Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[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!)

[Fly Rod]

All this concern about Gay's, I'd be just as concerned about Greeks, they carry the VASELINE with them, hooooooo.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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 republican'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!)

Wow.

"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. "

So you're syaing there's no contradiction because asking high schoolers to control themselves is one thing, but asking soldiers to control themselves is somehting else? If that was valid, and it's not, I wonder why women in uniform have had as many problems as they have had? If anything, sexuality is more pervasive in uniform, especially in combat commands, because it's such an intense, stressful, depressing, lonely existence.

"I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married. "

Good for you. The fact still is, that the availability of contraception, with the inevitable degredation of sex into a casual thing, has led to an explosion of societal problems. It might have been good for you, it has not been good for society. That's a different debate...

"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? "

No. What I meant was this. Let's say I was single, and there was a girl in my command I had a crush on. Or even if I was married, maybe there was a young girl that I wanted to look after, maybe I feel like a father to her. I might have let those feelings influence my decisions, decisions like who has to kick down a door and secure a room. I'd like to think I could still be just as objective, but human nature is what it is.

I guess what I'm saying is, at a minimum, repealing DADT will make effective combat more challenging. And in my opinion (rational folks can certainly disagree), combat is challenging enough without needlessly injecting more challenges, just for the sake of political corrcetness.

But at the same time, I can respect the feelings of a patriotic homosexual who feels the same calling to serve that I felt.

"you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight. '

nope, that way more extreme than what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this. Let's assume I'm a private and my lieutenant is openly gay. I'm straight, but I know there are other gays in my platoon. If I suspect that the lieutenant is giving me the dangerous jobs because he's got a crush on the other guys, that's a serious problem. Even if I have no valid reason to believe that, it's still a problem. The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

"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. "

In my company, I didn't suspect anyone was gay. I'll say this. If one of my guys was gay, I still would have died for him without hesitation. But I'd bet that if one of my guys was gay, some of the men would have complained to me about thinking it's immoral, about not wanting to shower with him, not wanting to bunk with him, etc...I had enough going on, I was glad I didn't have to deal with that distraction.

As to your heroic friend...I have said repeatedly that when in actual combat with bullets flying (I've been there twice), sexual orientation is not on anyone's mind. But the day-to-day living in a forward-serving combat command, things are a little different. Morale is very important, respect for the chain of command is vital.

I've been in combat, and now I work in an office. They are very, very different environments, they are very different realities. What works in one may not work in the other. In fact, what may be required in one, may be disastrous in the other. I may not trust my boss or co-workers in the office, but I can still do my job effectively. I cannot function in a combat command without that trust. That trust has to be absolute and total. And I'm not saying that repealing DADT necessarily erodes that trust, but it makes it a little harder, it invites additional challenges to overcome.

Hope you have a wonderful holiday too. God Bless all here.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

Based on this line and the rest of your last post, do you feel the same about women in combat?

[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

[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!"

[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".

[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.