EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 11:24:27 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Dec 20, 2010 11:24:27 GMT -5
DADT, the Democratic Bill Clinton's bill, is now dead despite the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the services carrying the bulk of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, voicing strong opposition and those Army and Marine Corps personnel who have actually seen combat being majority opposed. The reasons: in their opinions it degrades their ability to carry out their missions which are the actual functions of those two services. Of course those who oppose the current serve-openly position are homophobes.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 11:38:39 GMT -5
Post by Bando on Dec 20, 2010 11:38:39 GMT -5
DADT, the Democratic Bill Clinton's bill, is now dead despite the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the services carrying the bulk of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, voicing strong opposition and those Army and Marine Corps personnel who have actually seen combat being majority opposed. The reasons: in their opinions it degrades their ability to carry out their missions which are the actual functions of those two services. Of course those who oppose the current serve-openly position are homophobes. The repeal had the support of SecDef, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the pure majority of those troops surveyed. But I understand, your troops' opinions are more important than my troops' opinion. Can you propose a mechanism how gayness somehow affects soldiering ability?
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 11:39:27 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 20, 2010 11:39:27 GMT -5
Homophobes or not, one thing is clear - the Republics who voted against the repeal have never supported civil rights for gay families, individuals, etc. Indeed, they've used civil rights, like marriage (via DOMA), to distinguish between folks they support and folks they don't, and they use the tax code for their own social engineering.
IMO, if these folks are willing to give their lives, the least we can give them is peace in their private lives. And, at some point, the time for studies needs to end. If it weren't that we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, the folks opposed would hang their heads on our need to protect the border between Pyongyang and Seoul, and it would be naive to thing the opposition would ever end given that they've never supported civil rights for any homosexual interests.
That was not the choice of Democrats and they don't deserve any blame when people point out that Republics have hiked taxes on gay families and refuse to allow them the full measure of the civil rights that others in our country enjoy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 11:41:48 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Dec 20, 2010 11:41:48 GMT -5
Can you propose a mechanism how gayness somehow affects soldiering ability? Must. Resist. Temptation! Way. Too. Easy! Jamie. Moyer. Hanging. Slider!
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 11:46:28 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 20, 2010 11:46:28 GMT -5
DADT, the Democratic Bill Clinton's bill, is now dead despite the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the services carrying the bulk of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, voicing strong opposition and those Army and Marine Corps personnel who have actually seen combat being majority opposed. The reasons: in their opinions it degrades their ability to carry out their missions which are the actual functions of those two services. Of course those who oppose the current serve-openly position are homophobes. The repeal had the support of SecDef, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the pure majority of those troops surveyed. But I understand, your troops' opinions are more important than my troops' opinion. Can you propose a mechanism how gayness somehow affects soldiering ability? Bando - The goal posts will keep moving. First, we needed to spend money on a study of the issue. That came back generally favorable to repeal, so we move on to pointing out how the #2 guys oppose repeal. At bottom, the truth of the matter is that a group of folks have again found themselves on the wrong side of history. What's next? Ads championing Willow Palin as the great civil rights leader of the Republic Party?
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 12:30:14 GMT -5
Post by afirth on Dec 20, 2010 12:30:14 GMT -5
DADT, the Democratic Bill Clinton's bill Why is that relevant? 1993 was a different time. Bill Clinton wanted gays and lesbians to be able to openly serve, but had to strike a compromise with Congress. Times change, society becomes more tolerant and open minded. I don't see what DADT being a Democratic bill in 1993 has anything to do with anything.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 16:37:59 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Dec 20, 2010 16:37:59 GMT -5
DADT, the Democratic Bill Clinton's bill, is now dead despite the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the services carrying the bulk of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, voicing strong opposition and those Army and Marine Corps personnel who have actually seen combat being majority opposed. The reasons: in their opinions it degrades their ability to carry out their missions which are the actual functions of those two services. Of course those who oppose the current serve-openly position are homophobes. The repeal had the support of SecDef, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the pure majority of those troops surveyed. But I understand, your troops' opinions are more important than my troops' opinion. Can you propose a mechanism how gayness somehow affects soldiering ability? SECDEF and Chariman of Joint Chiefs are political appointees subject to the will of the President. They must either back his policies or resign. The surveys said a majority of the military surveyed did not see a major problem but a majority of those in actual combat did. Those latter should count more than those with desk jobs at the recruiting center in Athens GA or the yeoman in the personnel department at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Those in combat must sleep with each other, shower with each other, share space in today's foxholes or dugout positions, etc. These are interactions at the unit level where the Army COS and the Marine Corps Commandant say it will introduce problems in the combat mode. It would be equally disruptive to share showers, foxholes, sleeping quarters, etc. with female members. It's in unit cohesion, not the individual performance, where the problem could exist. It introduces the potential for a gay person hitting on a straight person and thereby creating problems with the unit. The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. If the heads of the two services involved in the actual on-ground fighting say it's a problem and if a majority of those in actual combat or having been in actual combat say it's a problem, I'm inclined to see no reason to compromise our ability to fight and win wars. I will add once again that, under DADT, no one was excluded from serving in the military. No one. It's only if they make a choice to openly function as a gay person are they excluded. As always, the Army and the Marine Corps willl now say "aye, aye, sir" and carry out the new orders.
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 17:16:30 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 20, 2010 17:16:30 GMT -5
All of that may be true, but the argument is a path toward permanent implementation of DADT - a policy that is unsustainable. Our troops will remain in "combat" for the foreseeable future, and nobody in opposition has really identified when the moment will come that they believe it is safe enough to allow gay people to serve openly. It is not as though we will reach a point where our military will no longer need to be combat-ready, at least. Opponents will continue to latch on to the #2 guys and pick new reasons as to why their opinions are valuable as compared to others.
Moreover, to think that these issues/discomforts only exist in combat strikes me as misplaced. How is it that individuals' concerns about having to mask their identities/personalities makes us stronger?
I have a great deal of respect for Gates, and to suggest that he's sacrificing the troops for politics is an idea on the wrong side of the tracks.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 19:41:06 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Dec 20, 2010 19:41:06 GMT -5
Obvious you've never been in the military.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 21:38:58 GMT -5
Post by TC on Dec 20, 2010 21:38:58 GMT -5
Things were different when EasyEd served with General Washington.
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 23:08:43 GMT -5
Post by hooahhoya on Dec 20, 2010 23:08:43 GMT -5
Obvious you've never been in the military. And do you say the same thing to the 40%-60% of Marines who thought that repealing DADT would have little to no affect according to the DoD Report? I am interested in this hierarchy of servicemembers and MOS's on whose opinion matters the most on certain issues. So Marines and Army infantry are higher than " those with desk jobs at the recruiting center in Athens GA or the yeoman in the personnel department at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard"? What about Marines recruiters, where do they fall? What about Army infantry assigned to teaching or a training station? Does it mean that the fact that I am in the Army means my opinion matters more than yours? I hope not. And if you can find anyone in the Army that is going to say "aye aye sir" I would very interested
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
DADT
Dec 20, 2010 23:41:14 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 20, 2010 23:41:14 GMT -5
EasyEd: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple. Are we clear? ] And your orders are that EVERY American, regardless of race, religion, income, or sexual orientation, is entitled and permitted to serve in the US Military and to receive the respect such service deserves. Repealing DADT restores HONESTY and INTEGRITY to the US Armed Forces. Just as integrating the US military was the right thing to do, so is this. Just as allowing Japanese-Americans to serve in the 442 Regiment during WWII was the right thing to do, so is this. That Regiment ended up being the most decorated Regiment in the US Army. I mean, you can't really be suggesting that these big, tough, warriors in the Army and Marines are worried about being raped by a gay soldier in their midst in the middle of the night, or in the shower, or whatever? Remember, these gay soldiers are already in the military. But they are told to LIE by their commanding officers. As for the poster who is discounting the views of the Sec Def and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because they are political appointees? (FYI: Gates was originally appointed by GW Bush, by the way.) Are you suggesting that the most senior civilian military official in the USA AND the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, are going to Kowtow to the Commander in Chief rather than express their actual views on the issue? Is that really the level or respect you accord them? That they have so little interest or respect or concern for the lives of those they have sent into harms way that they would cover up their real beliefs for personal gain? Is that really what you think of their personal integrity?... basically, that they have none? How totally un-American and un-Patriotic. Anyone holding such a view should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 21, 2010 0:10:54 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 21, 2010 0:10:54 GMT -5
I respect the service of veterans and servicemembers. They come down on both sides of the issue, and it does not make their service any more or less compelling since that service is not for one party or the other but for the country.
It does seem like gay soldiers remain misunderstood in certain circles. To suggest that gay soldiers or gays generally are responsible more so than heterosexuals for rape or similarly deviant crimes is easily rebutted by statistics. I have confidence that the military can easily deal with any such problems that arise, which are not likely to be significant anyway.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
DADT
Dec 21, 2010 0:28:25 GMT -5
Post by RusskyHoya on Dec 21, 2010 0:28:25 GMT -5
The best contribution I can make to this thread (aside from noting the obvious point that regulations against fraternization exist and can just as easily be applied to same-sex relationships as opposite sex ones) is, I think, to highlight the words of a current Hoya, one Jonathan Hopkins.[/u] If having someone like Jon in the service is a threat to "unit cohesion," the term has no meaning.
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 21, 2010 1:26:06 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 21, 2010 1:26:06 GMT -5
The best contribution I can make to this thread (aside from noting out the obvious point that regulations against fraternization exist and can just as easily be applied to same-sex relationships as opposite sex ones) is, I think, to highlight the words of a current Hoya, one Jonathan Hopkins.[/u] If having someone like Jon in the service is a threat to "unit cohesion," the term has no meaning.[/quote] Good link. I wonder: what does the future hold for former soldiers like Mr. Hopkins? Will it be difficult for those previously discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell to re-enlist if they choose to do so?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
DADT
Dec 21, 2010 9:53:23 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Dec 21, 2010 9:53:23 GMT -5
The best contribution I can make to this thread (aside from noting out the obvious point that regulations against fraternization exist and can just as easily be applied to same-sex relationships as opposite sex ones) is, I think, to highlight the words of a current Hoya, one Jonathan Hopkins.[/u] If having someone like Jon in the service is a threat to "unit cohesion," the term has no meaning.[/quote] Good link. I wonder: what does the future hold for former soldiers like Mr. Hopkins? Will it be difficult for those previously discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell to re-enlist if they choose to do so?[/quote] I would assume so, since they disobeyed an order. DADT was the law of the land, and getting discharged for telling was significant. EDIT - um, maybe not. www.slate.com/id/2278627/
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
DADT
Dec 30, 2010 0:24:03 GMT -5
Post by SSHoya on Dec 30, 2010 0:24:03 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
DADT
Dec 30, 2010 12:43:36 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 30, 2010 12:43:36 GMT -5
I don't know about her friendships, but I completely disagree with her conclusions. The US Military needs to be as inclusive and representative of the US Population as possible. Discouraging our brightest, most talented students from even being exposed to a military option? Bad idea. And precluding students from getting ROTC tuition benefits to America's "best" universities? Also a bad idea.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
DADT
Dec 30, 2010 13:05:07 GMT -5
Post by SSHoya on Dec 30, 2010 13:05:07 GMT -5
I believe McCarthy taught at GULC some years ago -- (and McCarthy is male.) I remember Father McSorley protesting ROTC at GU when I was an undergrad. And I agree that McCarthy's conclusions are way off the mark.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
DADT
Dec 30, 2010 13:49:09 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Dec 30, 2010 13:49:09 GMT -5
I believe a great deal of the "opposition" from thos combat troops on the ground to openly gay service members will disappear as quickly as this issue gets resolved. That is to say, military men and women tend to obey orders and do as they are told. Once the typical political hemming and hawing over this issue ends, they will serve side by side with their gay and lesbian colleagues and the issue will vanish. It is the uncertainty that promotes the opposition.
|
|