Conquer Club

just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

SultanOfSurreal wrote:just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

That's a very good thing. But if there isn't an official policy put in place to replace it (something along the lines of allowing homosexuals to openly serve), getting rid of it alone is a bad thing. DADT at least put some distance on hate crimes in the military (though unfortunately not removing them entirely).

Woodruff wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

That's a very good thing. But if there isn't an official policy put in place to replace it (something along the lines of allowing homosexuals to openly serve),

But...removing the policy already does that doesn't it?

The Onion never fails (even though this is old)

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

That's a very good thing. But if there isn't an official policy put in place to replace it (something along the lines of allowing homosexuals to openly serve),

But...removing the policy already does that doesn't it?

Why would it do anything other than just put things back as they were before the policy went into place? If homosexuals had been allowed to openly serve then, the policy wouldn't have NEEDED to be implemented, would it?

So...no.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

That's a very good thing. But if there isn't an official policy put in place to replace it (something along the lines of allowing homosexuals to openly serve),

But...removing the policy already does that doesn't it?

Why would it do anything other than just put things back as they were before the policy went into place? If homosexuals had been allowed to openly serve then, the policy wouldn't have NEEDED to be implemented, would it?

So...no.

I could be mistaken here, but wasn't dadt implemented to replace the "no gays allowed" rule that preceded it, hence removing the old policy? I don't understand why removing the newer policy would mean automatically reverting to the one it replaced originally. I would have thought that removing the current policy would leave no official policy regarding the sexuality of members of the armed forces (the way it should be).

Timminz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:just kind of slowly

but anyway, it does look like dadt is going the way of the dodo so that's cool

That's a very good thing. But if there isn't an official policy put in place to replace it (something along the lines of allowing homosexuals to openly serve),

But...removing the policy already does that doesn't it?

Why would it do anything other than just put things back as they were before the policy went into place? If homosexuals had been allowed to openly serve then, the policy wouldn't have NEEDED to be implemented, would it?

So...no.

I could be mistaken here, but wasn't dadt implemented to replace the "no gays allowed" rule that preceded it, hence removing the old policy? I don't understand why removing the newer policy would mean automatically reverting to the one it replaced originally. I would have thought that removing the current policy would leave no official policy regarding the sexuality of members of the armed forces (the way it should be).

That's not how the military is designed to work...the military is designed to have a policy about EVERYTHING. If something doesn't have a policy, then someone fucked up. Why? Many different reasons, but the most common is because if you don't have a policy about "situation A", then nobody can be held accountable for violating "situation A".

If Don't Ask Don't Tell is turned off WITHOUT putting a clear policy in place stating that homosexuals are openly allowed to serve in the military, there WILL BE "suspected homosexuals" getting killed and their asses beaten. Those people will still be punished of course ("destruction of government property", among other things), but without the full brunt of what SHOULD be held against them, because there was no clear policy in place regarding the issue.

I agree with what you're trying to say, but I just recognize the reality of what will happen if a clear policy isn't in place (and really...is there a reason NOT to make it a clear policy?).

Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Snorri1234 wrote:Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Homosexual conduct is CURRENTLY (even with DADT) punishable under several different Articles of the UCMJ and subjects one to at a minimum a "Other Than Honorable" discharge from armed service in the United States.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Homosexual conduct is CURRENTLY (even with DADT) punishable under several different Articles of the UCMJ and subjects one to at a minimum a "Other Than Honorable" discharge from armed service in the United States.

I have a different take on this.

When I listened to the intereviews talking about homosexuality causing "problems", increased harrassment, etc., because as one interviewee mentioned, "the military has a high proportion of people from conservative families", I could not help but think about the HUGE impact and serious harassment many women experience in the military precisely because of such "traditionally minded" males.

This gets pretty complicated, but the essence is that if you grow up being taught that a woman "belongs" at home, is "supposed" to be submissive to men at home, and are taught that this is what is right and correct, particularly from a religious perspective, it becomes far harder for you to accept women in authority. And while the line between "dislike" and true abuse, particularly things like rape and other types of serious harassment seems far (and, don't ge me wrong, most men brought up in this manner absolutely DO draw reasonable lines!). The problem is that when things get intense .. whether it is a man feeling HIS job is at risk stateside OR a man who might feel his life is being endangered by these women when in combat (yes, I know women are not supposed to be in direct combat, but...). War, stress do nasty things to people.

I see all this as closely related, because it all really gets down to whether people have the right to decide that they won't work with or bunk with someone who lives in a way or exists in a way they dislike. And, because even though far more people are willing to accept women than homosexuals, the arguments and even the results of the beliefs are pretty much the same.

I Do agree that a policy is necessary,but current rules don't really and truly protect women, so I am not sure a policy alone would protect homosexuals. However, women now join knowing full well what they might experience and I don't see why homosexuals should be any different. They will join, knowing that the military is not exactly "friendly" to homosexuals, but still wanting to do the job.

I say that we can ill-afford to eliminate anyone who can and wants to "do the job", unless serious criminals or such.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Homosexual conduct is CURRENTLY (even with DADT) punishable under several different Articles of the UCMJ and subjects one to at a minimum a "Other Than Honorable" discharge from armed service in the United States.

I have a different take on this.

When I listened to the intereviews talking about homosexuality causing "problems", increased harrassment, etc., because as one interviewee mentioned, "the military has a high proportion of people from conservative families", I could not help but think about the HUGE impact and serious harassment many women experience in the military precisely because of such "traditionally minded" males.

This gets pretty complicated, but the essence is that if you grow up being taught that a woman "belongs" at home, is "supposed" to be submissive to men at home, and are taught that this is what is right and correct, particularly from a religious perspective, it becomes far harder for you to accept women in authority. And while the line between "dislike" and true abuse, particularly things like rape and other types of serious harassment seems far (and, don't ge me wrong, most men brought up in this manner absolutely DO draw reasonable lines!). The problem is that when things get intense .. whether it is a man feeling HIS job is at risk stateside OR a man who might feel his life is being endangered by these women when in combat (yes, I know women are not supposed to be in direct combat, but...). War, stress do nasty things to people.

I see all this as closely related, because it all really gets down to whether people have the right to decide that they won't work with or bunk with someone who lives in a way or exists in a way they dislike. And, because even though far more people are willing to accept women than homosexuals, the arguments and even the results of the beliefs are pretty much the same.

I Do agree that a policy is necessary,but current rules don't really and truly protect women, so I am not sure a policy alone would protect homosexuals. However, women now join knowing full well what they might experience and I don't see why homosexuals should be any different. They will join, knowing that the military is not exactly "friendly" to homosexuals, but still wanting to do the job.

I say that we can ill-afford to eliminate anyone who can and wants to "do the job", unless serious criminals or such.

Everything you say is true, but I think you're actually off on another subject (a tangential one though). Just "being a woman" (I couldn't think of an equivalent to "homosexual acts" here) is not illegal in the military. Just "committing homosexual acts" in the military is illegal.

I agree that women aren't "completely protected" in the military, but NOBODY is. By that I'm not referring to war, I'm referring to the fact that dumbass males get into fights all the time, sometimes killing each other. That's illegal, but it still happens. Just as with women...those actions against them are illegal, but they still happen. Even with a policy on homosexuals in place, the dumbasses will still be dumbasses (because the military is simply a reflection of society in that regard), and we can only hope that those dumbasses will be properly punished.

But I'm not speaking of that here...I'm referring only to the fact that homosexual acts are, in fact, illegal in the current military. Can you be a homosexual? Sure, as long as nobody knows. How fucking helpful is that?

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Homosexual conduct is CURRENTLY (even with DADT) punishable under several different Articles of the UCMJ and subjects one to at a minimum a "Other Than Honorable" discharge from armed service in the United States.

Oh yes I know that it's punishable, I just thought the DADT policy meant that.

I mean, this I was I thought was the DADT policy.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well I suppose me and Timminz aren't familiar enough with the US armed forces to know this. The way I always read it is that gays are allowed to serve and DADT says they aren't allowed to say what they are. Removing DADT then would mean no hypocrisy and gays are totally ok in the military.

Homosexual conduct is CURRENTLY (even with DADT) punishable under several different Articles of the UCMJ and subjects one to at a minimum a "Other Than Honorable" discharge from armed service in the United States.

Oh yes I know that it's punishable, I just thought the DADT policy meant that.

I mean, this I was I thought was the DADT policy.

You're misunderstanding. Prior to DADT, homosexuals were kicked out. After DADT, admitted homosexuals were kicked out. If DADT goes away, we fall back to "prior to DADT" in which homosexuals are kicked out...the difference being that once again, the military CAN ASK (which will lead the ignorant to equate "ask" with "harass" if they even have any suspicions, founded or unfounded). That's why a very clear policy that homosexuals are allowed to serve openly is necessary...otherwise it's a step backward.

DADT didn't work well, but it WAS DEFINITELY still an improvement over the previous way the issue was handled.

Such a non-issue to me and many other Americans. Perhaps the Democrat party does not want us focusing on the economy or that atrocity of a budget they are proposing.

rockfist wrote:Such a non-issue to me and many other Americans. Perhaps the Democrat party does not want us focusing on the economy or that atrocity of a budget they are proposing.

can you please tell me how the f*ck the pentagon is supposed to be setting economic policy

tia

pimpdave wrote:Gates, Mullen Want to End DADT

Yes, I was quite pleased with Admiral Mullen, the first sitting CJCS to take that stance.

rockfist wrote:Such a non-issue to me and many other Americans.

Having our military be as strong and capable as possible is a non-issue to you?

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:Such a non-issue to me and many other Americans.

Having our military be as strong and capable as possible is a non-issue to you?

Its a non POLITICAL issue. Make a decision and move on with other things. The debate is meant to distract us from how bad the economy is. I put this up there with Tom Delay addressing the Terry Schiavo situation - a big waste of our politicians time. I'm not against gays serving openly (nor am I for it haven't researched it one way or the other) but if that is what the military brass wants just fricking give it to them and deal with fixing the economy and the structural deficits we face due to runaway transfer payment programs. Stop trying to distract and misdirect us.

rockfist wrote:Its a non POLITICAL issue. Make a decision and move on with other things. The debate is meant to distract us from how bad the economy is. I put this up there with Tom Delay addressing the Terry Schiavo situation - a big waste of our politicians time. I'm not against gays serving openly (nor am I for it haven't researched it one way or the other) but if that is what the military brass wants just fricking give it to them and deal with fixing the economy and the structural deficits we face due to runaway transfer payment programs. Stop trying to distract and misdirect us.

the debate on this issue is propelled by conservatives. that's the only reason there's still a discussion of it going on -- if republicans weren't fighting this decision tooth-and-nail, DADT would already be gone. here's saxby chambliss on the issue:

Chambliss acknowledged that while the military enforces "restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society," it "must maintain policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."

"In my opinion," he said, "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards."

Why, if gays are allowed into the military, Chambliss said, soon the armed forces will allow all sorts of other things.

Like what?

"Alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art," said Chambliss.

"If we change this rule of 'Don't Ask, Dont Tell," he asked, "what are we going to do with these other rules?"

and good ol' ollie north:

Convicted felon Oliver North on the effort to repeal DADT:

"Now, here's what's next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages," North said, referring to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group that advocates for pedophilia. "Are chaplains in the US military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they [pedophiles and homosexuals] get government housing?" North, who hosts Fox's War Stories, told Hannity that the effort to repeal DADT amounts to a "stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental."

so in conclusion, the repeal of dadt is not some sort of weird smokescreen plot by liberals, it's a sensible poicy move that regressive imbeciles like you in congress (and elsewhere) are pitching a truly epic hissy fit over -- which is accomplishing nothing but creating needless obstructions to what is ultimately inevitable

Yep, I'm pitching a fit over this...

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

rockfist wrote:Such a non-issue to me and many other Americans. Perhaps the Democrat party does not want us focusing on the economy or that atrocity of a budget they are proposing.

can you please tell me how the f*ck the pentagon is supposed to be setting economic policy

tia

The pentagon only suggests stuff and then congress has to pass it. The point was congress should be more concerned about the country they are, at this moment ,bankrupting. It was an issue thrown out there to get people talking about that issue instead of the crappy job being done with out economy.

barbie wrote:The pentagon only suggests stuff and then congress has to pass it. The point was congress should be more concerned about the country they are, at this moment ,bankrupting. It was an issue thrown out there to get people talking about that issue instead of the crappy job being done with out economy.

dadt has been part of the national dialogue since its inception in 1993. this was not invented by congressmen last week to distract people. they haven't even begun to broach legislation concerning it yet. you are retarded.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

barbie wrote:The pentagon only suggests stuff and then congress has to pass it. The point was congress should be more concerned about the country they are, at this moment ,bankrupting. It was an issue thrown out there to get people talking about that issue instead of the crappy job being done with out economy.

dadt has been part of the national dialogue since its inception in 1993. this was not invented by congressmen last week to distract people. they haven't even begun to broach legislation concerning it yet. you are retarded.

I don't see anywhere where she claimed it was invented recently, only that it was brought up recently and she is correct in that.

rockfist wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

barbie wrote:The pentagon only suggests stuff and then congress has to pass it. The point was congress should be more concerned about the country they are, at this moment ,bankrupting. It was an issue thrown out there to get people talking about that issue instead of the crappy job being done with out economy.

dadt has been part of the national dialogue since its inception in 1993. this was not invented by congressmen last week to distract people. they haven't even begun to broach legislation concerning it yet. you are retarded.

I don't see anywhere where she claimed it was invented recently, only that it was brought up recently and she is correct in that.

she said congress is using it as a distraction when in fact this issue is not even being broached by congress in any way at the moment. that is pro-league tarded

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

rockfist wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

barbie wrote:The pentagon only suggests stuff and then congress has to pass it. The point was congress should be more concerned about the country they are, at this moment ,bankrupting. It was an issue thrown out there to get people talking about that issue instead of the crappy job being done with out economy.

dadt has been part of the national dialogue since its inception in 1993. this was not invented by congressmen last week to distract people. they haven't even begun to broach legislation concerning it yet. you are retarded.

I don't see anywhere where she claimed it was invented recently, only that it was brought up recently and she is correct in that.

she said congress is using it as a distraction when in fact this issue is not even being broached by congress in any way at the moment. that is pro-league tarded

I also didnt say "congress" was using it as a distraction. So let me type slower so you can understand. The ADMINISTRATION has brought up the issue to distract people. Their economic plans thus far have stunk and with elections creeping closer it is an issue they could use.