MCGYVER]

In essence, McGuyver attacked YOUR opinion, making him exactly what he called you...by his own logic.

You're a damn liar.

[Variable Wind]

No, as usual you are wrong. You stated your opinion that "Attacking someones <sic> opinion doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like an asshole." This was in response to someone else attacking your opinion by stating a fact- and reason-based opinion of their own. So, you attacked their opinion of your opinion.

Therefore if your statement is logically correct, then you are an asshole by your own words. However, you don't have to worry about that - I already showed why your statement was wrong. So you're not an asshole. You're just an ignorant hypocrite. Feel better now?

Maybe I am a liar because I spelled his name wrong...?

[Variable Wind]

You're a damn liar.

This is missing something. You need to add something to more appropriately describe me.

damn sexy liar
damn smart liar
damn amazing liar
damn cuddly liar

I mean if you are going to defame my character with a baseless accusation, you better at least make me look good while doing it.

[Shrike]

So, just so I'm tracking here, you are the ONE person who decides whose opinions are valid and whose aren't? Okay, now I get it. What a P.O.S. you are! So high and mighty. I feel humbled to be able to even post on the same forum as you. LOL You and chucks knee have at least one thing in common (probably more).
Seeing that I never, EVER, made that claim, then the following post you made to another member:


You're a damn liar.

Applies right back at you. So, in addition to self-proclaimed ignorance, you also have a hypocritical streak. Now tell me, exactly why should anyone care what you have to say?

[Shrike]

You're a damn liar.

No, as usual you are wrong. You stated your opinion that "Attacking someones <sic> opinion doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like an asshole." This was in response to someone else attacking your opinion by stating a fact- and reason-based opinion of their own. So, you attacked their opinion of your opinion.

Therefore if your statement is logically correct, then you are an asshole by your own words. However, you don't have to worry about that - I already showed why your statement was wrong. So you're not an asshole. You're just an ignorant hypocrite. Feel better now?

[MCGYVER]

I didn't attack your opinion, I attacked your stance of being the one who decides whose opinions matter. There is a HUGE difference.

I'm prejudiced against prejudiced people. Does that make me prejudicial? If I discriminate against people who discriminate am I being discriminatory?

[Variable Wind]

I didn't attack your opinion, I attacked your stance of being the one who decides whose opinions matter. There is a HUGE difference.

I'm prejudiced against prejudiced people. Does that make me prejudicial? If I discriminate against people who discriminate am I being discriminatory?

Lol, yes it makes you prejudicial and discriminatory. The fact that you actually asked this question shows how ridiculous you are.

[Shrike]

I didn't attack your opinion, I attacked your stance of being the one who decides whose opinions matter. There is a HUGE difference.

And that was your failure, as I didn't lay claim to being the sole judge of whose matters and whose doesn't.

[MCGYVER]

General Mixon is a man of great character. Too bad we can't say that about more men in uniform that are too afraid to speak their minds and show integrity.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/top-general-in-hot-water-over-gay-policy/

[DarkHeart]

What is so great about his character? He publicly undermined the intent of the President, that sounds pretty piss poor to me. As Adm. Mullen said, you don't like it, get out.

[ChiefB]

I'd like to ask this:

How did we survive in WWs I, II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. with Gays serving in all combat arms and combat related duties without total collapse of unit cohesion, discipline and order?

Please don't give me the "They were not serving openly" crappola. If you have really served in a combat unit, IN COMBAT, you mostly knew the proclivities of your friends, buddies and fellow servicemembers. It is a rare gay member who does not have some straight friends that are aware of the situation and respect them enough not to "rat them out" to the Neanderthals.

Please point out ANY incident in the civilian community of ANY gay attacking a straight guy in the shower.

Please point out ANY incident in the military where an act of cowardice was shown and that person turned out to be gay.

Please point out ANY incident of mutiny, loss of command authority or insurrection in the military that was attributable to gays.

Please point out where it says in the Bible that gays cannot serve openly in the military.

Please point out the realistic differences between the Dutch, British and Canadian armies/forces and the American Armed forces that would make repeal of DADT such a cataclysmic occurrence, in comparison to their having no significant problems.

Please point out any proven problems with gays serving openly that do not originate in someone's fundamentalist religious beliefs or in bigotry.

Please point out all the no-glass houses all these anti-repeal characters live in.

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

The president may be the commander in chief but that doesn't mean he know's ANYTHING about how to run the military. Many service members have died over the decades due to poor decisions by people who don't know what the hell they are doing. General Mixon spoke with courage, candor and commitment. I happen to believe that he's very competent and has served his country admirably. He spoke his opinion about a subject currently in the news. He didn't state anything defamatory agains the president or current policy. The worst you could possibly (legitamately) say is the he gives the impression of not siding with the presidents train of thought. I'm sure if they lift DADT he will probably be one of the first to drop retirement paperwork but that's his prerogative, is it not? Thank God we have checks and balances and the president can't simply change the way the military does business by saying so. Our founding Fathers were not that stupid. This is (of course) simply my opinion. Treat it as such.

[ChiefB]

General Mixon is a man of great character. Too bad we can't say that about more men in uniform that are too afraid to speak their minds and show integrity.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/top-general-in-hot-water-over-gay-policy/


What a crock, MCGyver.... General Mixon did an end run around his chain of command, CSA, CJCS, Sec. Gates and his President (CINC) to appeal to his subordinates to oppose a commitment clearly voiced by all of the above.

He was blatantly insubordinate, in direct conflict with his superiors and provided a purposeful, embarrassing, public, discordant, view of his lack of respect for those leaders appointed over him.

He should not wait to retire, his effectiveness as one who could not lead, follow or get out of the way has been clearly proven.

He would expect no less of a subordinate who disagreed, publicly, with any of his policies and encouraged subordinates to do likewise.

He has violated his oath and besmirched his rank and position.

There is no place in our armed forces for politically active generals with such disdain for their superiors wishes and their President's position.

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

Only one problem with your illogical statements Chief, if what you typed were actually true General Mixon wouldn't be in his job any more. :)

[ChiefB]

Only one problem with your illogical statements Chief, if what you typed were actually true General Mixon wouldn't be in his job any more. :)

That's the rub, he was given a pass by the Sec. of the Army.

All my statements are the logical interpretation of his act.

The fact that he was not removed is not an indication of innocence but a result of benevolence and tolerance. Two traits he does not reflect in his published article.

ChiefB

[MCGYVER]

My only question to you is that if the roles were reversed and DADT were not current law but president Obama was advocating the implementation of it and a General (any General) wrote a similar letter to that of General Mixons advocating that any Soldiers who feel DADT would be wrong to write their lawmakers would you say the same thing about that General?

If so, I have respect for your opinion. I still would respectfully disagree with it but I'd respect your basis for it. If not, well, you'd be a damn hypocrite.

[ChiefB]

My only question to you is that if the roles were reversed and DADT were not current law but president Obama was advocating the implementation of it and a General (any General) wrote a similar letter to that of General Mixons advocating that any Soldiers who feel DADT would be wrong to write their lawmakers would you say the same thing about that General?

If so, I have respect for your opinion. I still would respectfully disagree with it but I'd respect your basis for it. If not, well, you'd be a damn hypocrite.

What you don't get, MCGyver is that this insubordinate act has not one damn thing to do with DADT.

The General went outside his COC and publicly admonished his President and Sec. Gates, who along with Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate on Feb. 2 that they support President Barack Obama’s call for repeal, with this rebuke: "I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy".

If the General had followed his own advice and kept his comments in-house, in the COC, there would have been no problem. But, he went public and he called his President and superiors "ill advised" in their decisions. Vocal and public rebuke of your superiors is an insubordinate act and negatively contributes to good order and discipline and undermines the authority of your superiors.

I would feel just the same if a General publically rebuked his president for retaining DADT or was directing the closure of his favorite base or the discontinuing of the production of an AF fighter.

Ruling on insubordination does not take into account the subject of conflict, only the act.

ChiefB

[Seasons]

What a crock, MCGyver.... General Mixon did an end run around his chain of command, CSA, CJCS, Sec. Gates and his President (CINC) to appeal to his subordinates to oppose a commitment clearly voiced by all of the above.

He was blatantly insubordinate, in direct conflict with his superiors and provided a purposeful, embarrassing, public, discordant, view of his lack of respect for those leaders appointed over him.

He should not wait to retire, his effectiveness as one who could not lead, follow or get out of the way has been clearly proven.

He would expect no less of a subordinate who disagreed, publicly, with any of his policies and encouraged subordinates to do likewise.

He has violated his oath and besmirched his rank and position.

There is no place in our armed forces for politically active generals with such disdain for their superiors wishes and their President's position.

ChiefB

Agreed completely, Chief. I for one would not serve under this General following his actions. If asked why, I'd say he inspired me to publicly stand up to my superiors.

Wonder if he'd be so agreeable to the notion then.

[MCGYVER]

Chief (and Seasons), the President doesn't have the authority to eliminate the ban on gays, therefore his stating that it is a bad policy is simply his "opinion", not any kind of "order". As such, the General voiced HIS "opinion" to the letters section of Stars and Stripes. He didn't disobey anything. He wasn't "technically" insubordinate because he merely voiced his opinion about someone elses opinion. That's all. Being in "favor" of something (or against it for that matter) is not equivocal to giving an order.

[Seasons]

Chief (and Seasons), the President doesn't have the authority to eliminate the ban on gays, therefore his stating that it is a bad policy is simply his "opinion", not any kind of "order". As such, the General voiced HIS "opinion" to the letters section of Stars and Stripes. He didn't disobey anything. He wasn't "technically" insubordinate because he merely voiced his opinion about someone elses opinion. That's all. Being in "favor" of something (or against it for that matter) is not equivocal to giving an order.

Incorrect. It is the President's "position" more so than his "opinion". It was also his "order" that a review be made to move towards repeal. The General is allowed his "opinion" in private forum, but may not contradict the President's "position" in a public forum.

[MCGYVER]

Seasons, we are mincing words. At least you haven't gone so far as to consider the President's "position" as a lawful, general or direct order. :)

[Seasons]

It is still considered "damaging to good order and discipline" to disagree with the Commander in Chief's position in a public forum in the capacity of a military member (ie. as a Marine General, not as a private citizen).

I didn't like it when I couldn't publicly speak out against Bush and his positions in uniform, why should this guy be given a free pass just because its against Obama?

[MCGYVER]

I don't think he's been given a free pass because it's against Obama (not a friend to the military), I think it's because he didn't violate the letter of the law, only the spirit of it. He merely voiced his opinion about other people's opinions. One of those "other people" just so happened to be the President. I find it far more admirable than being a "yes man" and towing the party line like so many other "men". Too often these "men" don't speak their true minds until they retire. I have NO respect for someone that holds their tongue to keep their job. I honestly think if you do that you should be brought up on charges. If that's the way you live your life you are surely headed for a very warm place on your final day. Just my opinion.

[Seasons]

I don't think he's been given a free pass because it's against Obama (not a friend to the military), I think it's because he didn't violate the letter of the law, only the spirit of it. He merely voiced his opinion about other people's opinions. One of those "other people" just so happened to be the President. I find it far more admirable than being a "yes man" and towing the party line like so many other "men". Too often these "men" don't speak their true minds until they retire. I have NO respect for someone that holds their tongue to keep their job. I honestly think if you do that you should be brought up on charges. If that's the way you live your life you are surely headed for a very warm place on your final day. Just my opinion.

Of course you ignore that there are avenues for these people to make their policy opinions known to the policy makers without you necessarily knowing they've done so.

[MCGYVER]

Making your "opinion" public is hardly a crime. Like I stated, the Presidents "position" on subjects he doesn't have the power to change equates to an opinion. It may not be popular with some (you for instance) but most people find honesty and integrity a bit refreshing. If it were up to the president to change the policy it would have been changed by Clinton. :)

[DarkHeart]

You obviously have no knowledge of the history or politics behind DADT.

As to the officer publicly undermining the President's intent, I can't say I would be just as mad about an officer publicly undermining former President Bush. At the end of the day public insubordination is wrong.

[MCGYVER]

Oh, I'm pretty familiar with the history (thanks to wikipedia). Congress is the one who banned gays, not any president. DADT was put in place by Clinton because it was the "best he could do" as a compromise for not ending the ban on gays like he promised his liberal constituents. Bottom line: the president can't tell congress what to do. His "opinion" on what the military should do is not based on experience or logic at all, it's purely emotional.