Top Military Brass For a Ban on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Karasel]

A few days ago Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen went before Congress asking for a repeal on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

They both said that repealing this 17 year old bill is down to integrity.

Mullen said: "No matter how I look at the issue. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

But of course the Republicans didn't agree with the statement. Even John McCain who said he would support it, if the subject was ever brought up by military brass.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_gays

[niftyshellshock]

Who cares? So long as they shoot straight.

[inquisitive13]

I am in the military, and to be honest, externally, there will be no change. internally, all hell will break loose. Chances are, if someone has same sex tendencies (or whatever they choose to call it) and they want to serve in the military, they will do it on their own accord, hiding it. So, most of the other people with the same interests probably wouldn't rush right out and enlist or commission. No change. However, internally, there are veterans that have served upwards of 8-10 deployments with the same men and women in their unit. Once this policy has been repealed (if it is repealed), there will be people coming out to their comrades, and since they have been technically lying to everyone around them, this will lead to mistrust and a lack of unit cohesion. Most people in the military have "type A personalities." There WILL be trouble resulting from this internally.

[elian]

Yesterday a veteran where I work said "Do we WANT *gay people* in our military??" and my response was - "They're already there".

I know that one of the few ways that the idea of racial segregation was eased (a little) is was when the US finally got an integrated Armed Services..and even then I think it took years for the repercussions to work out - same thing with females, and I assume it will be the same for same sex troops.

I can just imagine how awkward this would be for some of the troops..and at least one scandal or hate crime - I mean, it happened when females were integrated as well. The only thing I keep thinking of is that if other countries' armies can be integrated to accept GLBT, then - eventually - so can ours..I hope.

[Karasel]

I am in the military, and to be honest, externally, there will be no change. internally, all hell will break loose. Chances are, if someone has same sex tendencies (or whatever they choose to call it) and they want to serve in the military, they will do it on their own accord, hiding it. So, most of the other people with the same interests probably wouldn't rush right out and enlist or commission. No change. However, internally, there are veterans that have served upwards of 8-10 deployments with the same men and women in their unit. Once this policy has been repealed (if it is repealed), there will be people coming out to their comrades, and since they have been technically lying to everyone around them, this will lead to mistrust and a lack of unit cohesion. Most people in the military have "type A personalities." There WILL be trouble resulting from this internally.

The same "trouble" probably happened when we integrated races/genders into the military. I follow this topic religiously, considering that I'm going to enlist in the Army soon.

[12voltman59]

I think its gonna be a heck of a lot easier for the service to allow and accept gays than it was to have integrated the services allowing blacks and other minorities to serve.

Of course, it won't go like clockwork--and there will be some instances of some troubles at first--but a swift reponse with "zero tolerance" of those who cause trouble for gays from the top down will do much to quell any trouble.

Just like in all things--the military leadership will adopt the mindset for this that "this is the military way or the highway!" when it comes to gays serving.

Being good soliders, airman, sailors, guardsman, reservists, "guardians" (as the Coast Guard now calls its personell) etc., Service members will very quickly come to accept the edicts of their commanders in this regard, saluting and saying: "yes sir, if that is what you order, it is our duty to make it so."

[jamiehue]

Once the military oldtimers die off this will change that might take a while.

[darkeyes]

I am in the military, and to be honest, externally, there will be no change. internally, all hell will break loose. Chances are, if someone has same sex tendencies (or whatever they choose to call it) and they want to serve in the military, they will do it on their own accord, hiding it. So, most of the other people with the same interests probably wouldn't rush right out and enlist or commission. No change. However, internally, there are veterans that have served upwards of 8-10 deployments with the same men and women in their unit. Once this policy has been repealed (if it is repealed), there will be people coming out to their comrades, and since they have been technically lying to everyone around them, this will lead to mistrust and a lack of unit cohesion. Most people in the military have "type A personalities." There WILL be trouble resulting from this internally.

Bollox. didn in ne otha military..wy shud it in urs???

Dus get 2 me how sum so called bi an gay peeps keep makin apologies for bans an keepin things secret.. course ther will b sum probs..but doubt if as many as sum seem 2 think...

[TaylorMade]

Pelosi may wait on 'Don't Ask' vote


By JAMES HOHMANN
2/4/10 5:28 PM EST
Politico.com

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggested Thursday that Democrats may wait on voting to repeal the ban on gays in the military until after the midterm elections and after the Pentagon has completed a full review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

“We’ve done a heavy lift, and I don’t know,” Pelosi told reporters. “I’ll have to examine it. We’ll take a look. We’ll sit down together and see. What is the advantage of going first with legislation? Or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review? Or is it a two step-process?”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday established a working group to study the impact on the military of eliminating "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell." He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the group will produce its findings and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of 2010.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32554.html#ixzz0eh4KFdbD

But ...oh, that abortion of a Health care bill had to be done NOW!!!

Fuck her.

*Taylor*

[12voltman59]

An interesting article from USAToday:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/military-poll-shows-less-opposition-to-gays-serving-openly/1

[AdamKadmon43]

Considering the fact that the Department of Defense has declared that the "morning after pill" will henceforth become a standard part of every military medical facility's stock of drugs, I suspect that straight women in the military might just be a bit more problematic than gay men.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/02/05/military.morning.after.pill/

[djones]

This is from the BBC - it says a lot about the reality of gays in the US military : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8495793.stm

[Karasel]

Pelosi may wait on 'Don't Ask' vote


By JAMES HOHMANN
2/4/10 5:28 PM EST
Politico.com

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggested Thursday that Democrats may wait on voting to repeal the ban on gays in the military until after the midterm elections and after the Pentagon has completed a full review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

“We’ve done a heavy lift, and I don’t know,” Pelosi told reporters. “I’ll have to examine it. We’ll take a look. We’ll sit down together and see. What is the advantage of going first with legislation? Or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review? Or is it a two step-process?”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday established a working group to study the impact on the military of eliminating "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell." He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the group will produce its findings and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of 2010.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32554.html#ixzz0eh4KFdbD

But ...oh, that abortion of a Health care bill had to be done NOW!!!

Fuck her.

*Taylor*

I can understand her hesitance though. Pelosi probably just wants to make sure she has all the evidence needed for this on her side before she pushes through. You know how ruthless the Republicans are, they'll always come up with some random bullshit to throw the repeal out of the water.

[MarieDelta]

Pelosi may wait on 'Don't Ask' vote


By JAMES HOHMANN
2/4/10 5:28 PM EST
Politico.com

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggested Thursday that Democrats may wait on voting to repeal the ban on gays in the military until after the midterm elections and after the Pentagon has completed a full review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

“We’ve done a heavy lift, and I don’t know,” Pelosi told reporters. “I’ll have to examine it. We’ll take a look. We’ll sit down together and see. What is the advantage of going first with legislation? Or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review? Or is it a two step-process?”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday established a working group to study the impact on the military of eliminating "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell." He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the group will produce its findings and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of 2010.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32554.html#ixzz0eh4KFdbD

But ...oh, that abortion of a Health care bill had to be done NOW!!!

Fuck her.

*Taylor*

She is straight, and has no one in the military.

I am sure she doesn't see this as a priority...

Pretty typical of both parties.

[AdamKadmon43]

You are right Marie.....

Nancy Pelosi is a fucking idiot. Perhaps a well-intentioned idiot, but none the less an idiot.

I can't vote for Democrats because of their totally irresponsible fiscal attitudes, and I can't vote for Republicans because of their ignorant, backwards social attitudes. Alas... poor me

I would dearly love to give all the Nancy Pelosis and Rush Limbaughs in the world a large dose of tranquilizers, alcohol and viagra, and send them all off to have an orgy someplace and have a really wonderful time with each other, and get them out of our lives.

[darkeyes]

I can understand her hesitance though. Pelosi probably just wants to make sure she has all the evidence needed for this on her side before she pushes through.

Ya mean how it will play wiv the voters huh Kara me luffly? Tis 'ere the case wen it cums down 2 doin the rite thing.......:(

[Karasel]

Agreed Darkeyes. I'm just used to the Dems not getting anything done.

Obama publicly chastised the Democrats for wanting to "run for the hills," and yelled at the Republicans for saying no to everything. Maybe that will give the parties a kick in the pants to get stuff done.

I think this country would run a lot smoother if we didn't have parties, I know George Washington didn't want us to have them.

[MarieDelta]

Agreed Darkeyes. I'm just used to the Dems not getting anything done.

Obama publicly chastised the Democrats for wanting to "run for the hills," and yelled at the Republicans for saying no to everything. Maybe that will give the parties a kick in the pants to get stuff done.

I think this country would run a lot smoother if we didn't have parties, I know George Washington didn't want us to have them.


Unfortunately politics is all about power & compromise. People being what they are tend to clump together in groups "tribes", "parties", "communities" and "us vs them" are very much part of our biological makeup, unfortunately.

Either its two parties or who knows how many parties. In some ways we get more accomplished with two, in others it's harder to get represented for what we need.

So, yeah I wish we didn't have parties, but realistically we will always have factions, its only a question of how many.

[TaylorMade]

I can understand her hesitance though. Pelosi probably just wants to make sure she has all the evidence needed for this on her side before she pushes through. You know how ruthless the Republicans are, they'll always come up with some random bullshit to throw the repeal out of the water.

Like the ruthless betrayal Clinton pulled to kick this whole thing off?

Invisible Rule number #4. . .don't assume we all land on the same side politically. ;)

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

She is straight, and has no one in the military.

I am sure she doesn't see this as a priority...

Pretty typical of both parties.

I thought she had a nephew or some relative in the military , which is why this move surprises me so much.

I will DEFINITELY say this is typical of both parties, but I honestly never expected her to get in the way of this. A 'blue dog' Dem/Rep coalition? Yes. But Madame Speaker herself? Not in a million years.

*Taylor*

[fredtyg]

I suspect that straight women in the military might just be a bit more problematic than gay men.
[/url]

I think to a large extent they already are. We keep hearing about all these women getting pregnant overseas when it supposedly against orders to do so while deployed.

I'm no expert. I only served 15 years with the Army National Guard. Nine of those years was in a mixed sex unit of Military Police. I preferred having the women around, but along with them came their own share of problems. Granted, it was only a handful, but the in- unit romance thing could become disruptive.

We had one girl- and this was while we were in Saudi Arabia- who was always being real flirtatious and suggestive with the guys. Then, when someone says something, or makes a move on her, she screams sexual harassment.

But, that's here to stay, for better or worse.

I certainly don't have problems with homos in the military. Heck, they had me for 15 years. But I can just imagine some of the problems some shit bird troops, or activists, might cause.

The bottom line is, I don't think they should be able to discharge someone simply because they're homosexual- for that fact alone. I worry, though, some (a crossdresser, perhaps) are going to take advantage of this and make an issue out of the fact they can't wear dresses as a class A uniform, or something along that line.

I've seen problems like that pop up even in places like San Francisco. No doubt in my mind those sorts of problems are headed to the U.S. Military should gays be allowed to open to serve.

I don't mind them getting rid of DAD if they can formulate foolproof regulations to deal with any problems caused by it. Otherwise, I'm leery. Regardless, just because someone is homo, shouldn't be grounds for discharge unless they've done something to deserve discharge.

[citystyleguy]

not that many statements to the topic, but there sure is a lot of politics;

the truth be known, we are there, have been there, and will be there 'til hell freezes over, no matter what the politicians, the brass, etc think, do, or say;

once the actions are taken, the shit will hit the fan, everyone on all sides will run around screaming like idiots, making self-rightous statements from all sides, the extremists on both sides will take up self-indulgent causes, the middle of the political spectrum will want to do a group hug, and somewhere in time, we will ask ourselves what was all the fuss about!

all in all, gays, bi's, straights, people of color, white people, blah blah blah do great goods, are brave soldiers, do shitty things to each other, fart when they shouldn't, eat with their mouths open, create great art and architecture, allow rivers of blood to flow, and on, and on, and on,....

and because of it, give great cause for sites such as these to exist!::cool:

ps in case anyone wonders, and i dont give a shit if they dont, i am a liberal democrat, have been a party faithful since i was 18 (a true, hard-core activist, manned the phones, walked the precincts, marched in rallies), i have become pissed off at my party's top brass, there still exists no other party that i would vote for, but as long as the good 'ole usa opts for the winner take-all approach, there will be no other effective alternative (this statement alone should start some real good shit here! :male:). all good enough reason for a constitutional ammendment to create a pluralistic political system!:2cents: