Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[RIJIMMY]

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. -spence

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why answer the question?


-spence

Because maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong and that there is a sound, valid reason for the seeming flip-flop. Since you keep dancing around it, I assume you have no response. Maybe you asked the question on The Huffington Post, and you're waiting for Sean Penn to tell you what to say.

I am open-minded Spence, despite the fact that I am a wise-ass. I was radically pro-abortion when i was younger. I also don't think conservatives are always correct (I have no issues with gay marriage, I think we need way more strict gun control laws).
I voted for Bill Clinton and think we was a pretty good president. I also think Bush 41 was an awful president.

Your view on every single issue seems to be, liberal = good, conservative = bad. The world isn't that simple.

I look at the facts open-minded, and let the facts tell me what they're trying to tell me. When I'm confronted with a fact that doesn't fit my agenda, I don't cover my ears and scream "Bush stole the election! Bush stole the election!"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

Great idea! Although rest assured, I'm laughing plenty over here.

The troubling thing is, I believe deep-down we all want what's best for our country, we all want the best possible future for our kids. But when our opinions are so diametrically opposed on such vital issues, I don't know how to solve that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site

you really checked? I wouldn't be able to figure out how...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

you really checked? I wouldn't be able to figure out how...

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

No, that the statistic (58%) showed a concern.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.

I think it's reasonable for the Marines to be more sensitive to this issue than the other branches of the military. This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do the culture and mission demands.

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. I think the military leadership at the top is looking at the strategic implications and basing their decision on what's best over the long haul. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that......sign em' up!

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that......sign em' up!

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[mosholu]

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.




***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.






***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

Reminds me of the joke about women in combat:
If we lost, so what you beat a bunch of girls; if we win our girls beat you. You can't lose either way. (Dad's disclaimer incorporated by reference.)

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum

shhhhh!

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by mosholu

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

Come on, if it weren't for the US, any Isreali military (gay or straight) would not be able to fight in our current world. Bad example in my opinion

[Piscator]

I also don't think Isreal has a voluntary Military like ours but I could be wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Come on, if it weren't for the US, any Isreali military (gay or straight) would not be able to fight in our current world. Bad example in my opinion

Piscator: I do not see the relevance between the fact that the US supports/gives aid to Israel and whether gays in their military has been a problem for them. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces. If this was an issue that impacted effectiveness of their combat forces they would have dealt with it without regard to any PC concerns. That is why I think their experience might be worth looking at.
Israel has a draft system covering both men and women. After an initial two or three year stint you stay in the reserves with a yearly period of active service for a number of years after your initial commitment is completed. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces.

[spence]

Originally Posted by mosholu

Piscator: I do not see the relevance between the fact that the US supports/gives aid to Israel and whether gays in their military has been a problem for them.

Because there isn't any.

Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces. If this was an issue that impacted effectiveness of their combat forces they would have dealt with it without regard to any PC concerns. That is why I think their experience might be worth looking at.

I'd agree. Aside from the US Marines Corps, I'm not sure any fighting unit can come as close to the close quarters counter-insurgency experience as the IDF.

Israel has a draft system covering both men and women. After an initial two or three year stint you stay in the reserves with a yearly period of active service for a number of years after your initial commitment is completed. Israel has no margin for error in its defense forces.

Perhaps this is a motivator. It would be hard to make service mandatory, then exclude some because of their sexual orientation.

You might have a lot of Corporal Klingers

-spence

[Piscator]

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.
Since they do have a draft, it may be needed to include openly gay soldiers, if they didn't let them enter, it would be an easy way out for someone who didn't want get drafted.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what the right answer is, I think the Military (and not just those at the very top) should be the ones who decide. As I stated earlier a good Marine friend of mine strongly feels it would hurt moral and take focus away from soldiers. His is just one opinion. I hope it works out and does no harm. Check back with you guys after Christmas. Going to spend time away from the computer the next few days. Merry Christmas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.

I still don't think this has anything to do with it. Sure the US provides monetary aid (and political cover in the UN) but this is no substitute for leadership, training and a very tough minded attitude.

-spence

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by scottw

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not sure if Obama has told Spence what to think on this issue yet, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

i want homosexuals to enjoy every happiness and opportunity they can.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering. You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

My good side says live and let live..................the cynical side says what better place for a gay male to be than to have all those guys around to hit on, but one of our armed forces.

[striperman36]

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

I dont really......................but then again I do think being gay is a choice and not in one's DNA.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

That is the reason why the Spartan's were so good, they never left their friends behind (sorry, couldn't resist)

***Disclaimer, this is a joke. It's ok to laugh at serious issues***

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

I was being sarcastic...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not really...if your contention is

"we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve."

the Armed Forces should be made to accomodate All Americans who would like to serve lest they be guilty of some sort of descrimination or lack of tolerance and compassion....

after all..." While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well."

what's a little "disruption" in the name of diversity and making the military better reflect all of our society....?