Don't ask, don't tell...

[Jeb]

Let's talk homo in the fighting hole! First, what in the hell has anal sex with your riding buddy got to do with the economy? Hmmmm! I mean, how in God's green earth is taking one up the cheeks going to promote unit cohesion? :eek:
Don't as/Don't tell seem to be working, so why screw with it while we are still at 500,000 strong in the battlefield? I personally don't care what any of you do in your prayer closet or in your bedroom...but, as a former Marine I can say for sure that if they allowed a bunch of flaming homos to get in the shower with them Devil Dogs, it want be pretty! If they let women move into the male barracks it ain't going to be pretty! Putty Tang and killin just don't go together! "This is my rifle and this is my gun, this is for killin and this is for fun!" Can you dig it! Combat soldier has enough to worry about and so does his wife back home! This is ridiculous!:gun:

[Jeb]

Don't be scared to jump in to the fray, lets geterdone! Wussys, cluck, cluck cluck!

[Remphoto]

Don't be scared to jump in to the fray, lets geterdone! Wussys, cluck, cluck cluck!

Don't think you'll get much of a debate on here, Jeb, now that our wussy Libs have left.

[Jeb]

Play Devil's Advocate REM!

[Danv]

No since in responding to something like that.

[Remphoto]

Go for it dan. fyi i don't consider you to be a liberal, just a moderate. You're too reasonable to be a lib.

[Jeb]

No since in responding to something like that.

dANV, YOU MAY TURN OUT TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN ME! So, make your case as to why homos should be openly gay in a combat unit! Why a dorm or barracks should be used as a testing ground for an experient with grown:gun: ass men during a time of war!

[right$pecial]

Because it's the right thing to do.:D

[Max]

Jeb as soldiers I would think that a gay man might make a better soldier, remember they are use to have things fired at them from close range. :rofl

[Max]

It also brings a whole new meaning to sending your buddy to town and telling him to get two blow jobs and bring you one back. :)

[MYCAR47562]

It also brings a whole new meaning to sending your buddy to town and telling him to get two blow jobs and bring you one back. :)

max, that is deffiantly the LAST time i will fall for that.

[Motive]

The Spartans were notorious butt pirates.

[nelson]

Sparta was defeated and conquered.

A fighting force is strongest when it is single-minded. We have already diluted our focus with various social issues like gender, multiculturalism, political correctness, and many others. (This has increased the value of Navy SEALs and other special forces.) Homosexuality is simply the next distraction.

Fortunately, we have compensated with technology, which has, as far as we know, allowed us to maintain our military superiority. However, decades have passed since we've been tested in a full scale military conflict. And as time passes, we continue to increase the number and type of distractions among our troops. And globalism continues to level the technological playing field.

We cannot lie to ourselves about this. When it comes to the defense of our nation, we cannot fall prey to our feelings. Sexual preference, equality, and discrimination are irrelevant in a war; what matters are strategy, morale, and who has the most effective killing machine. Among human beings, the most effective killing machine today is a force of single-minded men, having no distractions, armed with superior technology.

[Jeb]

Well said all! I particularly agree with the BJ part! Two soldiers get a hotel and the one grunt says, "why don't we do a '69' together? The other soldier thinks about the proposition and says, "Let's do a 68, where you blow me and I will owe you one!":rofl

[Remphoto]

I've been thinking about this and changed my position on this issue. We need to let the gays serve in combat for the following reasons:
* let them get their butts shot off protecting this country,too.
* though some of them act like girls, they aren't, so don't need manly protection.
* if captured they will drive their captors crazy.
* we build wheelchair paths to accomodate handicapped persons in national parks. Surely we can create reasonable accommodations for gays. Maybe portable bathhouses with gloryholes and frilly blinds for tents. Seriously, once the don't ask don't tell rule is lifted we will see all kinds of behaviors needing accommodation.

[right$pecial]

I've been thinking about this and changed my position on this issue. We need to let the gays serve in combat for the following reasons:
* let them get their butts shot off protecting this country,too.
* though some of them act like girls, they aren't, so don't need manly protection.
* if captured they will drive their captors crazy.
* we build wheelchair paths to accomodate handicapped persons in national parks. Surely we can create reasonable accommodations for gays. Maybe portable bathhouses with gloryholes and frilly blinds for tents. Seriously, once the don't ask don't tell rule is lifted we will see all kinds of behaviors needing accommodation.

How about we create an entire gay division and send them in as the first wave. Seriously though, we've been over this and the consensus has always been, specifically amongst those of us who have been there and done that, that it would negatively impact the military. I've served with one or two guys who we all thought where pitching for the other team, but because it wasn't in our face it worked; put it in the open and an atmosphere of homophobia and type A personality clashes will keep JAG so busy that eventually lawyers will make up the bulk of our fighting force.

[Motive]

Pink Berets, Farce Recon, and Baby Seals

[right$pecial]

Pink Berets, Farce Recon, and Baby Seals

Jeb, what do they call the flap on the Navy dress uniform?













a marine bib!




And jokes like these will be lost in a PC, Gay military.

[Max]

I think we could work on the entire unit of gays, now we have the airborne rangers. We could make them the rump rangers. Parachute them in behind the enemy and let them wreak havoc on the enemies rear defenses. :)

[right$pecial]

I think we could work on the entire unit of gays, now we have the airborne rangers. We could make them the rump rangers. Parachute them in behind the enemy and let them wreak havoc on the enemies rear defenses. :)

Brings a whole new meaning to the term choke point!

[Jeb]

Behind enemy lines...literally! Or, is line up behind the enemy?:eek:

[nelson]

I think we could work on the entire unit of gays, now we have the airborne rangers. We could make them the rump rangers. Parachute them in behind the enemy and let them wreak havoc on the enemies rear defenses. :)I got a good laugh from that one.

[right$pecial]

Tactical Insertion.

[synseer]

All joking aside this issue is one where I believe the absence of protected, full disclosure is better. I've been in service since the late 80s and like many others, know there are gays actively serving in the military. Don't think there is a unit I have been assigned to that didn't have it's token allocation of homosexuals. The critical point being that none of them ever announced the lifestyle choice. That absence of confirmation does make it easier to get along in the daily duty requirements whatever the environmental condition are, whether in the field on a training exercise or deployed to austere locations. While the current policy may not be perfect because it does force those who serve who are gay to remain quite about it; it does however, in a broad brush stroke manner, work. Good example of this would be that incident in the 82nd Airborne Division where those group of guys were actively participating in gay porn. Having been in a line unit before, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely other service members in their unit did not have their suspicions about who or what these guys were. But because it was not specifically known, they were probably treated in a generally normal manner in terms of interaction between the troops at the line unit level.

Course all this may be moot since there is no guarantee that if the policy was repealed that gays would just come pouring out of the woodwork announcing their orientation to the command and the unit. I'd be willing the bet a good number of them, if not the vast majority, would remain silent and carry on as if the policy were still in place simply to avoid any social stigma or osterization from the joes in general. There would undoubtedly be those few true-believers and ideologues that would stake their livelihood on it, declare themselves, and then utilize the legal system to force their equality but those few would find themselves without a friendly face in the crowd real quick; and when one lives and works in a unit built around cohesion, that sort of isolation is burdensome.

Anyway...my two cents on the matter.

[nelson]

Good perspective Synseer.

[Motive]

Yep, if you bring them out, they're more likely to raise a stink, and start demanding "equal" rights, which can translate to special treatment..since they were "equal" before coming out.

But at the same time, it would free up some of the other people's time, that they may have spent trying to prove their suspicions...


So, I reckon that kinda puts me on the fence.

[right$pecial]

I agree with Syn's comments completely.

[Max]

I think it would open a flood gate for complaints. When being open and gay is allowed I think every time they get a job they don't like, a duty station they don't like or anything it would be because they are gay. I say it's a terrible idea.

[Motive]

I think it would open a flood gate for complaints. When being open and gay is allowed I think every time they get a job they don't like, a duty station they don't like or anything it would be because they are gay. I say it's a terrible idea.



Exactly what happened to the country when they all "came out"....can't ignore history. There's already complaints such as these, based on race...people can't seem to accept when they're shitbags, and that's the reason they get shit duty.

Even still, in the civilian workplace, this shit is coming up, people blaming racism for not getting good raises etc...throwing another scapegoat in the mix...not really a good idea for the military.

[synseer]

Those kind of things happen anyway. Women and minorities...even white folks who find themselves in a situation where their immediate or senior supervisors are black or hispanic...pull crap like that. Leaders in line units have been fighting that particular battle long before dont ask, don't tell became an issue; so in the big picture that dynamic does not change. Leaders and supervisors have established protocols and operating procedures that when properly adhered with, provide them with a measure of protection from bullshit complaints. Even in the event an IG inspection or some other inquery comes about, if the supervisor/leader has done the right thing, nothing will come of it and the person who filed the complaint earns themselves a blackeye in the eyes of the unit at large.

I don't advocate repealing the policy...like I said earlier, better to not have full protected disclosure and I'm certain there would be several bullshit complaints made by those who seriosly believe they can get over; but having done my fair share of investigations and inqueries in military units, it's not a for sure thing that they will get their way.

[Motive]

True, in tighter commands, the bullshit claims can get met with harsh retaliation...

[synseer]

Not anymore...not on the surface anyway...military units are now subject to the Whistleblower Act. Retaliation by way of rank and authority is punishable under the UCMJ. However, clever people can figure a way around that.

[Motive]

Doesn't necessarily have to be higher rank, to retaliate...not directly, anyway...

shitbag on my last boat, got a little tap in the jaw for walking, and smoking during our morning PRT...he bitched and the COB got booted off of the boat, wasn't long afterwards, he got removed from the command as well...his life on the boat became, unfriendly, to say the least.

[right$pecial]

I don't care what UCMJ puts in place there will always be a way around it given the right circumstances.

[Max]

Leaders in line units have been fighting that particular battle long before dont ask, don't tell became an issue; so in the big picture that dynamic does not change. Leaders and supervisors have established protocols and operating procedures that when properly adhered with, provide them with a measure of protection from bullshit complaints.

So explain Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? I say the gays would present the same problem he does and that military still does not have a way to deal with it. This man should have not been promoted or even allowed to stay in the military but because it is so PC we see the result. I say as soon as DADT is removed you will see the same thing with gays.

[synseer]

I don't care what UCMJ puts in place there will always be a way around it given the right circumstances.

....and I do not disagree with you. What I was referring to when I commented about clever people.

[synseer]

So explain Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? I say the gays would present the same problem he does and that military still does not have a way to deal with it. This man should have not been promoted or even allowed to stay in the military but because it is so PC we see the result. I say as soon as DADT is removed you will see the same thing with gays.

I agree with you here...he should not have been promoted at all based on his recorded performance. The leadership there failed to do the right thing and as I recall from news reports, those individuals are under scrutiny for their failure now. Believe it was discussed in another thread how the politically correct mentality significantly contributed to his particular situation. If DNDT is repealed, and I sincerely hope it is NOT, I don't believe gays are going to go in to an in-processing station and start shooting up people. There will be some who will flaunt their lifestyle to the n-degree and attempt to manipulate the system in their favor in efforts to influence or all out avoid fulfilling their duty obligation; there will be those that will maintain the status quo and continue to fulfill their duty obligations; and there will be some who will come out without being a problem child for their unit leadership while fulfilling their duty obligations.

[Max]

synseer, I agree that I would not expect them to shoot the place up. My point was simply that believe it or not the military is very PC and because of it they would use being gay as a weapon to get rank, get duty stations of choice and decline jobs not liked and certainly could not be punished without bringing up the gay point. I think it deters from the job the military has in front of it. IMHO.

[Motive]

Trash comes in all shapes and sizes....I see your point, the O club are on a different set of rules, and usually don't handle their issues the same way the Enlisted do...

Military and PC do not belong together.

[coolbreeze]

This is about further decaying our image throughout the world and taking the breath out of our military and country. Just another plot by our prez who hates America to continue dimantaling her piece by piece. I think it's safe to say this nonsense isn't going to last much longer. You just don't spit in the face of God continuously without any repercussions. I belive the Lord is Going to take care of this "one" Personally. Just my two cents.

[synseer]

synseer, I agree that I would not expect them to shoot the place up. My point was simply that believe it or not the military is very PC and because of it they would use being gay as a weapon to get rank, get duty stations of choice and decline jobs not liked and certainly could not be punished without bringing up the gay point. I think it deters from the job the military has in front of it. IMHO.

Max, you are right...the military is PC (interestingly enough I still have to complete this years mandatory POSH training...talk about PC!) and the rules enforce that requirement pushed upon us by are leaders who believe they know better. I fully believe there will be those gays that will do exactly what you typed above; I also beleive that, if repealed, it will deter the military from performing its proscribed Title X function specifically because of those gays that will do exactly what you typed above. That's why I am against repealing it.

[Jeb]

Sad day when PC/EEO/AFA and all the multicultural garbage is pushed on the folks that actually might die because of ill prepared or suited people will be in power to make the life and death decsion!

[Motive]

And it keeps getting worse...damned near completely cutting the ballsack off of the most powerful military in the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404752.html

How many early retirements are you predicting, and guess what types will be taking their places....better brush up on your Chinese...

[synseer]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz020810dAPR20100206040204.jpg

[synseer]

An excellent article written by The American TFP; goes in-depth to articulate why lifting the DADT ban would be a massive mistake for the military service.

"Allowing homosexuals to serve would also break down unit trust, a necessary foundation for cohesion. Vietnam War hero Colonel John Ripley explained this in testimony delivered on May 4, 1993 before the House Armed Services Committee, saying: “No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. It makes no difference if the individual is suppressing those feelings. It makes trust virtually impossible.”"

http://www.tfp.org/slideshow/slideshow/qto-keep-our-honor-cleanq-why-we-must-oppose-the-homosexual-agenda-for-the-military.html

[Jeb]

Yeah, and that whole cornholing thing has got to hurt too!!:rofl