"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" REPEALED!

[oggbashan]

Edited to remove non-working link.

Og

 

[3113]

AA I would recommend you think before you type. Nether you or I know anything about the poster you just denigrated.

And I'd think before you type. Do you know anything about AA or any of the others you argue are "denigrating" him? Do you know if they were vets? Or where they served if they did? Maybe, unlike you, they know what the fuck they're talking about.

And how dare WetSpecial denigrate gay men and women who have served and are serving--and won medals of valor and commanded men and women, and are respected by their fellow soldiers--by implying that they're somehow going to undermine the "warrior spirit" of the military by putting up a picture of their boyfriend/girlfriend on the inside of their locker?

Sparta never had a problem with gays hurting its warrior spirit. Alexander the Great's warriors never stopped fighting and winning an Empire for him because he was openly gay. And did you know that one of the best Generals of the American Revolutionary war was said to be gay? Friedrich von Steuben. And, to add to this, all these other countries have openly gay men and women serving in their armies and not only hasn't been a problem for them, but those troops helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan. So our "warriors" have already been serving with openly gay men and women.

All this makes what WetSpecial said STUPID. And there's no need to know shit-all about anyone if what they say is demonstrably wrong and STUPID!

As for "denigrating," one reaps what one sows. WetSpecial denigrated real warriors past and present, and he's going to get back. If he can't take what he gets back, then he really shouldn't be making any kind of stupid statements.

Oh, and neither should you.

The study is based upon answers provided by nearly 115,000 troops, along with 44,200 military spouses. The study group also visited various military bases and held town hall-style meetings with service members.

These results appear to echo those found in a Pew Research Center survey last month, which indicated 58% of Americans favored allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

From here. WHERE did you get your percentages? Because it seems that 70% of the MILITARY in the most recent poll done by the MILITARY are fine with gays. And are you sure that 58% that you quoted was "special" forces and not Americans in general?

As for recruitment, I don't know if you know this, but we're in a pretty bad recession. Beggars can't be choosers. If there aren't any jobs out there and joining the military is it, you join the military and thank god you can do that. I've no evidence that repeal of DADT will have no effect on recruitment, but then, neither do you--and as we're in a recession, I think my guess that it won't is a little more probable.

 

[3113]

On Ignore

Ladies and gents, as this thread is for those of us who view the repeal in a positive light and wish to discuss that, might I recommend we put the nay-sayers on ignore? After posting yet another defense, it occurred to me that we're not going to change their minds, and I really don't need to hear any more of their unsupported, ignorant and uninformed bullshit.

In the end, we "won" the argument and they're shit out of luck anyway.

So, let's put them all on DADT. We won't ask for their opinions, and if they want to tell them, they can, but we don't need to hear them.

 

[rgraham666]

I put them on ignore months ago. I knew within a very few posts they were accomplished haters.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My father just turned 80 years young. Vietnam vet.

He is pleased with the repeal.

According to him, everyone always knew which soldiers were gay. A few couldn't deal but most never gave a fuck, as long as the "gay" soldiers did their jobs.

What's your issue? Are you afraid someone's gonna peek at your nekkid bits in the shower?

Grow up.

The danger as I perceive it is the litigation flood thats coming when Gays hop aboard the whining wagon and blame homophobia for every imagined or real poke at them. I expect that plenty of them will end up commanding desks and snack bars, out of the way and out of mind.

Just read a World War 2 memoir where an Air Force colonel took care of all of his asshole buddies when it came to missions. The asshole buddies flew off to collect the mail and visitors, the straights flew to Germany.

Both will impact morale.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

IGGY works cuz the Usual Suspects dont read what visitors see, and certainly dont challenge any of it.

 

[JackLuis]

I think Box is correct, in that the Gays in the military who do their jobs and aren't "obvious" about their orientation are, and will be excepted. DADT is the what the default condition is.

The "DADT Policy" was a political construct. Why it was adopted, I don't know. Probably to improve recruiting since we don't have a draft anymore.

Will it effect unit cohesiveness? Will it not? Who knows? We will see in the future.

I do believe this will sort itself out, just as integration sorted itself out in the "Brown Shoe" Army in the 50's.

Maybe we should now concentrate on the need for troops. If we didn't have 2 1/3 wars going on we'd need fewer troops and could shed the 'Haters", to use terms used in the thread.

Rather than point to Gays and Women, we should aim at reducing the number of "Ring Knocking Assholes" that get people killed to advance their careers. But that means holding the Officer class to some standard of integrity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think Box is correct, in that the Gays in the military who do their jobs and aren't "obvious" about their orientation are, and will be excepted. DADT is the what the default condition is.

The "DADT Policy" was a political construct. Why it was adopted, I don't know. Probably to improve recruiting since we don't have a draft anymore.

Will it effect unit cohesiveness? Will it not? Who knows? We will see in the future.

I do believe this will sort itself out, just as integration sorted itself out in the "Brown Shoe" Army in the 50's.

Maybe we should now concentrate on the need for troops. If we didn't have 2 1/3 wars going on we'd need fewer troops and could shed the 'Haters", to use terms used in the thread.

Rather than point to Gays and Women, we should aim at reducing the number of "Ring Knocking Assholes" that get people killed to advance their careers. But that means holding the Officer class to some standard of integrity.

In Vietnam it quickly became obvious who went to Dodge City and who didnt. You never saw an officer there. So I asked a captain, I knew, what was up with that. He suggested that the officers played with the Red Cross girls. I wasnt fooled. I said, NOT UNLESS YOURE A COLONEL. He finally fessed that it was the maids.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I think Box is correct, in that the Gays in the military who do their jobs and aren't "obvious" about their orientation are, and will be excepted. DADT is the what the default condition is.

The "DADT Policy" was a political construct. Why it was adopted, I don't know. Probably to improve recruiting since we don't have a draft anymore.

Will it effect unit cohesiveness? Will it not? Who knows? We will see in the future.

I do believe this will sort itself out, just as integration sorted itself out in the "Brown Shoe" Army in the 50's.

Maybe we should now concentrate on the need for troops. If we didn't have 2 1/3 wars going on we'd need fewer troops and could shed the 'Haters", to use terms used in the thread.

Rather than point to Gays and Women, we should aim at reducing the number of "Ring Knocking Assholes" that get people killed to advance their careers. But that means holding the Officer class to some standard of integrity.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I just wanted to mention that I have a couple of "ring knocker" friends (they actually taught me that phrase). One is a Lt. Commander in the Navy (involved with LCACs???) who REALLY cares for her people and the other is a Marine Corps Helecopter gunship pilot whose job is close air support (thereby taking a hell of a personal risk) to support HIS troops.

BTW, they are both queer and Naval Academy graduates, who proudly and honorably serve their country. I thank them for that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Gay men will still get outed by homophobes, with all the attendent dangers. We all know that. No lesbian or gay man needs straight people reminding them of this.

What the repeal of DADT means is one less set of legal dangers to gay troops.

 

[Pure]

note to wet

wsNow, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males.

i don't really see this. gays are on football teams and can have as much 'fighting spirit' as the next guy.

indeed 'warrior ethos' though traditionally espoused by males, and 'masculine' persons, can equally be held by some women. wars now are not much fought hand to hand, so the physical strength differential fades in importance.

it's spirit that matters, tough indomitable spirit, which in fact is lacking in no insignificant portion of males, which is why they don't volunteer (e.g. Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton) and if they did, they'd not become Navy SEALS or similar.

the integration of women into the Israeli army has not affected its combative ability.

women are occasionally fighter pilots in the US Air Force. In 2008, women were 70 out of 3700. In the article below, on M. McSally, she tells of her role in combat.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123034148

Major Shawna Kimbrell
http://www.174fw.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123099049

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

wsNow, thanks to the repeal, the masculine warrior ethos must be asked to accommodate homosexual males.

i don't really see this. gays are on football teams and can have as much 'fighting spirit' as the next guy.

indeed 'warrior ethos' though traditionally espoused by males, and 'masculine' persons, can equally be held by some women. wars now are not much fought hand to hand, so the physical strength differential fades in importance.

it's spirit that matters, tough indomitable spirit, which in fact is lacking in no insignificant portion of males, which is why they don't volunteer (e.g. Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton) and if they did, they'd not become Navy SEALS or similar.

the integration of women into the Israeli army has not affected its combative ability.

women are occasionally fighter pilots in the US Air Force. In 2008, women were 70 out of 3700. In the article below, on M. McSally, she tells of her role in combat.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123034148

Major Shawna Kimbrell
http://www.174fw.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123099049

Robert E. Lee had females in his army but one two-headed snake doesnt tag the whole species. The best female marathon runner ranks like # 600 on the male list.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think Box is correct, in that the Gays in the military who do their jobs and aren't "obvious" about their orientation are, and will be excepted. DADT is the what the default condition is.

The "DADT Policy" was a political construct. Why it was adopted, I don't know. Probably to improve recruiting since we don't have a draft anymore.

Will it effect unit cohesiveness? Will it not? Who knows? We will see in the future.

I do believe this will sort itself out, just as integration sorted itself out in the "Brown Shoe" Army in the 50's.

Maybe we should now concentrate on the need for troops. If we didn't have 2 1/3 wars going on we'd need fewer troops and could shed the 'Haters", to use terms used in the thread.

Rather than point to Gays and Women, we should aim at reducing the number of "Ring Knocking Assholes" that get people killed to advance their careers. But that means holding the Officer class to some standard of integrity.

I'm glad somebody agrees with me, even tentatively. I'm all for equality for everybody, but I am also concerned with unforeseen consequences and with those that are not all that unforeseen. Some people are crowing about the recent, rather ambiguous poll, in which a majority (I think) of GI's saw nothing wrong about GLBT people in the military. The majority of grunts were opposed to the idea, and I can't help thinking they might know more than the rest of us about the subject.

The sexual orientation of a supply seargeant or a company clerk or a medical technician or a cook is of no concern. The same can be said of a fighter pilot or a Naval gunner. However, when it comes to members of the combat infantry, who get up close and personal with the enemy, it might, and the majority of them seem to think so.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I'm glad somebody agrees with me, even tentatively. I'm all for equality for everybody, but I am also concerned with unforeseen consequences and with those that are not all that unforeseen. Some people are crowing about the recent, rather ambiguous poll, in which a majority (I think) of GI's saw nothing wrong about GLBT people in the military. The majority of grunts were opposed to the idea, and I can't help thinking they might know more than the rest of us about the subject.

The sexual orientation of a supply seargeant or a company clerk or a medical technician or a cook is of no concern. The same can be said of a fighter pilot or a Naval gunner. However, when it comes to members of the combat infantry, who get up close and personal with the enemy, it might, and the majority of them seem to think so.

Seriously??? What? Are you thinking that those "limp wristed fags" can't fight? I'd dare say that Dan Choi could probably kick a fair amount of ass (including yours).

Or is it that some dirty, stinky grunt sweating their ass off in a foxhole is just SO freakin attractive that they gay guy will completely be over come with passion and ass rape him while under enemy fire?

As for the survey being screwed, I personally think you may be right, but in the wrong direction. When the senior leadership goes on record saying that they are against something, then the troops are going to be influenced by THAT! Ever hear the term, lead by example? This was a textbook case of it.

 

[JackLuis]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I just wanted to mention that I have a couple of "ring knocker" friends (they actually taught me that phrase). One is a Lt. Commander in the Navy (involved with LCACs???) who REALLY cares for her people and the other is a Marine Corps Helecopter gunship pilot whose job is close air support (thereby taking a hell of a personal risk) to support HIS troops.

BTW, they are both queer and Naval Academy graduates, who proudly and honorably serve their country. I thank them for that.

Not all Academy graduates are ring knockers. just as not all Gays are "flaming faggots." We do have a tendency to include all the people in a 'class' to show that it is not all inclusive, but then we tend to get a little touchy about things we care about.

Merry Christmas all!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Seriously??? What? Are you thinking that those "limp wristed fags" can't fight? I'd dare say that Dan Choi could probably kick a fair amount of ass (including yours).

Or is it that some dirty, stinky grunt sweating their ass off in a foxhole is just SO freakin attractive that they gay guy will completely be over come with passion and ass rape him while under enemy fire?

I offered no opinion about the "limp wristed fags" you mention. The majority of Combat troops, those who fight in the front lines, expressed their reservations or actual concerns with being joined by gay or lesbians on those front lines. They may or not be right, but I think we should pay attention to those concerns.

As for the survey being screwed, I personally think you may be right, but in the wrong direction. When the senior leadership goes on record saying that they are against something, then the troops are going to be influenced by THAT! Ever hear the term, lead by example? This was a textbook case of it.

I didn't say the survey was screwed; I said it was ambiguous. According to the results I read, 70% said there would be minor negative effects, no effect or positive effects. Those stated results are ambiguous. Did most of that 70% say minor negative effects and only a few say none or good results? If so, why are the people crowing about the results saying most people favor the idea? Why were we not told what percentage of each of the possible answers was included, instead of lumping three of them together? I asked that before, and nobody answered.

I don't really believe many grunts are going to be swayed much by the opinions of most seniot leadership, one way or another, but there are ways their responses might be influenced. Some gay-hating company commander might pass the questionaires out to his or her troops, collect them later and read every one, and know how everybody felt. Of course, the company commander nay also be one of those "limp-wristed fags" you mention, who has his own agenda and does the same thing as the gay-hating company commander, but for the opposite reason.

BTW, so far there has been only discussion of gay men. What effect do you think the inclusion of openly lesbian women would have?

 

[oggbashan]

It seems sensible to repeal a law that was unrealistic and probably unenforceable.

Og

 

[Katyusha]

It seems sensible to repeal a law that was unrealistic and probably unenforceable.

Og

No...it was enforceable and enforced. Thousands of our servicemembers of have been discharged under DADT.

 

[sr71plt]

No...it was enforceable and enforced. Thousands of our servicemembers of have been discharged under DADT.

I was tempted to post about the same thing.

This points to another issue, though. It's not DADT that is either the law that enforces this or that has been changed. The law that has been changed is the one making it illegal to be in the services for someone who is gay. DADT was the first attempt to mitigate that--a policy (not a law) of not directly asking and suggesting that gays serving not tell--because if they did, they'd kick the actual law into effect. So, it's not really DADT that's either the "culprit" law or what has been rejected as "law."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was tempted to post about the same thing.

This points to another issue, though. It's not DADT that is either the law that enforces this or that has been changed. The law that has been changed is the one making it illegal to be in the services for someone who is gay. DADT was the first attempt to mitigate that--a policy (not a law) of not directly asking and suggesting that gays serving not tell--because if they did, they'd kick the actual law into effect. So, it's not really DADT that's either the "culprit" law or what has been rejected as "law."

Very important point, and one we all keep forgetting. Thank you, SR.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm with Box. I think it's important for us old white guys to fear change, because fearing change is what we do. If we were to cease fearing change, what would be the basis of our reality?

Being a bleeding heart liberal myself, I think we should ask the government to set up some sort of outreach program for old white guys who fear change. Perhaps we could have our own senior centers with "I Love Lucy" and "Father Knows Best" playing on TV 24/7. ("24/7" means "all the time" for those old white guys who are unfamiliar with the term.) Perhaps if we could distract ourselves from the horrible reality of the DADT repeal, (which is different from the DDT ban that occurred a few decades ago - although it seems like only yesterday) we could live out the rest of our days in peace and leave the embracing of change to our foolish offfspring.

I think the biggest dilemma for us old white guys who fear change will be when one of those Join the Army commercials comes on TV. Should we feel patriotic, or should we be fearful that the actors in the commercial might be gay? I'm going to try to get a phone call in to Dr. Laura and see what she might advise. If I get a coherent answer (fat chance, eh?) I'll get back to you.

 

[Katyusha]

I was tempted to post about the same thing.

This points to another issue, though. It's not DADT that is either the law that enforces this or that has been changed. The law that has been changed is the one making it illegal to be in the services for someone who is gay. DADT was the first attempt to mitigate that--a policy (not a law) of not directly asking and suggesting that gays serving not tell--because if they did, they'd kick the actual law into effect. So, it's not really DADT that's either the "culprit" law or what has been rejected as "law."

Very true.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, just so it might sink in, I'll reiterate that it isn't DADT being repealed. It's the law banning gays from serving in the military that's been changed (relawed, so to speak). DADT wasn't a law. It was the administration's policy attempt at the time to negate a law that it didn't have the votes to vote down. Now that's been done. But it's not DADT that was voted down, and it's not DADT that prevented gays from serving in the military.

I see some rah rahing being done by folks who don't even understand what the issue is.

(P.S., this wasn't directed at the post immediately above--they posted at the same time.)

 

[3113]

OK, just so it might sink in, I'll reiterate that it isn't DADT being repealed. It's the law banning gays from serving in the military that's been changed (relawed, so to speak). DADT wasn't a law. It was the administration's policy attempt at the time to negate a law that it didn't have the votes to vote down. Now that's been done. But it's not DADT that was voted down, and it's not DADT that prevented gays from serving in the military.

I see some rah rahing being done by folks who don't even understand what the issue is.

Well, now that I understand, I'm still ra-rahing.

Blame it on the media and congress--DADT is all they talked about, not what the law actually entailed.

 

[Dragonlipz]

This ain't about me, but gee don't you get angry when your true political motives are exposed. Who's looking out for the troops?

I'm not angry - but you sure are....whining like some lil bitch about having to shower with some other guys.......worrying about whether they're looking at your cock....issues?
My advice to you remains the same: If you can't honor your commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL americans - get the fuck out, if you are really in....which I find suspect....I have been in a combat situation and the last thing on my mind was someone else's sexual orientation....
That's obviously the first thing on a coward like yourself agenda......so get the fuck out if you're not man enough to deal.......
My political motives are the same as when I served.....yours aren't and you've shown your dumb ass........