Obama to seek repeal of "Don't ask, Don't Tell"

[blueballs]

What exactly is an "escape goat"?

That would be an App State coed who takes a road trip...

[ASUMountaineer]

The name calling is exceptional, and truly shows a deep, intellectual understanding.

Why thank you, my good man.


...but not all that exceptional for this site.

Touche.

[ASUMountaineer]

What exactly is an "escape goat"?

That would be an App State coed who takes a road trip...

Yum a dum dum...don't knock it til you try it.

[BDKJMU]

Think we should let the folks currently serving in the military vote on this, as they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of social policies handed down by Washington. Those who haven't and never will serve shouldn't have any say IMHO.

[native]

There are thousands of serving gay persons = they are not prohibited from serving.

They did not change their views, they do not have an "inability to serve..." so what is your point?

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Do some research, Mountaineer. On this site I am only average in spewing out abuse, and it's rarely a first strike. I also take a great deal more name calling than I dish out, provide more references and analysis than all but a few posters, and try to admit my mistakes. I prefer a reasoned, informed and fair debate, but that is impossible here.

As for the DADT policy, you are correct that spouse abusers don't get kicked out as readily as admitted homosexuals. But that's besides the point. What do you imagine the purpose of the policy to be? Never actually served, have you?

[ASUMountaineer]

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Do some research, Mountaineer. On this site I am only average in spewing out abuse, and it's rarely a first strike. I also take a great deal more name calling than I dish out, provide a more references and analysis than all but a few posters, and admit my mistakes.

As for the DADT policy, you are correct that spouse abusers don't get kicked out as readily as admitted homosexuals. But that's besides the point. What do you imagine the purpose of the policy to be? Never actually served, have you?

Who is talking about spouse abusers? "Banging" refers to having sex. Wow. Anyways, if you follow logic, you'll see the inequality.

No, I haven't served, but my tax dollars goes to support those that do. Thus, I have a reason to care.

I've been here for quite a while. I thought we were discussing this thread, not all of the other times you call names or other people do. Clearly, D1B is a leader in that category. However, you clearly have an issue with DADT and LGBT, so you're really into this thread.

Based on your argument of "articulating" it is clear, DADT cause inequality. A hetero can articulate that they are hetero and all is good, however a homo cannot articulate he is homo, otherwise...out of the military. Clear enough?

[native]

Do some research, Mountaineer. On this site I am only average in spewing out abuse, and it's rarely a first strike. I also take a great deal more name calling than I dish out, provide a more references and analysis than all but a few posters, and admit my mistakes.

As for the DADT policy, you are correct that spouse abusers don't get kicked out as readily as admitted homosexuals. But that's besides the point. What do you imagine the purpose of the policy to be? Never actually served, have you?

Who is talking about spouse abusers? "Banging" refers to having sex. Wow. Anyways, if you follow logic, you'll see the inequality.

No, I haven't served, but my tax dollars goes to support those that do. Thus, I have a reason to care.

I've been here for quite a while. I thought we were discussing this thread, not all of the other times you call names or other people do. Clearly, D1B is a leader in that category. However, you clearly have an issue with DADT and LGBT, so you're really into this thread.

Based on your argument of "articulating" it is clear, DADT cause inequality. A hetero can articulate that they are hetero and all is good, however a homo cannot articulate he is homo, otherwise...out of the military. Clear enough?

You are a pretty good articulator, Mountaineer. I did not call you out on your communications skills, but will be sure to do so if the concern arises.

Of course you have every right to be concerned about the issue and I understand the logical connection you raise, but it is irrelevant to the purpose of the policy, which you obviously do not understand.

No offense, but I presume your lack of understanding is because you have never served. I had hoped you might take a moment to reflect on the purpose of the policy.

The purpose of military service is to protect others, and it requires tremendous personal sacrifice of ever military member and military family. The purpose of the DADT policy is to support the good order and discipline necessary to achieve the military mission, not to scratch some whiney partisan's relatively insignificant political itch. Occasionally, however, both are possible.

You and Gannon Fan should be a little more circumspect about the purpose of the military and the consequences of removing the DADT policy, and not so cavalier about snapping your fingers to scratch your political itch. The service members who will be affected have sacrificed enough and are already pawns in a deadly environment over which - once they volunteer - they have no control.

[ASUMountaineer]

Who is talking about spouse abusers? "Banging" refers to having sex. Wow. Anyways, if you follow logic, you'll see the inequality.

No, I haven't served, but my tax dollars goes to support those that do. Thus, I have a reason to care.

I've been here for quite a while. I thought we were discussing this thread, not all of the other times you call names or other people do. Clearly, D1B is a leader in that category. However, you clearly have an issue with DADT and LGBT, so you're really into this thread.

Based on your argument of "articulating" it is clear, DADT cause inequality. A hetero can articulate that they are hetero and all is good, however a homo cannot articulate he is homo, otherwise...out of the military. Clear enough?

You are a pretty good articulator, Mountaineer. I did not call you out on your communications skills, but will be sure to do so if the concern arises.

Of course you have every right to be concerned about the issue and I understand the logical connection you raise, but it is irrelevant to the purpose of the policy, which you obviously do not understand.

No offense, but I presume your lack of understanding is because you have never served. I had hoped you might take a moment to reflect on the purpose of the policy.

The purpose of military service is to protect others, and it requires tremendous personal sacrifice of ever military member and military family. The purpose of the DADT policy is to support the good order and discipline necessary to achieve the military mission, not to scratch some whiney partisan's relatively insignificant political itch. Occasionally, however, both are possible.

You and Gannon Fan should be a little more circumspect about the purpose of the military and the consequences of removing the DADT policy, and not so cavalier about snapping your fingers to scratch your political itch. The service members who will be affected have sacrificed enough and are already pawns in a deadly environment over which - once they volunteer - they have no control.

I didn't say you called out my communication skills, I said you misunderstood the term I used.

I don't see how the issue of kicking people out of the military for saying they are gay is irrelevant to DADT...seems to be the essence. Could you explain?

Also, please explain (because you're an expert), how allowing someone to say, "I'm gay" would damage the military? As you have made sure to point out, I haven't served, so I clearly cannot understand how damaging it would be to know someone is gay.

It's not a "political itch" for me to scratch. As you've said, I didn't and don't serve, thus it doesn't really affect me, and 2) I'm not gay so, again it doesn't affect me. However, I really fail to see how you think that DADT does not create inequality.

As to the purpose of DADT, I'm glad they waited until the end of the 20th century to take such precautions. How does being openly hetero benefit the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission" and being openly gay damage the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission?"

And, because you've apparently served, you are an expert...how would this damage the military? I would be interested to know how that little bit of knowledge could have such dire consequences.

[youngterrier]

It wouldnt matter if they were gay considering they'd be meeting strict military code....

[GannonFan]

I don't understand Obama's hesitation in doing this. He doesn't need Congress to make this happen - the original DADT was done via Executive Order after Congress then balked at it. I certainly understand it is far more permanent to go the Congressional route (well, not permanent, but harder to rescind) but he's got the power right now to change it and let Congress follow his lead. This has been one of the larger problems with Obama's term so far - he's not getting out in front of issues and shaping them - he's letting others do the heavy lifting for him and that's not worked out well so far.

I've got no problem with repealing this and allowing openly gay people to serve - and obviously Obama doesn't have a problem with it either. So just do it already - stop, for the lack of a better word, pussyfooting around. Being the President does come with a fair amount of power - use it.

Actually, Obama is being a lot smarter on this subject than anyone gives him credit for. You know full well that you can't "just do it," GF, as David Gergen reminded everyone on the Sunday talk shows. Laying the groundwork is exactly what SECDEF Robert Gates is doing at the Pentagon, with more study papers and focus groups on how to get it done than you can shake a stick at (not your stick, dbj).

Didn't anyone else notice that Gates applauded BO for the DADT line in the SOTU speech?!???

Doing away with DADT will happen, and it will be done properly.

That's the thing, though, what groundwork needs to be lain? From surveys, if they are to be believed, the people in the armed forces right now don't seem to care if DADT is repealed. Same with the public at large. There's apparently no groundswell of opposition to this, so why the hesitation?

And you don't need study papers and focus groups before you say you're going to do it. I don't recall Truman waiting for the results of things that like before he issued an Executive Order to desegregate the military in 1948. Heck, the boards that were set up to determine how to do that came into existence after his Order was issued. No reason why the same can't be done now - stop politicking the issue to death and just get 'er done. Obama can and should issue an Exec Order right away - it's silly to punt the issue to Congress.

[Purple For Life]

There are thousands of serving gay persons = they are not prohibited from serving.

They did not change their views, they do not have an "inability to serve..." so what is your point?

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Let's not forget you can rape a fellow soldier, and she'll be the one who gets kicked out for having an abortion...but you're cool!

Just don't be gay. Or get raped, I guess...

[andy7171]

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Let's not forget you can rape a fellow soldier, and she'll be the one who gets kicked out for having an abortion...but you're cool!

Just don't be gay. Or get raped, I guess...

[ATrain]

Who is talking about spouse abusers? "Banging" refers to having sex. Wow. Anyways, if you follow logic, you'll see the inequality.

No, I haven't served, but my tax dollars goes to support those that do. Thus, I have a reason to care.

I've been here for quite a while. I thought we were discussing this thread, not all of the other times you call names or other people do. Clearly, D1B is a leader in that category. However, you clearly have an issue with DADT and LGBT, so you're really into this thread.

Based on your argument of "articulating" it is clear, DADT cause inequality. A hetero can articulate that they are hetero and all is good, however a homo cannot articulate he is homo, otherwise...out of the military. Clear enough?

You are a pretty good articulator, Mountaineer. I did not call you out on your communications skills, but will be sure to do so if the concern arises.

Of course you have every right to be concerned about the issue and I understand the logical connection you raise, but it is irrelevant to the purpose of the policy, which you obviously do not understand.

No offense, but I presume your lack of understanding is because you have never served. I had hoped you might take a moment to reflect on the purpose of the policy.

The purpose of military service is to protect others, and it requires tremendous personal sacrifice of ever military member and military family. The purpose of the DADT policy is to support the good order and discipline necessary to achieve the military mission, not to scratch some whiney partisan's relatively insignificant political itch. Occasionally, however, both are possible.

You and Gannon Fan should be a little more circumspect about the purpose of the military and the consequences of removing the DADT policy, and not so cavalier about snapping your fingers to scratch your political itch. The service members who will be affected have sacrificed enough and are already pawns in a deadly environment over which - once they volunteer - they have no control.

Other countries allow gays to openly serve in the military, what would the problem be if we did the same? There's been no breakdown of discipline in the British, Dutch, Canadian, Australian, or New Zeland militaries as a result of gays openly serving there, what makes you think the same would happen here? What would the consequences be?

Also, what would the service members serving be sacrificing if this policy were repealed? Also, why should one by stopped from volunteering due to attractions that they have no control over?

[bobbythekidd]

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Let's not forget you can rape a fellow soldier, and she'll be the one who gets kicked out for having an abortion...but you're cool!

Just don't be gay. Or get raped, I guess...

What a random, dumb, and wrong post. That's just silly.

[Col Hogan]

If they tell, they can get kicked out. However, if you walk in and talk about banging your wife, no problem. That's the point, you know it...you're just building yourself up. It's not that complicated, you "know" you're right, so you're ok with trying to belittle people who disagree. It's cool.

Let's not forget you can rape a fellow soldier, and she'll be the one who gets kicked out for having an abortion...but you're cool!

Just don't be gay. Or get raped, I guess...

You have said some DUMB things on this board....I think we have a new low...

Give me one....just one...documented case of a military woman who got an abortion being kicked out for that...

[native]

Do we have any actual gay veterans with operational experience who would like to post here and add their credible and relevant thoughts? Their opinions would be preferable to those of the self righteous armchair jackasses who have never served and never sacrificed a g***damm thing for their country, whining about things they do not understand and cramming their theories down our throats?

I could more readily accept all the drivel you numbnut idiots have posted if you demonstrated a sensitivity to the issues of concern to serving veterans and a sound grasp of the purpose and priorities of a military organization.

[ASUMountaineer]

Do we have any actual gay veterans with operational experience who would like to post here and add their credible and relevant thoughts? Their opinions would be preferable to those of the self righteous armchair jackasses who have never served and never sacrificed a g***damm thing for their country, whining about things they do not understand and cramming their theories down our throats?

I can accept all the drivel you numbnut idiots have posted if it's coming from a combat vet, but the rest of you pussies can just eat sh!t and die!

Wow, once again the "libertarian" has shown he is capable of calling names like a grown-up.

You still haven't answered my questions, based on your extensive knowledge...you know...serving. So, I guess I'll have to ask again. Again, this is not being self-righteous...I just want the best possible military we can have. We know you're clearly never wrong and a military god, but honestly...who is being self-righteous with this statement?

Their opinions would be preferable to those of the self righteous armchair jackasses who have never served and never sacrificed a g***damm thing for their country, whining about things they do not understand and cramming their theories down our throats?

You need to get over yourself.

I don't see how the issue of kicking people out of the military for saying they are gay is irrelevant to DADT...seems to be the essence. Could you explain?

Also, please explain (because you're an expert), how allowing someone to say, "I'm gay" would damage the military? As you have made sure to point out, I haven't served, so I clearly cannot understand how damaging it would be to know someone is gay.

It's not a "political itch" for me to scratch. As you've said, I didn't and don't serve, thus it doesn't really affect me, and 2) I'm not gay so, again it doesn't affect me. However, I really fail to see how you think that DADT does not create inequality.

As to the purpose of DADT, I'm glad they waited until the end of the 20th century to take such precautions. How does being openly hetero benefit the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission" and being openly gay damage the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission?" Again, how could I know, I'm a "pussy" that has never served?

And, because you've apparently served, you are an expert...how would this damage the military? I would be interested to know how that little bit of knowledge could have such dire consequences.

I'm waiting...still, please educate us "numbnut idiots."

[Col Hogan]

Do we have any actual gay veterans with operational experience who would like to post here and add their credible and relevant thoughts? Their opinions would be preferable to those of the self righteous armchair jackasses who have never served and never sacrificed a g***damm thing for their country, whining about things they do not understand and cramming their theories down our throats?

I can accept all the drivel you numbnut idiots have posted if it's coming from a combat vet, but the rest of you pussies can just eat sh!t and die!

Wow, once again the "libertarian" has shown he is capable of calling names like a grown-up.

You still haven't answered my questions, based on your extensive knowledge...you know...serving. So, I guess I'll have to ask again. Again, this is not being self-righteous...I just want the best possible military we can have. We know you're clearly never wrong and a military god, but honestly...who is being self-righteous with this statement?

Their opinions would be preferable to those of the self righteous armchair jackasses who have never served and never sacrificed a g***damm thing for their country, whining about things they do not understand and cramming their theories down our throats?

You need to get over yourself.

I don't see how the issue of kicking people out of the military for saying they are gay is irrelevant to DADT...seems to be the essence. Could you explain?

Also, please explain (because you're an expert), how allowing someone to say, "I'm gay" would damage the military? As you have made sure to point out, I haven't served, so I clearly cannot understand how damaging it would be to know someone is gay.

It's not a "political itch" for me to scratch. As you've said, I didn't and don't serve, thus it doesn't really affect me, and 2) I'm not gay so, again it doesn't affect me. However, I really fail to see how you think that DADT does not create inequality.

As to the purpose of DADT, I'm glad they waited until the end of the 20th century to take such precautions. How does being openly hetero benefit the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission" and being openly gay damage the "good order and discipline necessary to achieve a military mission?" Again, how could I know, I'm a "pussy" that has never served?

And, because you've apparently served, you are an expert...how would this damage the military? I would be interested to know how that little bit of knowledge could have such dire consequences.

I'm waiting...still, please educate us "numbnut idiots."

I can't and will not speak for native...but here's how I would answer the question...

Allowing Gays to openly serve in the military is social engineering...sometimes necessary...

President Truman did some social engineering in the 40's by opening the military to blacks...

In the 70's, social engineering gave us women in positions other than medical support/administration...

Difference right now is, we are in the middle of a war...fact...in the 40's, the war had ended...in the 70's, the war (Vietnam) had ended...

IMHO, to do social engineering during war time could be dangerous...

I'm not saying it's unnecessary...but it could be dangerous at this time...

[dbackjon]

Col - and kicking out dozens of qualified Arabic translators, and other irreplaceble staff was dangerous as well.

To the earlier anti-European bashing - no one was saying we should emulate Canada, Britain, Isreal, etc - but used those as PROOF that a good army and openly serving gays is possible, and needs to happen, today.

[ASUMountaineer]

Wow, once again the "libertarian" has shown he is capable of calling names like a grown-up.

You still haven't answered my questions, based on your extensive knowledge...you know...serving. So, I guess I'll have to ask again. Again, this is not being self-righteous...I just want the best possible military we can have. We know you're clearly never wrong and a military god, but honestly...who is being self-righteous with this statement?

You need to get over yourself.



I'm waiting...still, please educate us "numbnut idiots."

I can't and will not speak for native...but here's how I would answer the question...

Allowing Gays to openly serve in the military is social engineering...sometimes necessary...

President Truman did some social engineering in the 40's by opening the military to blacks...

In the 70's, social engineering gave us women in positions other than medical support/administration...

Difference right now is, we are in the middle of a war...fact...in the 40's, the war had ended...in the 70's, the war (Vietnam) had ended...

IMHO, to do social engineering during war time could be dangerous...

I'm not saying it's unnecessary...but it could be dangerous at this time...

Social engineering...does that mean people currently serve in the military could be incapable of handling serving next to someone who is openly gay? In what ways would it be dangerous?

As native has stated, I am an idiot (amongst other things) when it comes to this situation by having never served...I can't begin to comprehend how damaging this could be. So, I guess, what I'm asking is...in what way would the new-found knowledge of a fellow soldier being gay cause danger to our "war" efforts? I'm not disagreeing, or saying you're wrong, but just asking for clarification.

[Col Hogan]

Col - and kicking out dozens of qualified Arabic translators, and other irreplaceble staff was dangerous as well.

To the earlier anti-European bashing - no one was saying we should emulate Canada, Britain, Isreal, etc - but used those as PROOF that a good army and openly serving gays is possible, and needs to happen, today.

jon...you keep going to one fact...and avoid the bigger picture, which I've asked you several times and you've completely avoided...

So, I'll state the position...also as an answer to ASUMountineer's question of how this could impact the military in a war-time situation...

When blacks first were mandated in the military, there were lots of people opposed to it...those blacks were (in numerous ways) scorned...especially in front-line combat units that can attrach a certain kind of person (i.e. rednecks...northern and southern variety, but very uneasy with change)...same with women...

Now, neither situation happened when front line units were actually being put into combat, like they are today...

So, the danger as I see it, is that gays are allowed into the military...a gay man makes it into a front line combat unit where he is not accepted by a number of his fellow soldiers...

I would not want to be that gay man, since trust in the soldier to your left and to your right is critical for survival on the battlefield...

Now, I fully expect to be attacked for stating the truth...but there is qctual cases of whites who supported blacks in the 40s being negatively impacted by those opposed...BUT IT DID NOT HAPPEN IN COMBAT...and while the Korean War saw the first combat after integration was ordered, the integration was barely underway during combat...Vietnam was the first combat with fully integrated units and we had enough time to work out the rough edges by then...

Social engineering is sometime necessary...I would not do it during combat operations...

[ASUMountaineer]

Col - and kicking out dozens of qualified Arabic translators, and other irreplaceble staff was dangerous as well.

To the earlier anti-European bashing - no one was saying we should emulate Canada, Britain, Isreal, etc - but used those as PROOF that a good army and openly serving gays is possible, and needs to happen, today.

jon...you keep going to one fact...and avoid the bigger picture, which I've asked you several times and you've completely avoided...

So, I'll state the position...also as an answer to ASUMountineer's question of how this could impact the military in a war-time situation...

When blacks first were mandated in the military, there were lots of people opposed to it...those blacks were (in numerous ways) scorned...especially in front-line combat units that can attrach a certain kind of person (i.e. rednecks...northern and southern variety, but very uneasy with change)...same with women...

Now, neither situation happened when front line units were actually being put into combat, like they are today...

So, the danger as I see it, is that gays are allowed into the military...a gay man makes it into a front line combat unit where he is not accepted by a number of his fellow soldiers...

I would not want to be that gay man, since trust in the soldier to your left and to your right is critical for survival on the battlefield...

Now, I fully expect to be attacked for stating the truth...but there is qctual cases of whites who supported blacks in the 40s being negatively impacted by those opposed...BUT IT DID NOT HAPPEN IN COMBAT...and while the Korean War saw the first combat after integration was ordered, the integration was barely underway during combat...Vietnam was the first combat with fully integrated units and we had enough time to work out the rough edges by then...

Social engineering is sometime necessary...I would not do it during combat operations...

No, at least you're honest. I'm not going to attack you (or call names), you're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for being calm and respectful.

I understand that the military (from people I know who have served) that it can be like a "old boys club," so I don't find this shocking. Opposite of what native thinks, I really don't have a vested interest in this fight, other than not wanting to see us turn people away who want to volunteer for our military, and are qualified, simply because they're gay.

My support of doing away with DADT is not an attack on the military.

[native]

At the risk of permanently damaging Col Hogan's considerable reputation, I am stating for the record that I agree with his posts on this subject. I also agree with much, if not most, of the content of the posts of those I purport to disagree with on this thread. But I am well and truly offended that those who have no clue deigning to prescribe solutions for those who bear the burden.

I appreciate the good Colonel's thoughtful, considerate and measured approach, and I actually prefer this approach under most circumstances. However, I am equally grateful for the plethora of responses stimulated by my salty, provocative and bombastic post.

Now that I have your attention, here are my objections to the aforementioned clueless posts: None of the prescriptive posts from those who have never served, never lived in an open bay military barracks, never sacrificed their own civil liberties and comfort so that their fellow citizens may live in freedom and comfort, never faced death for a greater cause - none of you have shown the slightest appreciation or awareness of the depravations faced by operational military personnel, the conscious sacrifices already made by military personnel, the consequences of loading social engineering experiments onto the backs of those who already carry a figurative and sometimes literal 100-pound pack, the importance of unit cohesion, or the primacy of mission success.

The military is not a homogeneous monolith. Despite misperceptions to the contrary, only a minority of military personnel are both trained and deployed to be operational. Most are "in the rear with the gear," facing far fewer depravations and much less physical danger. Even in times of war, perhaps less than ten percent of military personnel are "in the shit." This point is critical because the forward deployed - facing all the danger and depravations - are on the knife's edge of operational readiness, and their plate is already full without considerations for social engineering.

Have I ever served with gay people? Of course! Did they foist their homosexuality on me? No. Did I foist my heterosexuality on them? Not on purpose. Probably some jokes and banter were offensive. But the mission was not compromised, and there is ZERO difference in the life and death loyalty I feel towards every member of my team, regardless of their sexual orientation. Can homosexuals successfully serve with heterosexuals in an operational environment? Of course. DADT will evolve, and it will be done by the military itself, keeping unit cohesion and the mission foremost.

Thank you for all the responses. Based on the success of the stimulus, expect to see more salt and bombast in the future.

[ASUMountaineer]

At the risk of permanently damaging Col Hogan's considerable reputation, I am stating for the record that I agree with his posts on this subject. I also agree with much, if not most, of the content of the posts of those I purport to disagree with on this thread. But I am well and truly offended that those who have no clue deigning to prescribe solutions for those who bear the burden.

I appreciate the good Colonel's thoughtful, considerate and measured approach, and I actually prefer this approach under most circumstances. However, I am equally grateful for the plethora of responses stimulated by my salty, provocative and bombastic post.

Now that I have your attention, here are my objections to the aforementioned clueless posts: None of the prescriptive posts from those who have never served, never lived in an open bay military barracks, never sacrificed their own civil liberties and comfort so that their fellow citizens may live in freedom and comfort, never faced death for a greater cause - none of you have shown the slightest appreciation or awareness of the depravations faced by operational military personnel, the conscious sacrifices already made by military personnel, the consequences of loading social engineering experiments onto the backs of those who already carry a figurative and sometimes literal 100-pound pack, the importance of unit cohesion, or the primacy of mission success.

The military is not a homogeneous monolith. Despite misperceptions to the contrary, only a minority of military personnel are both trained and deployed to be operational. Most are "in the rear with the gear," facing far fewer depravations and much less physical danger. Even in times of war, perhaps less than ten percent of military personnel are "in the ****." This point is critical because the forward deployed - facing all the danger and depravations - are on the knife's edge of operational readiness, and their plate is already full without considerations for social engineering.

Have I ever served with gay people? Of course! Did they foist their homosexuality on me? No. Did I foist my heterosexuality on them? Not on purpose. Probably some jokes and banter were offensive. But the mission was not compromised, and there is ZERO difference in the life and death loyalty I feel towards every member of my team, regardless of their sexual orientation. Can homosexuals successfully serve with heterosexuals in an operational environment? Of course. DADT will evolve, and it will be done by the military itself, keeping unit cohesion and the mission foremost.

Thank you for all the responses. Based on the success of the stimulus, expect to see more salt and bombast in the future.

Wow, again. Col. Hogan answered my questions with calm and respect. For you to call other people "self-righteous" is a joke. I admitted I have not served, and yet you still try to insult me by mentioning it. I'm not insulted, I find it sad that that's all you can argue with. If your opinion is correct, you should be able to present it in a reasonably, measured approach and still be able to "win" the argument. Of course, playing it off like you meant to stir responses (salt and bombast) is cute--though lacking.

You posed questions, and then called names...presumably, like a "big boy." When I asked questions of you, you chose not to answer them and again, called names. I get it, you served, we all get it. It surely doesn't do much to convince others. It's sad, I would like to think that people who have served in the military can have reasonable discussions and disagreements without resorting to playground tactics (and they probably can, you may be the exception).

I am perfectly fine deferring to those involved to make the decision on how to handle DADT (even though I think it's a useless policy that could hurt the military). However, this message board is a place to give opinions, and I gave mine. I'm sure, because you fought for my freedom, you wouldn't want to deprive me of that freedom.

As far as your being offended...oh well. I thought we were all adults on a public message board? (YT, you're close enough )

Finally, as to the parts I highlighted...again, all you have is bashing people who haven't served. Nothing in those two paragraphs speaks to the questions I asked you (with the small exception of the last sentence).

Oh, one last question. Your philosophy regarding us "clueless pussies" who never fought, is interesting. I guess that means, if you've never worked in finance (as I have) your opinions on financial policies should be worthless (and even offensive) to me? I'm not buying it.

[clenz]

Haven't read the whole thread and this will be my only post in it....


I think getting rid of DADT would be a good thing for the military. HOWEVER, DADT is NOT keeping gays from serving, as there are THOUSANDS of them in the military right now, including a good friend of mine. DADT means no one can ask ANYONE about their orientation and no one is allowed to say if they are straight or gay. If anyone asks an officer or fellow soldier were to ask if you were gay they are to be discharged from the military. The part of DADT that becomes dicey more than others is during family functions. During family functions married men bring their wives and children in but homosexuals can not bring their partners in, because they would then be discharged.


While DADT is flawed it doesn't allow for anyone, gay or straight, to discuss orientation or ask about orientation.


I'm sure someone, probably dback (who does know more about this than I, admitedly) will bust my ass over this post, but just sharing my thoughts based on what I learned in my Diversity in American Cultures and Society class.



EDIT: I would also like to add that right or wrong, DADT is possibly protecting gays that are in the military. There are some sever bigots in the military that would take the dishonorable discharge to beat the hell out of a fellow soldier if they knew they were gay. There are soldiers, who sadly, wouldn't want to serve along side of a gay soldier, or save them. It is terrible to say that, but it is the truth. I gradated high school with a class that had 22 males in it, 8 of them are in the military and I hear that kind of stuff from them all the time. I have gay friends in the military and I hear it from them all the time too. One of them doesn't want it overturned because he fears for the loss of his friendships/comradeship with other soldiers.



Like I said, it is a sad state of affairs right now, and I hope it gets worked out properly.