Obama and the Gay Military...

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, no. I was referring to Clinton's options before DADT. He could have signed an executive order allowing homosexuals to serve in the military (but could not change the UCMJ regarding sodomy) which would have created strong pressure to fix the damn UCMJ. My point was that before DADT, the president had more options with regard to gays in the military than after the piece of legislation known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was passed.

I would like to see the evidence that this is true.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pelosi calls on Obama to suspend any more dismissals, since Gates wants to wait until the year is over and they have a study:

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in response to a letter sent this afternoon by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concerning the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

Linky.

 

[Bill Thompson]

War is not a game. The military is not the playing field on which to assert political correctness. Personnel have enough stress to handle. They do not need to have the civilian world demand that they reengineer their attitudes and natural tendencies regarding same-gender sexuality.

What you are saying is in addition to these people living with the knowledge that they or their closest friends will be captured, killed, tortured, crippled, or blinded while in service to defend the existance of Western Civilization, they must do all this while wearing a special mental harness that you demand of them because you want your fantisies of a more accepting universe to come true.

You find that the right thing to do.

Something may sound great in theory but may not be so great in practice.

We can imagine a prefect world and "the right thing to do" and "the way things ought to be". But our imagination of this dreamy paradice leaves out too many harsh realities.

National Security is too precious a thing to add any special ingredients. And just because the recipe turned out OK in other countries does not mean our recipe will be soured.

In a list of priorities, we have two things. One is the existance of a government for the people, by the people and from the people that will not fall to 4th century theorcacies. Another is having open gays serve in the military. I think most rational people will put the first as a hirer priority than the second. And it is not worth the risk if we can even imagine that one would impact the other. And we CAN imagine it might. Americans do not like change and even if you pass a law they will resist change (Jimmy Carter made the metric sysem law, remember?)

If you want to fight for gay rights, I would steer you to fighing for the legalization of same gender marrage.

And if you want the world to be a better place, I would think of finding a way to do away with the need for a huge military rather than trying to change the military itself. But first, lets get rid of Al Qaeda.

 

[Sledge]

War is not a game.

1) Wrong.
2) Allowing gays in the military would change nothing because war... war never changes.

 

[Bill Thompson]

2) Allowing gays in the military would change nothing because war... war never changes.

Gays are allowed in the military. It is about time you get your facts straight (ha, pun). Also, try to write complete sentences, please.

It is clear you do not take any of this seriously. It is also clear you don't really have an opionon. I have tried to get you to state one and... nope, nothing there.

The bottom line is that we need to be taking this war seriously. Wars are not won on the cheap. Bill Clinton did not take Osama bin Laden seriously and look where that got us! I do not think our current Commander In Chief should be spending time on trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago; revamping health care; or experiementing with the current social structure of the military. The real "right thing to do" is to destroy Al Qaeda and The Taliban right now.

Gays ARE allowed in the miltiary NOW. That is what DADT is designed to do. Prior to DADT, gays were not allowed to volunteer. Doing away with DADT either means going back to the old ways or radically impossing a social structure that the current military finds objectionable.

 

[Sledge]

Gays are allowed in the military. It is about time you get your facts straight (ha, pun).

As long as they don't mention they're gay and no one finds out. What a great system.

Also, try to write complete sentences, please.

That was a complete sentence. Did you mean to say something else?

It is clear you do not take any of this seriously.

I take the issue very seriously. It's you I don't take seriously.

It is also clear you don't really have an opionon.

Don't even know what that means. Is it an opinion about onions?

I have tried to get you to state one and... nope, nothing there.

My opinion is you're trolling, seeing as you're interested.

The bottom line is that we need to be taking this war seriously. Wars are not won on the cheap. Bill Clinton did not take Osama bin Laden seriously and look where that got us! I do not think our current Commander In Chief should be spending time on trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago; revamping health care; or experiementing with the current social structure of the military. The real "right thing to do" is to destroy Al Qaeda and The Taliban right now.

Riveting as your ill-informed trolling is, it's got bugger all to do with the topic at hand. Do try and stay on topic, old boy.

Gays ARE allowed in the miltiary NOW. That is what DADT is designed to do. Prior to DADT, gays were not allowed to volunteer. Doing away with DADT either means going back to the old ways or radically impossing a social structure that the current military finds objectionable.

Except, as people keep pointing out, the military doesn't find the idea of gays openly serving objectionable. It's only you. I wonder why that is? Trolling ******************* would be my guesses.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 0.

 

[Bill Thompson]

As long as they don't mention they're gay and no one finds out. What a great system.

There is no such thing as perfection. It is a better system than what existed before where they were dishonorablly discharged outright once they were found out.

I can see how a gay person would take it upon himself to change the policy in the military. But this view is miopic and driven by passion.

And any logic or reasoning to defend the current policy is colored as "anti-gay" and is something to be blindly fought or simply go unread and ignored.

But since I am for gay marrage, that puts a proverbial wrench into the theory that this is a gay issue at all.

Except, as people keep pointing out, the military doesn't find the idea of gays openly serving objectionable. It's only you.

According to the letter from the Generals to Nancy Pelosi that was linked to here, that is not true.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have expressed concerns regarding the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

 

[pgwenthold]

I take the issue very seriously. It's you I don't take seriously.

While Trouble with Tribbles gets a lot of hype as a Star Trek episode, this line alone almost makes it worth it. That was Shatner at his best.

 

[Sledge]

Dear god, I quoted Kirk WITHOUT REALISING IT. Shatner's powers must be growing.

Edited, breach of Rules 0 & 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[elbe]

Dear god, I quoted Kirk WITHOUT REALISING IT. Shatner's powers must be growing.

Paraphrased:

I think of this project as very important. It is you I take lightly.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You say you take this issue "very" seriously. Why? War Crimes happen with every war and yet you feel the need to inject a little humanity into the military. Is your view that another My Lai Massacre would be better just as long as open homosexuals participate?

The policy is one of what can be argued as many policies that the military has that are "unfair". When single mothers are called into active duty the miltiary tells them to give up their kids. The duty at hand is more important than the humanity of the service personnel.

 

[cwalner]

You say you take this issue "very" seriously. Why? War Crimes happen with every war and yet you feel the need to inject a little humanity into the military. Is your view that another My Lai Massacre would be better just as long as open homosexuals participate?

Not only better, but dare I say Fabulous. (Sorry, such a blatant strawman deserves a derisive response)

The policy is one of what can be argued as many policies that the military has that are "unfair". When single mothers are called into active duty the military tells them to give up their kids. The duty at hand is more important than the humanity of the service personnel.

Irrelevant. In this case it is obvious to everybody what the military gains by putting that burden on service members. We may think it is a raw deal, but we understand why it is that way.

With DADT not all agree that the military receives any benefit (many think it is actually hurting them) by forcing gays to remain in the closet to serve. It is not necessary to repeat your 'arguments'. We know them and have clearly stated why we disagree with them. The fact that you have yet to convince anybody else on this thread with them should tell you something.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Let's try this again.

Sledge, you say you take this issue "very" seriously. Why? War Crimes happen with every war and yet you feel the need to inject a little humanity into the military. Is your view that another My Lai Massacre would be better just as long as open homosexuals participate?

The policy is one of what can be argued as many policies that the military has that are "unfair". When single mothers are called into active duty the miltiary tells them to give up their kids. The duty at hand is more important than the humanity of the service personnel.

Not only better, but dare I say Fabulous. (Sorry, such a blatant strawman deserves a derisive response)

Strawman arguments implies one is making argument. I am asking a question. And in the second paragraph I am only making a statement to support the question.

And drawing an annaolgy is not making a strawman argument. And using an applicable example is not a strawman arguement.

Ironically by callimg my statement a strawman argument is, in itself, a strawman argument.

With DADT not all agree that the military receives any benefit (many think it is actually hurting them) by forcing gays to remain in the closet to serve. It is not necessary to repeat your 'arguments'. We know them and have clearly stated why we disagree with them. The fact that you have yet to convince anybody else on this thread with them should tell you something.

But what if you are wrong?

The military works. If it isn't broke, as the saying goes, don't fix it.

The example of the single parent applies. The military is not interested in fairness. Ironically, if human beings had a compassionate nature there would be no need for the massive military that is the United States Armed forces. Its very existance suggests that this policy change would not work.

Also, American culture is an oddity. Americans resist change like no other people on earth. There have been expensive studies of how better Americans would be with a new monitary currency. Expensive studies are made. And when the new dollar coin or new 2 dollar bill is introduced, the public does not accept it. The same is true with the metric system. The same is true with even late night television. NBC spent a lot of money testing running surveys and they were 100 percent confident with having Leno run a variety show. In fact, it was better. It was a better scheduling. But for the sole reason that it was a change, the american people tuned out and the new system failed horribly.

So, what if you are wrong? What if the change fails horribly? This is not a rhetorical question. What if you are wrong?

It is not the same thing as racial integration. There are many things that are different than those days. Human beings are sexual beings more than anything else. Sure the miltiary would be Fabulous but do we really want it to be? Wouldn't a warship be a better war machine than a party boat? OK, I am being a little less serious about that last comment. But I cannot think you were serious by saying it would be Fabulous.

Dear god, I quoted Kirk WITHOUT REALISING IT. Shatner's powers must be growing.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Explain why the comment is idiotic. Since I support gay rights, why wouldn't I be for a policy change in the miltiary?

Here is another logical fallacy, Ad Hominim.

 

[Dancing David]

Also, try to write complete sentences, please.

And you should try to write with coherent ones.

ETA: the most correct usage of the term complete senstences would be
"Also, try to write using/with/in complete sentences, please."

 

[Dancing David]

But what if you are wrong?

But what if you are just pulling is out of your butt?

You have no data, theory , no evidence, just tradition and inherent bias towards doing things 'the way they are done'.

When you even pretend to present some data on the preformance impact of homosexuals in the military forces then you can pretend that you are engaging in something other than support of a cultural more.

 

[BNRT]

Also, American culture is an oddity. Americans resist change like no other people on earth. There have been expensive studies of how better Americans would be with a new monitary currency. Expensive studies are made. And when the new dollar coin or new 2 dollar bill is introduced, the public does not accept it. The same is true with the metric system. The same is true with even late night television. NBC spent a lot of money testing running surveys and they were 100 percent confident with having Leno run a variety show. In fact, it was better. It was a better scheduling. But for the sole reason that it was a change, the american people tuned out and the new system failed horribly.

How ubiquitous are, say, computers, mobile phones and iPods compared to, say, ten to fifteen years ago in the U.S.?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Bill, why have the British Armed Forces not imploded?

 

[Sledge]

Let's try this again.

Really? Do you really want to keep hearing your tired arguments refuted with the same responses that you'll ignore over and over?

Sledge, you say you take this issue "very" seriously. Why? War Crimes happen with every war and yet you feel the need to inject a little humanity into the military. Is your view that another My Lai Massacre would be better just as long as open homosexuals participate?

That's a pretty impressive non sequitur. I think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military because it would make the massacre of innocent people by that military more acceptable. Wow. I don't even know how you'd begin to take anything I've said and arrive at that conclusion.

The policy is one of what can be argued as many policies that the military has that are "unfair". When single mothers are called into active duty the miltiary tells them to give up their kids. The duty at hand is more important than the humanity of the service personnel.

The military doesn't tell them to give up their kids, it tells them to arrange appropriate care for those children whilst the parent is working. You know, like most jobs do.

Explain why the comment is idiotic. Since I support gay rights, why wouldn't I be for a policy change in the miltiary?

You want me to speculate on your reasonings? No thanks. I honestly don't want to try and understand how you come out with the stuff you've posted here. If you think it matters, why don't you explain why you're not for a policy change in the military? You could repost the list of reasons you gave before for the benefit of anyone knew to this thread who wants to be offended.

Here is another logical fallacy, Ad Hominim.

Totally. Calling you names is beneath me, and I'm annoyed with myself that I did it. My only defense is it was gone 3 in the morning and it's easier to get under my skin when I'm tired.

 

[cwalner]

Strawman arguments implies one is making argument. I am asking a question. And in the second paragraph I am only making a statement to support the question.

And drawing an annaolgy is not making a strawman argument. And using an applicable example is not a strawman arguement.

Ironically by callimg my statement a strawman argument is, in itself, a strawman argument.

You brought up military massacres as if they were somehow relevent to the discussion of DADT. If that is not a strawman, I don't know what is.

Otherwise, the analogy was assumed to have an argumentative value. Nobody here is interested in watching you JAQ off. If that is all you are interested in, please take it elsewhere.

But what if you are wrong?

The military works. If it isn't broke, as the saying goes, don't fix it.

I have brought up issues in which DADT is damaging to the military. loss of dedicated, trained, willing soldiers. Specificially we have had issues with a number number of Arabic translators in military intelligence being drummed out for being openly gay, while attempting to deal with increased terrorist threats from the Aribic speaking world.

in other words, it is broke, and DADT is what is broke, it needs to be fixed.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So has it passed the Senate? I think it has. Next is Congress? Or has that already been passed?

What is the latest on this?