View Full Version : Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
NousDefionsDoc
06-17-2007, 11:02
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?ex=1325394000&en=171a9a25f632cbde&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI
Published: January 2, 2007
TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.
As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.
When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.
In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.
The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.
I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.
But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.
By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.
3SoldierDad
06-17-2007, 11:42
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?ex=1325394000&en=171a9a25f632cbde&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI
Published: January 2, 2007
I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces....
...remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.
I think most of us can see this day coming - indeed, it will come - as it has come to other Western nations, already.
It is fait a compli, I suppose.
However, to me at least - it is sad, disappointing and scary...
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
::c:v::
In a "verbal" debate...I'd destroy his theory!:lifter
Stay safe.
Karl.Masters
06-17-2007, 12:51
So if I have this right, GEN Shali is advocating that gays should be allowed to serve openly because he had a few meetings, decided that "that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers", and backstops the position with:
"This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems."
Well GEN Shali, the problem with this policy is not just at the "peer" level.
I wonder how many company commanders and first sergeants he interviewed, and how many were represented in the poll. At a sample size of roughly 0.001 of the Army, probably not many.
Implementation of this policy by those charged with maintaining "good order and discipline" at the company level may bring with it a few challenges.
The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy briefed well at senior levels and inside the beltway, but was and is a nightmare for those at the tip of the UCMJ spear at the company level.
There is a lot more homework that needs to be done here.
A good place to start would be the HQDA Inspector General's report on the command climate at Fort Campbell in the aftermath of the death of PFC Barry Winchell on 5 July 1999.
There are good reasons for UCMJ restrictions on sex, religion, and politics.
One of the best is keeping the services, through the maintenance of good order and discipline, focused on preparing for and executing combat operations in support of national objectives.
He’s a JAFO following in the footsteps of Wesley Clark.
Probably trying to set himself up for a VP spot on the 2008 Dem ticket.
Well he can't do that...He was born in Warsaw, Poland to Georgian parents.
The Reaper
06-17-2007, 18:17
Well, I am sure that a former GO interacts with gays a lot different from a guy who involuntarily has one for a roommate in the barracks.
Nothing like having an few new members of the squad who happen to be meatgazers as well.:rolleyes:
Has anyone seen that many gays beating the doors down to join the military? The thousands discharged every year that they base the claims on tend to be new enlistees looking for a quick and non-punitive way out. I suspect that more than 90% of them lose their newfound orientation and are completely cured by the time the signature on the Chapter paperwork is dry.
I would expect sexual harrassment and discrimination complaints to increase tenfold with the implementation of this policy.
TR
I would expect sexual harrassment and discrimination complaints to increase tenfold with the implementation of this policy.
TRAs a man! Any inappropiate "sexual" advances made (by a man) towards ME...will be met with a "stern" verbal warning the first time....
If he does it again.:confused: I'm being brought up on assault/battery charges.
Stay safe.
Sionnach
06-18-2007, 11:26
I will not elaborate, but a homosexual in the barracks is bad for morale. GEN Shalikashvili doesn't have a clue.
But what would I know? I was just a "dumb" EM who lived in the barracks, and obviously do not have the breadth of social knowledge and experience the General has. Maybe the "General Officer Barracks" are a different place.
Ranger Luna
06-21-2007, 08:52
As a man! Any inappropiate "sexual" advances made (by a man) towards ME...will be met with a "stern" verbal warning the first time....
If he does it again.:confused: I'm being brought up on assault/battery charges.
Stay safe.
:munchin bingo.
What straight guy would want to room with an openly gayish faggot? Would they let two flamers room together?
This is stupid and will cause more trouble than it's worth.:boohoo
BMT (RIP)
06-21-2007, 09:21
Like I hav said before, we had 16 queers in the same platoon At Gordon. Worst Platoon in the Co. till the queers were exposed and moved into the dayroom. ;-))
BMT
Ranger Luna
06-21-2007, 10:42
we had 16 queers in the same platoon
WOW:eek: Holy shit......
WOW:eek: Holy shit......
no......just well packed!:D
From my experience, the "openly" gay soldiers in the Israeli army are those working desk jobs. They would not survive in a combat unit if it were known. I am liberal, in that I don't care if you are gay or not. But, I really believe it does not work well in a combat unit.
Brothers in arms are "brothers" not lovers!
Shali was/is a Clinton butt-boy.. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he and Wes Clark were sharing a bed..
Self-serving sons-a-bitches that they are..
no......just well packed!:D
roflmao
xDD
I have gotten into numerous arguments with people who believe homosexuals should be allowed in the military, what I tell them is: "what would you rather have, a straight man covering you, or a gay man checking out how your butt is proportioned?"
I was the only one talking agaisnt the cause on that matter, (anti racism thing last year full of "hippies").
Ello
Hell no! We already waste enough time with EO/Sexual Harrassment classes, we'll have to have a "So you're roommate/squadmate is a butt pirate" class. I couldn't support an article 15 for one of my Soldiers beating up a gay Soldier. The poll data sounds like bullshit. There are well over 500 Soldiers in my battalion, there's no way 3/4 of them would support openly gay Soldiers in the unit (and most of my battalion is mechanics and transporters). I think someone skewed the data to support their point.
theditchdoctor
06-24-2007, 18:48
I will not elaborate, but a homosexual in the barracks is bad for morale. GEN Shalikashvili doesn't have a clue.
But what would I know? I was just a "dumb" EM who lived in the barracks, and obviously do not have the breadth of social knowledge and experience the General has. Maybe the "General Officer Barracks" are a different place.
I happen to agree with the person who point out the pitifully small percentage of military members represented by the survey. The survey lacks any semblance of statistical power in any definition of the term.
BTW, Sionnach, I like your avatar. Especially the part about punching hippies. ;)
I happen to agree with the person who point out the pitifully small percentage of military members represented by the survey. The survey lacks any semblance of statistical power in any definition of the term.
BTW, Sionnach, I like your avatar. Especially the part about punching hippies. ;)
Chances are they purposely chose to poll units or MOSs that are the furthest away from combat arms, ie cooks, mechanics, etc...
In my battalion (before the reorganization) there were many gays, but they all held a 98 series.....
I was listening to Rush limbaugh yesterday and he was discussing the Republican presidential interviews on CNN.
There was apparently a democratic plant, a retired brigadeer general from California who was reportedly sf qualifed, asking questions about gays in the military. He came out openly after retiring from the military.
I forget the general's name.
Does anyone know who I am talking about.
clapdoc sends.
Team Sergeant
11-30-2007, 18:24
It would seem he's a "plant" and is full of bullshit, a complete fraud. Way to go cnn.
The Questionable Credentials Of Retired “Brigadier General” Keith Kerr
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/the-questionable-credentials-of-retired-brigadier-general-keith-kerr/
Brigadier General Keith Kerr
His principal assignments were with the 228th Military Intelligence Detachment (Division), Company B, 12th Special Forces, the 91st Maneuver Training Command, the 351st Civil Affairs Command, the 419th Military Intelligence Detachment (Strategic), and the 221st Military Police Brigade. He also was on the staff and faculty of the Sixth US Army Intelligence School (6A ITAAS).
So far, no records of the “General” have been found.
Nick: “Kerr is not coming up on any databases that will verify his association as a member of any active or deactivated (12th group) Special Forces unit, however, there are some very old associated units that were awarded the tab that require a paper search that I am told take at least two days to search. This is already underway but I am told it is very unlikely he will be found among them.
Mr Kerr is also not listed under the DOD’s Military Finder Database. What this tells us is that Mr Kerr was NEVER a member of an Active Duty Federally Recognized Military Component. This means the biggest story may well be his claim of duty as an enlisted man, but, the Military finder is not perfect, so time will tell”.
More from the bio:
He retired from the U. S. Army Reserve in 1986 with the rank of Colonel and was commissioned in the California State Military Reserve (California National Guard) on 15 March 1986, where his assignments were Inspector General and later, Chief of Staff. He was appointed Commanding General, Northern Area Command, CSMR, with headquarters at Alameda Naval Supply Depot, Alameda, CA and promoted to Brigadier General on 21 February 1991. He held this position until reassigned to State Headquarters on 31 July 1995. General Kerr retired on 1 June 1996 after 43 years of service to the United States and the State of California.
Ret10Echo
11-30-2007, 20:11
It would seem he's a "plant" and is full of bullshit, a complete fraud. Way to go cnn.
Well at least CNN was nice enough to pay his airfare to the debate site....
Scimitar
11-30-2007, 20:33
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people.
I just thought I’d point out the wording here.
I don't mind interacting with 'gay' people either, my last boss was gay, was he flaming? No. Did he push his agenda? No. Did I have to live in close quarters with him? No. Did I have to sleep in a fox hole with him? No.
I'd like to see the questionnaire; I think we are all aware of how 'perfect' a science Polling is.
“Interacting” = “Ambiguity”
out
Edited for correction thanks PSM
I just thought I’d point out the wording here.
I don't mind interacting with guy people either, my last boss was guy, was he flaming? No.
I confess! I'm a GUY person. My last boss was a guy person. Was he flaming? Yes! I, too, am a flaming guy person. (Well, at least my wife thinks I'm hot.) :D
Pat
Remington Raidr
12-01-2007, 00:51
Here is a thought. Give the batt boys back the black beret back, and give RA soldiers a pink beret. Higher profile . . . NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.:)
LibraryLady
12-01-2007, 16:01
I will not elaborate, but a homosexual in the barracks is bad for morale. GEN Shalikashvili doesn't have a clue.
But what would I know? I was just a "dumb" EM who lived in the barracks, and obviously do not have the breadth of social knowledge and experience the General has. Maybe the "General Officer Barracks" are a different place.
:munchin bingo.
What straight guy would want to room with an openly gayish faggot? Would they let two flamers room together?
This is stupid and will cause more trouble than it's worth.:boohoo
I missed this thread the first time around...
From a female vet perspective, I encountered definite morale issues living in barracks with lesbians. I dealt with it in Basic and two different permanent duty stations.
LL
CosaNostraUSMC
12-01-2007, 21:28
Excuse this jarhead for his, lack of tact and originality, but...
... f**cking queers.:boohoo
BMT (RIP)
12-02-2007, 04:23
You ain't seen nothin' until you see what 16 queers do to a 46 man platoon.
BMT
The Reaper
12-02-2007, 09:11
Gives a new meaning to "I got your Six".:D
I believe that your average civilian (and maybe some branches of the military) who has an opinion about this has absolutely no idea what the military, especially combat arms does for a living, and how they live in garrison, or a combat zone.
Having been in the military in all-male units, I have had some interesting discussions with counterparts in units with both male and female soldiers about some of the interesting situations late teen and early twenty-something kids can get into with a member of the opposite gender, many resulting in career-ending UCMJ actions. I can only imagine what would happen with a couple of other orientations thrown into the mix, with concerns about gay-straight interactions, and the same orientation (gay on gay) problems as the little relationship problems play out.
I cannot think that mixing in another sexual-orientation among young troops living in close proximity and sharing single-gender hygiene facilities is going to add more troops than we would lose every year through sexual misconduct and increased HIV infections.
The majority of all "gay" discharges in the military are enlisted soldiers in Basic Training (mostly AF), who have decided that the military is not for them and are trying to get out without a punitive discharge. By discovering their "gay identity", they are quickly discharged honorably with no negative personnel actions.
TR
monsterhunter
12-02-2007, 09:29
It's a bad mix. That's all there is to it.
An old service buddy of mine was in a two-man dorm room during a phase of advanced training. His roommate offered him oral sex. My friend had to go find other accommodations for the night until this guy could be moved out.
There's a reason why we don't have co-ed bathrooms and barracks. But it's easier to draw the line between male and female. How is anyone supposed to house gays? Who do you put together to keep things neutral and maintain focus on the job?
The long cultural war. Get into their minds before they become soldiers / leaders.....then the move into the military will be a snap!
Philadelphia Boy Scouts Face Eviction Over Anti-Gay Policy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314570,00.html
...general millyvanilly sounds like his private sector job is "corporate apple polisher."
So is general shallwehavechili saying that in only 14 short years our culture has "evolved" to the point where we can finally accept a dick sucker for who he really is?
Who knew... I fully expected it to take every bit of 17 years.
jackass
I'd have a lot more respect for the majority of these retired General Officers who suddenly have a blinding flash of the obvious - AFTER they retire - if they had the cajones to say what they feel while still in uniform.
Personally, I think that's part of the problem with SF being over-run by our brothers at Pope and Camp Lejeune. We don't have a guy at the top still in uniform with the nads to say what needs to be said, like we did when COL Yarborough and COL Bank (RIP Sirs) were in uniform.
As far as gays in the military.. it sure would change things in that hide site that you're stuck in for a week.. :eek:
As far as gays in the military.. it sure would change things in that hide site that you're stuck in for a week.. :eek:
Yeah, especially if they kept "coming out":D
BMT (RIP)
12-04-2007, 10:58
The hide site might be more interesting with a member of Hillary's "AMAZON PARACHUTE INF BN"!! Henceforth known as "APIB".
:D
BMT
I dont know how to use the quote function, but QP Guy took the words right out of my mouth ;)
I work in a city adjacent to San Francisco on a construction site. Employment is available for gays like you wouldn't believe...
"You don't see them knocking on my door for work!":eek::confused:
Gays are a minority pushing an agenda that benefits gays...NO ONE ELSE!
Stay safe.
Scimitar
12-05-2007, 11:57
Guy, I couldn't have said it better myself.
We had an issue in the home country a while back, where Gay Pride groups where actively recruiting young men and women.
Some kids a bit lost, got no dad, maybe struggling with his identity a bit, these groups would take them 'under their wing' in Gay youth groups!
What really pisses me off is when they compare their 'battle' with the Black Civil Rights movement in the 60's / 70's.
Where the hell do they get off comparing it that! :mad:
Rant over.
Scimitar
12-05-2007, 12:04
Interesting article, looks like the Gay agenda Lobbying machine is revving up for the elections.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157385,00.html
Does this mean there will now be an 18Q MOSC - SF Fatboy - to service the ODA during lengthy deployments? :D
Richard
The Reaper
12-05-2007, 20:06
To illustrate a point....
Backdoored by a gay chaplain with the HIV.
TR
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/12/marine_chaplain_hiv_071204w/
Lawyer: Priest will plead guilty to sex charges
By Andrew Tilghman and Chris Amos - Staff writers
Posted : Wednesday Dec 5, 2007 20:54:49 EST
An HIV-positive Catholic Navy chaplain plans to plead guilty Thursday to charges involving sexual misconduct with an unspecified number of men, according to his attorney, who said the priest has known of his HIV status for more than two years.
The chaplain, Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Matthew Lee, 42, is facing a general court-martial in Quantico, Va. He had been charged with sodomy, aggravated assault, indecent assault, fraternization and conduct unbecoming a military officer, according to a Marine Corps statement. His attorney, David Sheldon, said Lee will plead guilty to “many” of those charges, but would not say which. Three witnesses will testify Thursday, he said.
Marine officials refused to release Lee’s charge sheet, which typically would give the number of specifications, explain why he is being charged and how much jail time he faces if convicted.
Neither Sheldon nor the Corps offered any details regarding the victims in the case. Sources said the sexual partners in question are all men.
I remember when the 7th Group Cdr and CSM were doing an unannounced walk through of our billets and found the Jr Medic on Walt Shumate's Team bending some guy from the Svc Bn over the end of a bunk and putting it to him. When told about it, Walt's response was that at least it was his guy who was doing the porking. We all gave Walt a lot of ribbing for that one for a long time! :D
Richard
In the restaurant industry, it is all most impossible not to incounter gay employees, of both sexes…the maintenance of such employees is difficult. The drama, the bullshit, and the constant weeding out of the overtly gay in the work place is a delicate manner = lawsuit. That being said, and with generational experience in the business and in the military, there is NO place in the service; particularly in line units, for those individuals. The distraction is unnecessary, and politically (election year) motivated.
Are there good conscientious well mannered proper gay employees? Yes.
Do they work well with others? Yes, to a point; and then you, as the employer, must be accommodating. And that’s were the issues lie. There can be no accommodation in the military. Order is the drill.
What really pisses me off is when they compare their 'battle' with the Black Civil Rights movement in the 60's / 70's.
Where the hell do they get off comparing it that! :mad:
Rant over.I've heard and read the same thing for some time now. I've always countered theory/ rhetoric by simply...
Lining several men up from different "ethnic" backgrounds and have people describe them...
Not one time has "gay" been mentioned in the description.....:munchin
Stay safe.
I read an article somewhere, I think in the Army Times, about a soldier who admitted to being gay, and provided proof to his CO. From what I remember of this article he stated his CO said he wasn't going to punish him, and then I think he went on leave.
Just wondering if anyone else saw this article, and has heard anything else about it.
The Reaper
01-26-2008, 18:32
I read an article somewhere, I think in the Army Times, about a soldier who admitted to being gay, and provided proof to his CO. From what I remember of this article he stated his CO said he wasn't going to punish him, and then I think he went on leave.
Just wondering if anyone else saw this article, and has heard anything else about it.
Saw it, looked like a one-sided hatchet job by the reporter, and the troop was trying to get out of a deployment.
I am sure that if they really checked, many of the recent claims are troops trying to get out of the service and their oaths in a non-punitive manner.
TR
Saw it, looked like a one-sided hatchet job by the reporter, and the troop was trying to get out of a deployment.
I am sure that if they really checked, many of the recent claims are troops trying to get out of the service and their oaths in a non-punitive manner.
TR
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206
This hero, Finkenbinder, was in my battalion in B Co. He did the same thing. He wrote a letter to his CO trying to get out of the up coming deployment. The CO said no deal. So Finkenbinder sent the letter to the CG. He was tossed.
But he turned around and "sold" his story of being kicked out due to being gay and that he "wanted to stay and help" to the MSM... :mad:
i was at campbell when that incident happened with the gay soldier getting killed.
once that happened, guys in the unit were telling the CO they were gay or bi.
since all of the publicity they were out of the army within a week.
i'd say most of them used it as an easy excuse to just get out of their committment.
82ndtrooper
01-27-2008, 12:15
I remember when the 7th Group Cdr and CSM were doing an unannounced walk through of our billets and found the Jr Medic on Walt Shumate's Team bending some guy from the Svc Bn over the end of a bunk and putting it to him. When told about it, Walt's response was that at least it was his guy who was doing the porking. We all gave Walt a lot of ribbing for that one for a long time! :D
Richard
Good God! :eek:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-dontask24-2008jul24,0,1545463.story
Watching some of the House Armed Services subcommittee discussing this on C-Span today.
Clearly support of eliminating the current policy or any ban on gays is strongly coming from the Democrats.
Elaine Donnelly made some very good points, among them that while a small percentage (I believe 23 percent) of military polled support lifting the ban 69 percent support a ban on gays. That what would be the policy of investigating sexual harassment and misconduct involving homosexuality. Would it follow the guidelines of female against male and vice versa, or would it lay suspicion of intolerance against the accuser.
While the posted LA Times article mentions Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva who is gay and supports eliminating the current policy, it did not mention Sergeant Major USA (Ret) Brian Jones, Ranger and SOC, who supports a ban on gays in the military.
The Democrats didn't hesitate to interrupt or reclaim their time when remarks were being made that didn't go in their favor.
Evidently Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) believes there is a strong comparison between military showering and co-habitation, and congressional and diplomatic co-habitation and facilities overseas.
http://tank.nationalreview.com/
"Then Truman said something that surprised his listeners and gave them hope that the plight of black people would improve under his presidency: "It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our efforts to guarantee a freedom and equality for all our citizens. And when I say all Americans, I mean all Americans."
"Although top white brass, including Army Gen. Omar Bradley, opposed desegregating the armed services — with Bradley declaring that the armed services had no business engaging in "social experiments" — Truman moved ahead.
When the United States left Korea in 1953, most units had desegregated. All had done so by 1965.
Today, the U.S. military is a model of racial integration. Tens of thousands of blacks have made the armed services their careers and have risen to high ranks, with Colin Powell becoming the nation's first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "
The entire article can be found at
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article735675.ece
"Then Truman said something that surprised his listeners and gave them hope that the plight of black people would improve under his presidency: "It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our efforts to guarantee a freedom and equality for all our citizens. And when I say all Americans, I mean all Americans."
"Although top white brass, including Army Gen. Omar Bradley, opposed desegregating the armed services — with Bradley declaring that the armed services had no business engaging in "social experiments" — Truman moved ahead.
When the United States left Korea in 1953, most units had desegregated. All had done so by 1965.
Today, the U.S. military is a model of racial integration. Tens of thousands of blacks have made the armed services their careers and have risen to high ranks, with Colin Powell becoming the nation's first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "
The entire article can be found at
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article735675.eceDid you catch this earlier in this thread?
I've heard and read the same thing for some time now. I've always countered this theory and/or rhetoric by simply...
Lining several men up from different "ethnic" backgrounds and have people describe them...
Not one time has "GAY!" been mentioned in the description.....:munchinStay safe.
Ret10Echo
07-28-2008, 05:50
Did you catch this earlier in this thread?
Stay safe.
Originally Posted by Guy
I've heard and read the same thing for some time now. I've always countered this theory and/or rhetoric by simply...
Lining several men up from different "ethnic" backgrounds and have people describe them...
Not one time has "GAY!" been mentioned in the description......
You are not supposed to notice that, you obviously have not been drinking all of your Kool-Aide....:eek:
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-28-2008, 14:31
I want to have all those that support gays in the military to be the first to lie side by side with a gay person while they are performing a cutdown and dumping his/her blood into theirs. There are very practical reason why I do not want to see gays on the battlefield nor anywhere else where the threat of human bodily fluids are flying, exchanged, or are likely to be exposed. I believe that I mentioned this before, but I have served with gay troops and did not know it, but I also felt very uneasy about the situation that I did not know it after they had died of AIDS and I had exposed other troops to that threat during times teams were working on perfecting various medical techniques such as performing IVs on one another. I do not accept don't ask don't tell as an omission of that fact means I cannot trust you to be up front and honest with me on anything else. And while we seem to have a SecDef who thinks we need to forget about the big wars and concentrate on asymetric foes and insurgencies I would like to point out that there is no MOS that is not at risk in the theater of operations. That is as simple as I can make it.
You are not supposed to notice that, you obviously have not been drinking all of your Kool-Aide....:eek:I'm not a Jim Jones follower...:D