Author Topic: don't ask don't tell (Read 6529 times)

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #150 on:** December 27, 2010, 09:02:49 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on December 27, 2010, 08:50:30 AM

Shootall;
You have not yet answered my question in post # 145...

...By not answering my question, I believe you have answered my question. I'm assuming you never served in combat arms.. Correct ?

I reiterate...the military is very different than civilian life..

Sorry , no never have . Born with a bad knee . By the time I could have gone in it had been operated on so I could move it a botched job . When I interviewed for the state police same story no go. I have worked on several military bases and have many friends who served. That said I don't think you get or want to get what I am saying . The ball is in their court . I feel you think I take up for them , I do not . Consider what intergration did for Black education . I don't see much difference with this policy , do you ?

ironglow · « **Reply #151 on:** December 27, 2010, 09:31:54 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on December 27, 2010, 09:02:49 AM

Quote from: ironglow on December 27, 2010, 08:50:30 AM
Shootall;
You have not yet answered my question in post # 145...

...By not answering my question, I believe you have answered my question. I'm assuming you never served in combat arms.. Correct ?

I reiterate...the military is very different than civilian life..
Sorry , no never have . Born with a bad knee . By the time I could have gone in it had been operated on so I could move it a botched job . When I interviewed for the state police same story no go. I have worked on several military bases and have many friends who served. That said I don't think you get or want to get what I am saying . The ball is in their court . I feel you think I take up for them , I do not . Consider what intergration did for Black education . I don't see much difference with this policy , do you ?

Sorry about the knee.. but I really see this rule as a very serious issue. As I said earlier, 500 Marines gathered in an auditorium were asked for a show of hands on who believed the idea was a positive move..NOT ONE hand was raised. I personally know at least 2 and possibly 3 highly trained, valuable troops who will be leaving the military, they contemplated leaving, firstly because of the new rules of engagement, but this is finally the "straw that broke the camel's back". These are not run-of-the-mill troops, two Marines, one a highly trained specialist with dogs, the other a Special Operations troop...the third an Army Ranger...all three with more than one deployment to the thick of battle. The Marines are a staff Sgt and a corporal the Ranger a buck Sgt. Many of the Sgts are contemplating leaving the military..more combat troops , as I indicated.
Shootall, the non-commissioned officer's corps is what holds our combat units together. They are the ones who show new troops just how to fight ..and survive. In order to understand the issue with combat arms, one almost has to have served in a combat arms unit and experienced pure "elan" or "Esprit De Corps"..which is very difficult to describe.

I really have a distaste for the analogy of racial integration with this move. A man does not CHOOSE his race, and whatever that race is, it does not constitute a sin, nor is it at all a degrading thing. Such an analogy is not just an 'apples vs oranges' debate,...it is more akin to apples vs rotten rotten cabbage !

Since the C-in-C has signed the bill into law, it will be implemented....and it will greatly damage and degrade our military...but that is likely just what the Soros 'progressives' really want.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #152 on:** December 27, 2010, 09:49:21 AM »

Ironglow , good points for sure , the use of the school was not directed at the man but the way in which Govt. used a situation to created more damage than good under the cover of giving freedom. I have seen more govt. laws passed that did such than I care to remember in my lifetime. I do understand that fighting men depend on each other and want to be reconized as a unit . The concept that some are different will be hard to adjust to. I GET IT. The question is can American military men rise above the whims of some in Govt. and proceed to carry out their mission. I think they can. Face facts from Valley Forge to those captured in the sand box American soilders have over come the worst many times.

teamnelson · « **Reply #153 on:** December 27, 2010, 10:13:13 AM »

Here is a DOD Support Plan for Implementation dated 30 November, 2010 in anticipation of the repeal. It is non-binding as the terms of the signed document weren't finalized at the time of its publication. It does however reflect some of the identified concerns voiced by DOD and proposed plans to address those concerns.

I'm also in dialogue with our JAG as to the specific nature of a Repeal vs. all the conjecture being published in DOD. He confirms that if this is a simple repeal, then legally we revert to pre-DADT policy. However he is unwilling to state that this is a simple repeal. I am beginning to formulate a view that the repeal action was to take the ball out of the executive branch, and hand it back to DOD so no one can say the President decreed anything. Then behind the scenes the strings are being pulled for the DOD to move the political agenda forward.

S/F, Chaps

powderman · « **Reply #154 on:** December 27, 2010, 12:39:22 PM »

TOMMY T. All good replies. The aim of all this by the queers, dems, and other pantywetters is for the world to treat these scum as normal people, which they are not. They should NOT be allowed any kind of bennies like regular people, they are not. Their perversion is NOT normal or acceptable in decent societies, only to dems, libs, and other pantywetters. Just another of satans many schemes to increase his guest list, and he can always counts on obamination, dems, gays, libs, and other pantywetters for support.
If the gays are now allowed to be able to promote their perversions in public does that mean that everybody now has the right to call them what they are?

? POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #155 on:** December 27, 2010, 12:58:04 PM »

I don't know how many here have checked upon the new ROE (rules of engagement)....so if you haven't, I will present them here for your edification.
This is the kind of garbage the leftist pinkos in Washington have dreamed up for our troops. What self-respecting warrior would want to "not-fight" under these conditions ? Then, just to add liberal insult to injury, they pave a road for the 'lavender laddies' to pollute the military.

Read the whole article, it can be enlightening..

http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/obama-regime-orders-u-s-troops-in-afghanistan-to-carry-weapons-with-no-bullets/

searlock · « **Reply #156 on:** December 27, 2010, 01:19:24 PM »

One must be wary of what one says because this government, that Thomas Jefferson says the people deserve has hate crime laws that can be used to put one in prison where forced homosexuality is practiced.

powderman · « **Reply #157 on:** December 27, 2010, 05:09:20 PM »

The obamination had a huge smile on his face as he signed this obaminable bill and said, I couldn't be prouder. YEP, he and his crowd should be real proud of promoting these obaminable creatures. POWDERMAN.

bigMikeA · « **Reply #158 on:** December 27, 2010, 05:40:00 PM »

Quote from: magooch on December 27, 2010, 04:00:43 AM

I don't think the majority of people have a problem with queers defending the country. Living, showering and going potty with queers--that's a problem.

IMHO this post did not get the recognition it deserves. Sums it all up quite nicely I think; I'll change it for clarification tho: "Living, showering and going potty with in your face queers--that's a problem."

beerbelly · « **Reply #159 on:** December 28, 2010, 01:28:31 AM »

I had thought AIDS might just wipe them out, oh well it did thin them a bit. Maybe friendly fire will thin them some more!

ironglow · « **Reply #160 on:** December 28, 2010, 01:34:46 AM »

Quote from: bigMikeA on December 27, 2010, 05:40:00 PM

Quote from: magooch on December 27, 2010, 04:00:43 AM
I don't think the majority of people have a problem with queers defending the country. Living, showering and going potty with queers--that's a problem.

IMHO this post did not get the recognition it deserves. Sums it all up quite nicely I think; I'll change it for clarification tho: "Living, showering and going potty with in your face queers--that's a problem."

Big Mike, Magooch;
You put it bluntly...but accurately.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #161 on:** December 28, 2010, 01:39:22 AM »

In basic and AIT males and females are segregated during the night time to keep the sexual interludes at a minimum. Will the queer boys be billeted with the women and dikes bebilleted with the men?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #162 on:** December 28, 2010, 01:48:52 AM »

That's not a good picture this early in the am

powderman · « **Reply #163 on:** December 28, 2010, 05:40:41 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on December 28, 2010, 01:39:22 AM

In basic and AIT males and females are segregated during the night time to keep the sexual interludes at a minimum. Will the queer boys be billeted with the women and dikes bebilleted with the men?

BILLY. Sounds like a fair question to me, maybe some of the gay supporters here will answer that for all of us. Can you imagine being forced to shower with these perverts and having them make lewd comments?

?? The old addage of don't drop the soap is very clear now. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #164 on:** December 28, 2010, 06:44:38 AM »

Maybe some who are opposed to homosexuals not being officaly known could explain why ? With regard to soap on a rope would it not be better to know which way was safest to face if you did drop it ? I don't think many here support the idea . Some just think its better to know where they stand or whom they stand with.

teamnelson · « **Reply #165 on:** December 28, 2010, 10:37:39 AM »

Look, we didn't have rampant homosexuality under Reagan did we? I was in squad bays back then, group showers, and the toilets didn't have privacy stalls for a while there. I don't remember drag queens in or out of uniform. Or for 200 years of military history prior to DADT? I'm still trying to figure out how repealing Clintons DADT Policy, which was an act to protect homosexuals in uniform, is going to result in the types of things many are afraid of.

I just had a long chat with my CO this morning about DADT; lots of our folks are asking about what its going to mean for them. I get all the distro DOD wide for it so I can advise my CO, and the bottom line is its all speculation. The REPEAL just removed Clinton's policy. If that is followed by a new Executive Order that spells out the sorts of things folks are mentioning here, than that's a different thing that hasn't happened yet. Right now, we just have a repeal in effect. So per my CO, if they are made aware of any violations of UCMJ, to include sodomy (as well as adultery), they have a moral obligation to take action.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #166 on:** December 28, 2010, 02:20:19 PM »

Quote from: williamlayton on December 23, 2010, 01:42:57 AM

Homosexuals have been with us forever.
It matters not what you think of them, their fate is sealed and God does not need our co-operation.
A homosexual may offend you--it offends me--but I am not responsible to them or for them.Why kill one? Real question---WHY KILL THEM, they are dead already.
Personally i am not afraid of being around one---I wish i could change them---NOT MY JOB.
Witness and let it go. They do not have ears to hear nor eyes to see.
Blessings

The military job is unlike the private sector.You cannot just decide to up and quit or change jobs!
If this is allowed to happen the consequences will be devastating.

Lets suppose a young male E5 decides to make a career of the Army! Let's say his X.O. A Homosexual first Lt.desires him, and comes on to him.Even puts his hands on him, and the Sgt. strikes him because of it.

Trust me.....This young Sgt. will not only be booted out of the Military, but more than likely be sent to Ft . Leavenworth. With a Dishonorably discharge his life will forever be changed. This is just one of many things that will occur because of this ridicules ruling.I remember several known perverts in some of the units I served in, and they were treated fairly. They had every right the rest of us had. (Which was limited in the old Army) The ones I knew, kept their sexual feelings to themselves.

This will open a new can of worms and military family's will suffer because of it.(We all will)

bigMikeA · « **Reply #167 on:** December 28, 2010, 02:52:12 PM »

The military job is unlike the private sector.You cannot just decide to up and quit or change jobs!
If this is allowed to happen the consequences will be devastating.

Lets suppose a young male E5 decides to make a career of the Army! Let's say his X.O. A Homosexual first Lt.desires him, and comes on to him.Even puts his hands on him, and the Sgt. strikes him because of it.

Trust me.....This young Sgt. will not only be booted out of the Military, but more than likely be sent to Ft . Leavenworth. With a Dishonorably discharge his life will forever be changed. This is just one of many things that will occur because of this ridicules ruling.I remember several known perverts in some of the units I served in, and they were treated fairly. They had every right the rest of us had. (Which was limited in the old Army) The ones I knew, kept their sexual feelings to themselves.

This will open a new can of worms and military family's will suffer because of it.(We all will)
[/quote]

good.. no, excellent post nw_hunter.

powderman · « **Reply #168 on:** December 28, 2010, 04:40:32 PM »

Quote

So per my CO, if they are made aware of any violations of UCMJ, to include sodomy (as well as adultery), they have a moral obligation to take action.

TN. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Thats kinda like in indiana where it's legal to sell most all types of fireworks, but illegal to set them off. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #169 on:** December 29, 2010, 04:49:54 AM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on December 28, 2010, 10:37:39 AM

Look, we didn't have rampant homosexuality under Reagan did we? I was in squad bays back then, group showers, and the toilets didn't have privacy stalls for a while there. I don't remember drag queens in or out of uniform. Or for 200 years of military history prior to DADT? I'm still trying to figure out how repealing Clintons DADT Policy, which was an act to protect homosexuals in uniform, is going to result in the types of things many are afraid of.

I just had a long chat with my CO this morning about DADT; lots of our folks are asking about what its going to mean for them. I get all the distro DOD wide for it so I can advise my CO, and the bottom line is its all speculation. The REPEAL just removed Clinton's policy. If that is followed by a new Executive Order that spells out the sorts of things folks are mentioning here, than that's a different thing that hasn't happened yet. Right now, we just have a repeal in effect. So per my CO, if they are made aware of any violations of UCMJ, to include sodomy (as well as adultery), they have a moral obligation to take action.

Thank you this is what I have been saying . The homosexuals are now held to a higher standard if anything . Or in reality held to the same standard.

gr8ful · « **Reply #170 on:** December 29, 2010, 08:40:47 AM »

Quote from: magooch on December 27, 2010, 04:00:43 AM

I don't think the majority of people have a problem with queers defending the country. Living, showering and going potty with queers--that's a problem.

this pretty much sums up my view as well.

teamnelson · « **Reply #171 on:** January 05, 2011, 10:25:14 AM »

Quote from: powderman on December 28, 2010, 04:40:32 PM

Quote
So per my CO, if they are made aware of any violations of UCMJ, to include sodomy (as well as adultery), they have a moral obligation to take action.
TN. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Thats kinda like in indiana where it's legal to sell most all types of fireworks, but illegal to set them off. POWDERMAN.

DOD policy is to prosecute action, not orientation. They can lust in their hearts all they want, same as a straight soldier may lust in his heart for another man's wife, but until they verbalize intent or take action on that feeling, its not in DOD's jurisdiction. Same with suicide, homicide, or anything else. What goes inside a person is not within DODs perview. As a Chaplain, that works well for me; it leaves God as the judge of men's hearts, and His appointed government as the judge of men's actions. I thought it was working fine until Clinton came along, and he felt they needed more protection. All that happened is the statistics got recategorized - whereas before a homosexual servicemember would've been booted under a punitive article or more likely separated under a mental health advisment for unspecified personality disorder, under DADT they were administratively separated under a non-punitive article. So there's no real way of knowing how many more people were put out for being gay since Clinton, despite the liberal claims. My informed guess is that the rate of separation has not increased under DADT.

Its what happens next that I'll be curious to see. If sexual preference becomes a category of service, then we're in for a world of hurt. Not there yet, and perhaps under this new congress we won't get there for a few years more since legally they are supposed to chop off on such changes.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #172 on:** January 05, 2011, 01:59:52 PM »

I have a very simple solution. Issue them pink cammo and send them to the front lines. Problem will soon be solved.

powderman · « **Reply #173 on:** January 05, 2011, 02:57:46 PM »

Uhhhhhh, unless I'm mistaken, clinton was a dem too. Hmmmmmm, I'm beginning to see a connection here. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #174 on:** January 05, 2011, 03:58:47 PM »

We have our first casualty...with many more to come, concerning thius new push for acceptance of a perverse lifestyle... Here a capable sea captain has lost his position due to a video he made several years ago. Granted, an XO should hold himself to a higher standard, but this looks like a gay-rigged demotion.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/os-todays-buzz-navy-raunchy-video-010511,0,7340024.story

ironglow · « **Reply #175 on:** January 05, 2011, 04:18:10 PM »

This is quite obviously, a problem made manifest by the recent queer-coddling, for these reasons;

1) This tasteless video was made several years ago...no complaints surfaced during the intervening years.
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/01/05/glenn-close-navy-video/

2) Upon disclosure of this video, the network news services were busy "jumping out of their jammies"...over the "gay slurs" in the videos...they really had a field day, whining about that.

3) We can say that the DADT has only been repealed..and hope the Dem/Queer axis won't ask for more... We must ask however, if this was going to set back their efforts to "mainstream" the military, why did they push so hard to get it passed ? They don't work against their own perverse interests !

4) Being made several years ago..no alarm... The progressives partner with the perverts for a rule change and these videos suddenly appear...that's more than a "coincidence".

5) The tragic situation in all this is the destruction of the customs and traditions of our fighting forces, built up over 235 years. Such a rule if it works the way the 'progressives' want, will deal a staggering blow to our military's Esprit De Corps... but then, that is probably just what the progressives want ... to hurt America any way they can...

We can expect more disruption and courts-martials of some great troops...simply because they may be accused of 'offending' a pervert. Just wait and see !

powderman · « **Reply #176 on:** January 05, 2011, 04:27:36 PM »

IRONGLOW. YEP, clearly the pantywetters are cashing in on the obaminations total approval of these perverts. Too bad that officer has to pay with his career because the queers are now offended. POWDERMAN.

teamnelson · « **Reply #177 on:** January 05, 2011, 08:43:44 PM »

Adm Mullen has come out as a champion of gay rights in the military, which has honestly caused not a few rumors. I think what the CAPT did was in poor taste, and unbecoming of his role, but the death knell was only sounded for the gay slurs. This'll be an interesting year in service.

ironglow · « **Reply #178 on:** January 06, 2011, 01:26:23 AM »

TN:
This is exactly what I have been warning our fellow posters about. The liberal/progressives have been pushing this agenda for years, and it is no secret that at different levels the progressives (in the words of their old boss) "loathe the military"..
Since a good share of the voting public have been sold this poison pill, the coward-in-chief was able to sign it into law without public upheaval. If they press this issue, there will be tangible harm done to our military, particularly the fighting forces.
I don't blame those who have never served so much for not understanding,since they cannot have a real sense of the uniqueness of military life, particularly in combat arms. However, I do wish they would listen a bit closer to those who have done so...and the vast majority of them disagree with this newer "obamanation".