Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.



In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Likwid -

"Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard."

Like all liberals, you completely dodged my question, which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. You dodged like the intellectual coward you are, and asked me a different question. But that's OK, because I can handle that one.

When it comes to preventing STD's and unplanned pregnancies, abstinence is the only method that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Many recent studies show that abstinence education probrams reduce casual sexual activity.

Let's look at the liberal approach to this problem, which is to tell folks it's OK to have casual sex, as long as you're careful. That argument surfaced in the 1960's during the sexual revolution. Liberals argued that if birth control was readily available to everyone, that would lead to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STD's.

Well, the liberals got what they wanted. Birth control is readily available. And what happened was a huge INCREASE in unplanned pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, abortions, STD's, adultery, and divorce.

Well done, liberals...kudos to you all...

"In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?"

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

Yes, you have a job to do. The majority of people who have some experience in combat, feel that openly homosexual people have a harder time doing that job effectively. Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

I responded directly to your points. Maybe you can try to show me the same courtesy, and answer the question that I was asking.

P.S. Dont worry, we all know why you didn't answer, because you can't. There is no explanation for why liberals claim abstinence doesn't work (based upon the belief that you can't stop people from having sex), yet those same liberals claim that homosexuals can put their sexuality aside while serving in combat. There is simply no earthly way to reconcile those two positions. So you dodged and asked me what you thought was a "gotcha" question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda. There is no limit to how inane a spin you will put on facts that you don't like.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...

Scott, one of my favorite hobbies is blowing holes in the logic (or lack thereof) that liberal ideology is based upon. Your observation was a perfect example, and one that I would never have thought of. I have repeated that several times in the last few days, and I look forward to nailing my communist sister-in-law with it, when I see her at Christmas!

You know how effective it was, based on the fact that the liberals here refuse to respond to it!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim:
"which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. "

There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. Contraception is not a liberal ideology, although it is against Catholic ideology. I'm sure lots of conservative's have sex before marriage. Maybe not devout Catholics, but give me a break. I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married.


I asked if you were married while deployed because you were able to control your sexual impulses. No affairs, no hookers.

Your response was "No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?"

So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? I suspect you would have done your job and stayed faithful. Yet you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight.

I have one other thoughts/question and then I have to get back to work to get finished up so I can take tomorrow off.
1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job.



Nebe and I had coffee with a friend of ours (and Spence's) last night. He posts, but not in the Political forum. Vietnam Vet, paratrooper, shot in combat and a lot of time in that jungle. Still crazy as hell in his early 60's. I asked his thoughts and he reiterated a story of his time in Nam where one of the toughest, 'killing machine's in his unit was gay and they all knew it. No one person had a problem with it, ever. During combat, where as he said, your so scared and focused on staying alive that everything else doesn't matter". I can't offer anything as I don't share that perspective or experience with you guys.


Happy holidays to you and yours (Sincere!)

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

Yes I would. Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed. If you don't see an indefensible inconsistency there, you aren't seeing clearly. If you think big government and high taxes is the answer, despite what's happening in Europe as I type this, you aren't thinking clearly, rather you have been indoctrinated. I know how patronizing that sounds, I just can't come up with another explanation of an ideology that claims that serial killers have the right to live but not unborn babies.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes I would.

Then why answer the question?

Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed.

"Flip-flopping" and "hypocrisy is redundant...as is "ScottW" and "unwittingly"

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

That's not what I said.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda.

Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not what I said.


Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.

I doubt you are, but here goes...

Of all the military leadership, the Marine Commandants have voiced perhaps the most vocal opposition to DADT on the basis that it won't enhance the fighting force and may be a distraction that would cost lives.

If my direct leadership said the same in context of my personal duty it would certainly be a factor in my position on the matter.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.

Good to see you use the updated statistics.

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. I also mentioned that from what I've heard this concern is being factored into the strategic shift in direction.

Hell, this is validation if anythings else, and a far cry from an accusation of "coercion". Once again, you're just applying your radical left-wing template on the situation, rather than reading it for what it is.

-spence

[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".

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

And that private better be NJP'd or have his face stomped in.