1 hour ago
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Common ground on DADT with URR
I think we can agree that post-DADT there will be problems with:Sad - but it will happen. It won't be the fault of the professionals - but the narcissistic, unprofessional agenda types - and when it happens we will call them on it, just like we do with the Diversity Bullies.
Labels:
DADT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
From your first link: 'Imperial War Museum North has created Military Pride, a small and powerful display built around personal testimonies which reflect how war and conflict has shaped lives in LGBT communities. The exhibition is set within a historical context highlighting changes in the law, Armed Forces policies and social attitudes from 1945 to the present day...'
Repeal DADT in the US, and in no time you're gonna have a Military Pride thingy in US museums.
Btw, it's getting lonely here in Europe. I feel like an endangered species.
Yesterday, SecDef agreed to the Democrat and Presidents "compromise" that this has to happen sooner rather than later. (change in 2010 coming?) this reaks of stink of politics and so much for what the troops way or feel.
mark my words, this will have a damaging effect on our miitary. Regardless of personal emotion on this issue, you dont change the induction process of your forces while engaged in combat. Big Tactical booboo....
of course we knew this was a done deal when CJS started moving his lips...
You know we're going to be beaten to death over and over again about how gays struggled for so long just to serve, we'll have GAY PRIDE month in the fleet, we'll have special Gay Billets set aside @ USNA, and that's just for starters.
Whatever your feelings are on the issue, do us a frickin favor. If you want to change the law, whatever, that's up to Congress. Just don't spend the next fifty years rubbing our noses in it.
If professionalism concerns you, as you say it does, and if you support repeal of DADT, as you say you do, then I hope you will also be calling out those who are less than professional when discussing their homosexual shipmates. The gay rights folks aren't the only ones with an agenda, and they don't have a monopoly on narcissism or unprofessional behavior.
<span>Let no person think repeal of DADT has the slightest to do with combat efficiency or improving our military. Or even any sense of fairness. It is a genuflecting to a highly vocal and socially corrosive special interest, and will damage our armed forces perhaps beyond repair.
If anyone thinks that gays will serve "quietly" in this climate of preference, advocacy, and activism, they have ignored virtually every facet of reality on this issue for the last three and a half decades.
Neither the President, nor Congressional leaders, have been the least bit truthful regarding a desire for a comprehensive study as to whether DADT should be repealed or left in place. Nor has Admiral Mullen.
This latest push for a rapid repeal before much of the study has even begun illustrates that they a) will likely not care for many of the answers, and b) dismiss military leadership concerns (the ones that aren't in their pockets already) without a second thought. Many millions in taxpayer dollars wasted, much valuable leadership time frittered away. In the middle of two wars. And perhaps on the brink of a third.
None of this is about readiness or combat effectiveness. It is social experimentation and engineering as a means of pandering to a loud and conspicuous portion of the far-left voter base.</span>
<span>"</span><span>The gay rights folks aren't the only ones with an agenda"</span>
They're the ones with an agenda, a microphone, hollywood, the media, higher education, ATLA, and a pandering POTUS.
"<span><span>It is a genuflecting to a highly vocal and socially corrosive special interest, and will damage our armed forces perhaps beyond repair."</span></span>
Quoting that for 10 years down the road when teh ghey has been introduced to the U.S. military for a decade and, strangely enough, we still manage to operate as an effective fighting force even with all those nancies in the ranks.
That said, the CDR is absolutely right with what will happen re: homosexuals and the military...doesn't mean that repealing DADT still isn't the right thing to do.
By the way, unless you consider people like myself (strongly dislike what Obama has done with the economy, strongly dislike both parties on a plethora of issues, most of which relate back to personal liberty) part of the "far-left voter base," repealing DADT is about a helluva lot more than supposedly just placating those evil hollyweird lieberals.
URR,
Agreed. There is nothing that has ever stopped a homosexual from serving his/her country. Nothing. I served alongside two. No problems. They didn't tell, we didn't ask. They showed up for work squared away and ready to go. I was proid to call both of them shipmates.
No, the problem is with those on the homosexual side who have an agenda. They want their acquired lifestyle considered "normal" and forced into every area of our society. It takes an incredibly shallow and insecure person to demand that.
Those homosexuals who have been forced from the militarty have, especially these past 18 years, been, with VERY few exceptions, people who decided they wanted to call attention to themselves. people who outed themselves for selfish reasons, who put themselves above and beyond the men and women they served with, who put their own personal agenda above the sacred oath they swore when they enlisted.
I have nothing but contempt for those people, and nothing but contempt for those in the homosexual community and their political enablers who are trying to force this issue upon the military, and the nation. That agenda is one of control and power, and they need to be stopped dead in their tracks.
If a homosexual wants to serve, then DADT allows them that privilige. The military should NEVER be used as a petri dish for social experimentation. It is too important to fiddle with in such regards.
Respects,
Mike,
No, I don't count someone like yourself in that far-left voter base. And there are gays in the ranks right now. I have served with some in my nearly 28 years. Opening the door for activism and advocacy on the scale with these interest groups that we have seen previously is an invitation to disaster.
Ten years from now? What about two years from now? If we have to go to war in a major way with that upheaval in our military culture, what is the result?
Right, its the "uppity" gays that you don't like.
You know, we really ought to just assign numbers to our various arguements on this; it would make this so much easier to just post "4, 7, and 10"!
CNFO,
Troll someplace else. They kept it nobody's business, which is how it should be.
I'm glad I toured the Imperial War Museum when I was stationed in the UK in the early 70s and when I took my wife and young son back in '85--the thought of stumbling onto an abomination like that pictured is sickening, to say the least...
PS: And ALL that URR & AW1 Tim said.
<span>Well, Andrewb, if by "uppity" you refer to the shrieking advocates who will further this climate of self-identified segmentation, preference. and special treatment having only furthering their "cause" and not combat effectiveness of our armed forces as their sole objective, then yes, it is the uppity gays I don't like. </span>
Dude... you miss the point again.
Then how did you know. It's the LAW.
No, you miss the point. It's the LAW, and I'm curious why you don't enforce the law personally, but desire the law to be maintained by congress. Did you enjoy knowing that you if that person misbehaved you could throw them out? Do you consider how stressful that could be for the person in a combat situation? What is it like to know that you depend on the discretion of your peers to not tell the wrong person, or your life or career could be ended?
I find it interesting that you're ok with letting gay people serve, so long as you have the power to discharge them if they violate your personal judgement of their behavior, or tell someone. You personally violate the law, yet support it. I'm astonished that you don't look at it this as an integrity issue, not just for gay people, but for the entire force structure.
I find it interesting that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I suspected strongly that those men and women were gay, based on what I believe were clues and indicators. Could I prove anything? No. Could I have been mistaken? Definitely. Because if they were they kept it to themselves. And it was not an issue. Read the law before you comment on it. It keeps you from sounding like a jackass.
The armed forces has the obligation to discharge people who violate the standards of behavior.
Then you didn't serve with people that were gay. You served with people you suspected of being gay. There's a difference, perhaps USNA's English classes did teach me something. I'd recommend Fleming's, but from what I've heard it is pretty horrendous.
Andrew,
when the volunteer force votes with their feet, and this is still to be analyzed completely, but, I digress, we will be forced to bring back conscription. WATCH how many gays avoid service or try to avoid, and the sheer number of majority non gays required to fill the ranks will put a dispell to the myth that 10 percenters like you are trying to scream over the masses.
It wont matter to me, I am retiring, and I will steer my young one to serve the nation in a different capacity, but mark my words, actions have consequences. and like URR, I am standing shoulder to shoulder with him by saying this will reak havoc on our military.
MTH - I sincerly think we won't see any noticiable difference in recruiting and retention from this change. Our allies, with whom we operate jointly, didn't see that. The UK, Canada, Oz and NZ all had lots of concern about this, and the reality was that when they lifted their bans it didn't matter.
Interesting piece here on this subject: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37787.html
umm Andrew, our allies are small and have no where near the OPTEMPO we have. Additionally, they don't have people serving for the same reasons WE serve.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
What, they aren't signing up to get their college paid for? (just kidding).
They are serving to defend their country - which is the same reason the vast majority of US folks serve.
Security Clearence has to renewed every 5 or 10 years depending on what we are doing for DOD. If I'm in debt up to my eyebrows, I can have my clearence pulled and be in deep, deep trouble at work. But if I am engaging in some known-to-be-dangerous sexual activities with other males, then my security clearance can be renewed and I have no trouble at work. Obviously, homosexual behaviors do not lead to any situation which might lead to a possible compromising of integrity, socially, morally, financially, etc. And we all know that homosexual behavior is "heathy" ! And we insist that all our Navy, USMC, USAF, and Army active duty warriors stay in top physical shape. I guess SECDEF is now so open minded that his brains fell out. Our grandchildren will think the same about our entire generation.
Open and honest service reduces the blackmail risk.
<span>..."and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."
We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But shame is only for those with a moral compass of some kind. And you know how politically inconvenient those can be.
After all, shame is a product of discrimination, and we all need to be more, er, indiscriminate.</span>
Service to a Nation is a priviledge NOT a right.
No, it is an obligation of every citizen.
And what that has to do with why foreigners are serving in their militaries is lost on me.
And yet, if (actually, it is looking more & more like *when* these days, isn't it?) DA/DT is overturned & the law prohibiting gays & lesbians from serving is repealed -- instead, you'll prob hear...not much, really...
There may be some initial issues -- heck there are always squabbles between some folks -- but nothing that a squared-away command can't handle.
The CRWG seems to be doing a fine & busy job of collecting data, studying the issues, etc. in order to be able to provide guidance for a relatively smooth transition.
Unlike those of you (URR -- Broken record?) who KNOW what this is going to lead to -- and can't seem to hold back from "the sky is falling" routine -- I suspect -- that most of the military will just smile and continue with carrying out the mission. I doubt you'll see a negative impact wrt readiness and/or retention. Heck, it might even IMPROVE! (Although, that normally has more to do with economic impacts than any other factor...)
This is, of course, about how we treat our people. All of our people. It appears from polls -- that a good number of the American people support this -- they recognize that if you can perform the mission -- and are willing to do so -- then you should be allowed to, and that this law is detrimental to readiness.
And patently unfair. This type of discrimination is without foundation, is morally reprehensible, and should have been done away with well before 1993, let alone now.
So, we'll see how the next few months pan out. We'll see what is in the CRWG report.
For those of you (like me) who are nearing retirement age -- if you don't like the change -- it doesn't matter, as we won't be around much longer. You can vote with your feet, or...simply retire & fade away (or continue grumbling...) Mr. T -- the idea that you would steer any person away from military service (I guess based on this issue alone?) speaks volumes wrt your patriotism. Wow. Poor show, indeed. Perhaps the military would be better off without that kind of small-mindedness.
The kids are stepping up & taking control & they (by and large) don't consider this an issue. As the Brits found out, in fairly short order, this was seen to be a non-issue.
Good for them, Good for our Navy, and Good for our Nation.
Not good for our Navy, our Marine Corps, or our Nation. Pandering to a vocal part of the far left and nothing whatever to do with combat effectiveness.
Andrew,
that was YOUR example. not mine.
You are WRONG. Service is a priviledge. That is why we have standards and entrance requirements. There is no obligation of service in a free society. Learn your history.
If a person is telling the truth and joined under honorable conditions, they have should no reason to worry or lie....
<span>Jay,
I am second generation Navy, career professional. I am soon to retire and my timing is good. I have siblings and nephews in the service of our nation. I have reenlisted countless and promoted even more.
I have served so my child wont have to. I wont cheerlead a service if I dont trust the leadership. I dont trust the current leadership. </span>
<span></span>
<span>I dont owe you an explanation of my patriotism and you cant impugn it even in your shallow attempt see you are part of the problem. I wouldn't want my son to be in your division or in your care for a peacetime hour let alone a wartime minute. </span>
Logically speaking.....
mmmmm........legally.............mmmmm..........historically........mmmmm........setting emotion aside........mmmmmm............from a purely practical viewpoint.........
Nope, I got nothing. Coming next week, the new Navy uniforms, or why people on ships need to dress like black and blue foliage. Week after that, emerging challenges in search and rescue.
Stay tuned!
MTH - so you don't think there was anything wrong with the people who went to Canada during the Vietnam era? I disagree.
AndrewB,
MTH didn't say anything of the sort. The cowards who went to Canada did so to evade what was then a draft, and indeed broke the law. But this is an AVF. And service to one's country is no longer an obligation, hasn't been for almost 40 years.
Jay,
10-20 years ago I would be PRECISELY the "Patriot" you are looking for...
Draft and Volunteer force.. different times, different way of entering the forces. AND declaring yourself GAY worked for quite a few.. but you are trying to cloud the issue with a rear guard tactic... how about we focus on the issue... we are a volunteer military. Service is a PRIVILEDGE. DADT is gonna drive many out and result in fewer in enlisting.
I can see the tone of the conversation now.. (whispered into an influential ear.. : "Economy is shit.. so lets do this! The breeders wont walk, they need the job! this will validate we are right!"
oh yea... I have heard it...
MR T -- read yours a little closer...and spelling, too. :)
When we have had drafts -- that is about as much an obligation, as you can get.
Service is sacrifice, on many levels. It is an honor to serve.
This is to easy, but...
"I don't care what you think...Andrew!"
Just had to do it. Not much else to add to the conversation.
Would appear CJCS ADM Mullen is having second thoughts:
"The <span>chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff</span> said Sunday he would have preferred that Congress had waited before voting to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bans gays from serving openly in the military. (snip) But he said it would have been better for lawmakers to wait until the <span>Pentagon</span> completed its review of how to make the repeal work. That study, due in December, is based on a current survey of troops and their families."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_gays
I'm just wondering why DoD should even bother with the study, since the outcome has been preordained at this point...although I guess there is some value in getting to choose between 60 grit and 120 grit lubricants...
<span>Would appear CJCS ADM Mullen is having second thoughts:
"The <span>chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff</span> said Sunday he would have preferred that Congress had waited before voting to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bans gays from serving openly in the military. (snip) But he said it would have been better for lawmakers to wait until the <span>Pentagon</span> completed its review of how to make the repeal work. That study, due in December, is based on a current survey of troops and their families."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_gays
I'm just wondering why DoD should even bother with the study, since the outcome has been preordained at this point...although I guess there is some value in getting to choose between 60 grit and 120 grit lubricants...</span>
He knows he stepped in it big time... go ahead and let the 10 percenter serve... it will be at the expense of our military. Many are gonna vote with their feet, and those who dont vote, will wonder why they are working harder with less troops and eventually we will return to conscription.
Post a Comment