PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about DADT?


Pages : [1] 2

RichL025
12-18-2010, 15:47
Just curious what the breakout of opinion is here. The military I'm currently surrounded by is much more liberal than the rest of the armed forces, so when I talk with my peers about this I'm sure I don't hear what the muddy-boots perspective is.

Edit: For the sake of fairness, assume that all current military laws about sexual harassment and fraternization will be enforced equally despite the sex of the members involved (I realize that's a whole separate discussion)

T-Rock
12-18-2010, 15:53
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” -Aristotle

ryno
12-18-2010, 16:01
I find it funny that there are many people who have never served and never intend to serve weighing in on this debate. I find it even funnier that Congress ignored the Joint Chiefs. Personally, I feel they should offer any of us that have a problem with DADT's repeal an immediate honorable discharge. I would love to see how many empty slots they would need to fill.

Pete
12-18-2010, 16:11
........Edit: For the sake of fairness, assume that all current military laws about sexual harassment and fraternization will be enforced equally despite the sex of the members involved (I realize that's a whole separate discussion)

Never happen. Gays are now a protected minority in the Military.

Best way to "fight" it is when they start asking who's gay and everyone check 'I am".

Paslode
12-18-2010, 16:36
Edit: For the sake of fairness, assume that all current military laws about sexual harassment and fraternization will be enforced equally despite the sex of the members involved (I realize that's a whole separate discussion)

The dumb f@%ks in DC opened a whole new can of worms and all you straight guys will be now be privileged to a new form of sexual harassment, like I and others I know have run into while working for Homo's.

Be prepared to be Gayzed at and for attempts to entice you to 'The Other side'.


The Military better get busy writing up a whole new rule book for Code of Conduct!

wet dog
12-18-2010, 17:01
Sergeant Major, we have a report of an injured soldier.

What happened?

GSW, an ODA up north.

Really?

Ya!

Who was it?

John?

John who?

John Jones, SGT.

We have three Jones, all Sergeants. We have John H. Jones, E5, a John B. Jones, E6, and a John J. Jones, E7.

It's, ....wait.....

John H. Jones.

Is he the, .....the one?

Rumors, maybe. Cpl Smith filed a "Do Not Touch, Do Not Tell" complaint against John H., but his Supervisor, John B. has not forwarded it to you, as of the time of the GSW.

Shit, well,....what does the onsite medic say?

Doc Anderson wants to know if John H., is gay.

How did this start?

It appears, John H. touched once more the pecker of Cpl Smith, and well, Cpl Smith shot John H in the chest with an M4, sighting "emotional something, blah, blah, blah".

Understandable.

Sergeant Major, what do you want me to tell Doc Anderson?

Tell Doc Anderson, the situation looks bad for John H., and call the school house telling them we need another 18X graduate.

Eagle5US
12-18-2010, 17:09
It doesn't matter what any of US think...

The longer I serve, the more this is demonstrated to me.

Eagle

Jgood
12-18-2010, 17:18
Oh what fun social experiments again..I know we cant get the general public to support the gays so lets force the military to they can complain.

mangler
12-18-2010, 17:26
I can see it now. Every last piece of porn will now be banned from squad bays as someone will complain about Cpl. Corn's gay porn.:munchin

plato
12-18-2010, 17:30
Well, at lest in "my day" when the drill sergeant yelled "Vertical Butt Stroke", I knew what I was supposed to do :rolleyes:

Richard
12-18-2010, 17:38
Let me understand this.

People are upset with Congress because they're thought to be out of touch with what the voters really want.

Polls show that generally 2/3 of the voters support the overturning of DADT.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/Support-Repealing-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.aspx

DOD studies show that the military force's opinions on the topic generally (with some caveats) parallel those of national public opinion polls and that a phased in implementing of the repeal is quite manageable.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/

Congress finally does what polls show people want and the DOD says it can manage.

People are now upset with Congress because they're in touch with what the voters claim they wanted.

Personally, I don't fully understand why anybody would seek to be an elected representative for such a body politic. :confused:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Tree Potato
12-18-2010, 17:42
Unfortunately at this point what us military members think on this issue no longer matters. We had a chance to quietly voice our opinions through our focus groups, surveys, and other such forums, and we've had time to write our Congressional leaders. The decision is being made, and regardless of our distaste the only option is to salute and execute a lawful order when it comes, and separate when eligible if it's that troublesome.

Paslode
12-18-2010, 18:13
Let me understand this.

People are upset with Congress because they're thought to be out of touch with what the voters really want.

Polls show that generally 2/3 of the voters support the overturning of DADT.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/Support-Repealing-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.aspx

DOD studies show that the military force's opinions on the topic generally (with some caveats) parallel those of national public opinion polls and that a phased in implementing of the repeal is quite manageable.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/

Congress finally does what polls show people want and the DOD says it can manage.

People are now upset with Congress because they're in touch with what the voters claim they wanted.

Personally, I don't fully understand why anybody would seek to be an elected representative for such a body politic. :confused:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin


Personally I believe polls are skewed by the questions asked. A plain and simple vote by the masses as proven in California show the opposite of the polls and that is what I would trust...Should homosexual be allowed to marry...but the courts don't side with the People that they were built to serve, as shown in California.

I don't trust agenda driven mandates of the Elites in DC. A simple vote from those that that serve would have answered the question...IMO.

Eagle5US
12-18-2010, 18:18
Let me understand this.

People are upset with Congress because they're thought to be out of touch with what the voters really want.

Polls show that generally 2/3 of the voters support the overturning of DADT.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/Support-Repealing-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.aspx

DOD studies show that the military force's opinions on the topic generally (with some caveats) parallel those of national public opinion polls and that a phased in implementing of the repeal is quite manageable.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/

Congress finally does what polls show people want and the DOD says it can manage.

People are now upset with Congress because they're in touch with what the voters claim they wanted.

Personally, I don't fully understand why anybody would seek to be an elected representative for such a body politic. :confused:

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin
Not entirely true Richard - and you know this.

You are failing to mention that the population that DOD provided the DADT repeal "survey" to...the vast majority were support troops. Support troops where diversity is celebrated with parties, recognition, special contests to see "who is the bestest" at whatever their chosen EO subject matter may be. I have no doubt that it was purposely done in exactly this way...in order to support that very agenda.

Truth be told, 60% of the COMBAT troops polled were heavily against the repeal. 60% of those FIGHTING without the benefit of Salsa night, Neon bowling night, BK and Daily Green Beans needing a nutritionist on site because of the 5 cubes (as in 3 dimensional) vs the old 3 squares of CHOW each day served at the Liberty / Kandahar / Bagram DFAC followed by an hour long body massage by Helga.
The fighting force told their Commanders, who told their CG's, who told the Joint Chiefs...that this is a distraction. The USMC Chief went as far as to say that he didn't want this to be the reason he was visiting Marines in hospital missing limbs or worse...dead.
60% Richard...of those doing the FIGHTING. And ADM Mullen took the Political Route.
And we will now suffer the consequences.

As a matter if fact - regarding the combat troops POV:
"The study suggests an “abundance of care and preparation” is needed before changing personnel policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday. But he told reporters the concerns expressed by combat troops “do not present an insurmountable barrier to successful repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.”‘"

Tree Potato
12-18-2010, 18:55
Truth be told, 60% of the COMBAT troops polled were heavily against the repeal. 60% of those FIGHTING without the benefit of Salsa night, Neon bowling night, BK and Daily Green Beans needing a nutritionist on site because of the 5 cubes (as in 3 dimensional) vs the old 3 squares of CHOW each day served at the Liberty / Kandahar / Bagram DFAC followed by an hour long body massage by Helga.


Amen, bro. This isn't about ensuring effective and cohesive combat units, it's about a political agenda. To those pushing the agenda it's more important than the lives of our warriors.

BTW, I don't recall ever seeing a Helga at Liberty... Filipino's Ina, Angel, and Isabel yes, but no Helga. You also kindly failed to mention the Safety sign "no drinking by the pool" at the Embassy, and the bowls of free condoms set out in the TMC's, despite GO-1 prohibiting both... no mixed signals there. :rolleyes:
We apparently can't keep troops from breaking the rules and drinking and sexing it up in theater. Logically, we shouldn't expect any different from the gays in the ranks either; there will be some breaking the rules in dramatic ways, it's just a matter of time.

trvlr
12-18-2010, 19:28
I can see it now. Every last piece of porn will now be banned from squad bays as someone will complain about Cpl. Corn's gay porn.:munchin

It already is "banned" on paper.

I think that most of the "homosexuals" going to combat units will exercise a lot more common sense than people give them credit for. Nobody likes being rolled up in a sleeping back and thrown off the third floor (Fort Campbell, don't remember the date.)

Fear and a desire to prove that they can operate will probably net us a lot of highspeed soldiers, early on at least. Combat units will adapt to this. I'd be more worried about general soldier standards like "passing a PT test" or "not having diabetes as a 19 year old" rather that who Cpl. Corn has sex with.

It's a huge can of worms, but we don't have 20 divisions anymore, and lets be honest, I can't speak for SF, but most of us have already served in units with gays.

Eagle5US
12-18-2010, 20:22
It already is "banned" on paper.

I think that most of the "homosexuals" going to combat units will exercise a lot more common sense than people give them credit for. Nobody likes being rolled up in a sleeping back and thrown off the third floor (Fort Campbell, don't remember the date.)

Fear and a desire to prove that they can operate will probably net us a lot of highspeed soldiers, early on at least. Combat units will adapt to this. I'd be more worried about general soldier standards like "passing a PT test" or "not having diabetes as a 19 year old" rather that who Cpl. Corn has sex with.

It's a huge can of worms, but we don't have 20 divisions anymore, and lets be honest, I can't speak for SF, but most of us have already served in units with gays.
The above population is not the one that has the agenda. Those who were "quietly breaking the rules in order to serve" and meeting / exceeding the standard are not the ones that will seek to be accommodated / protected / or otherwise recognized for their sexual orientation. They will, IMHO, breath a quiet sigh of relief that they no longer have to worry about getting "caught" or "outed" by someone outside their common circle who may care that they were not in compliance with policy / reg / etc.

No doubt there will be issues, too, if there are a couple of "hot chicks" that all the straight guys want to watch "make out" getting away with it, while the dudes get their asses beat or counseled for their "public displays of affection"...:rolleyes:

The Reaper
12-18-2010, 21:21
Fear and a desire to prove that they can operate will probably net us a lot of highspeed soldiers, early on at least.

You have got to be shitting me.

What do you know about high-speed soldiers?

Do you think there is some gay version of SF out there, and all their members needed was permission from Congress to join?

TR

trvlr
12-18-2010, 21:40
You have got to be shitting me.

What do you know about high-speed soldiers?

Do you think there is some gay version of SF out there, and all their members needed was permission from Congress to join?

TR

No, not at all. High-speed in the context of my unit is: I do very well on my PT test, I accomplish tasks quickly and above the basic standard, my uniform is clean and serviceable, I have internalized and live the Army Values. Most soldiers in my BDE do not fit that bill. I'm 100% sure at least some of the soldiers that come in will.

At USMA the highspeed standard was maxing the pt test, excelling in summer assignments, strac uniform, internalizing/living the Honor Code, and a high GPA. Do I know two gay guys that met that standard, and continue to exceed the army status quo? Yes.

We're going to get more slobs, more EO trolls, and people who want to join to 'make a statement,' but we're going to get good troops as well. Like I said, I can't speak for SF, but in regular army land there is a dearth of good troops.

J8127
12-18-2010, 21:41
Do you think there is some gay version of SF out there


AF Security Forces... (Couldn't stop myself)

I am against the clusterfuck this whole situation has become, I am against doing this right now, I am against giving two shits what armchair commandos thinks, but I DO think gays should be allowed to serve openly, because ideally (which I realize is not reality) any of the foreseen issues would be controlled by standards already in place. Speaking of standards, and the master plan that will never come true, I think their needs to be one standard across the board for our military. One PT test, One uniform, One set of regulations that applies to every man, woman, tranny, hetero, homo, and whatever else that signs up.

Sexual Harassment is already illegal, gay or straight.

Unprofessional conduct gets dealt with by smoke sessions, paperwork, and discharges.

Being a flaming cry-baby victim is another problem soldier that may come up, but they should be dealt with like every needle user, fat ass, or general dirtbag should be getting dealt with.

trvlr
12-18-2010, 21:47
The above population is not the one that has the agenda. Those who were "quietly breaking the rules in order to serve" and meeting / exceeding the standard are not the ones that will seek to be accommodated / protected / or otherwise recognized for their sexual orientation. They will, IMHO, breath a quiet sigh of relief that they no longer have to worry about getting "caught" or "outed" by someone outside their common circle who may care that they were not in compliance with policy / reg / etc.

No doubt there will be issues, too, if there are a couple of "hot chicks" that all the straight guys want to watch "make out" getting away with it, while the dudes get their asses beat or counseled for their "public displays of affection"...:rolleyes:

I agree with both statements. I think the most dangerous side affect would be the veteran soldiers that leave because of the soldiers that joined to push the homosexual agenda.

wet dog
12-18-2010, 22:06
I agree with both statements. I think the most dangerous side affect would be the veteran soldiers that leave because of the soldiers that joined to push the homosexual agenda.

In 500 years, the elite soldier will be a new version of the old Greek Army Boys Club.

Back in the 70's/80's, the straight guy was the one who looked like he worked out.

Today, the metro-sexual gay man looks like he just left the gym. The straight guy, has three kids at McDonald's with happy meals, un-kept flannel shirt, kind of out of shape, knows how to grill baby back ribs and has a hot wife, because, well, she was left with the left overs, since all the good looking guys were, well, gay.

The Reaper
12-18-2010, 22:44
Speaking of standards, and the master plan that will never come true, I think their needs to be one standard across the board for our military. One PT test, One uniform, One set of regulations that applies to every man, woman, tranny, hetero, homo, and whatever else that signs up.

Since due to genetics, we will never get the average woman's physical strength up to the average man's, I guess we should let men's standards drop to the women's PT standards. Is that what you are advocating?

Which set of standards will apply to that transgender troop you have? Will the Army have to pay for sex changes now?

What will happen when we send gay troops to countries where that act carries the death penalty? Just in case we ever have to go to the Middle East? We made women follow cultural norms, as best they could. Will we allow the locals to stone gay service members to death, as their laws require?

Sexual Harassment is already illegal, gay or straight.

Unprofessional conduct gets dealt with by smoke sessions, paperwork, and discharges.

Being a flaming cry-baby victim is another problem soldier that may come up, but they should be dealt with like every needle user, fat ass, or general dirtbag should be getting dealt with.

Not when you are a protected species. Now they are.

A significant number of "gays" being put out of the military, was due to the fact that the easiest way to get out of military service, especially as a new recruit, was to claim you were gay. It wasn't even a punitive discharge. A large number of the recruits leaving service just opted to go that route, rather than to take a punitive discharge or to get booted. They were not gay, they just claimed to be so to get the easy way out. This led gay activists to claim that large numbers of gays were being forced out of the military, when that was not actually the case.

I think that if you are not inclined to support this new direction, it would be an excellent time to retire.

TR

T-Rock
12-18-2010, 23:22
Who would share a cup with a patient in the hospital infected with pneumocystis carinii?

How much different would sharing a cup be..., from sharing a MK-1 MOD 0 bandmask with someone who was recently infected with HIV and didn't know it?
http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know

Considering the high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men, and how easily HIV transmission has been shown to occur on say, dental instruments - would always be in the back of my mind, especially if I had to don the same hardhat worn previously by a gay man.

http://blogs.hcpro.com/osha/2010/07/possible-hiv-exposures-linked-back-to-properly-cleaning-dental-equipment/?utm_source=icwm&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=20100707

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0001877/m0001877.asp

Immediately after an exposure to HIV, there aren't any specific symptoms for the first several weeks. After two to four weeks following an exposure, flu-like symptoms such as fever, muscle aches, diarrhea, fatigue or rash may occur. During this period you are highly contagious and can easily spread the virus to others.
One and Five gay/bi men carry HIV and don't even know it:
http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know

Nose-clearing devices on various diving rigs become quite grungy towards the end of the day following sustained diving operations..., is it worth the risk?
http://aquaviews.net/scuba-diving-nosebleeds/

Truckie117
12-18-2010, 23:38
Big Brother always thinks they know what is best for us mere mortals.
Let the fun begin I have seen it all in the microcosm of the FD first Women lowering physical standards then the academic standard of the written test was lowered.
From Fireman on the ID to Fire Fighter on the ID.
Now they have sensitivity training for everyone. No berating a member after the fire because it would hurt the feelings of the member because they could not make the fire floor, take the door or make the roof.
Good Luck especially to the Officers who have to deal with all the headaches.
Not to even think of Blood-borne pathogens to think of.
Good Luck 2012 can not come fast enough.

EX-Gold Falcon
12-19-2010, 00:03
Not when you are a protected species. TR
Sir, with all due respect (and I truly mean that) referring to another human being who willing chooses to serve as a "species"; is extreme.

Far too many other "Americans" view the military and national service as either a joke or an endeavor for the ignorant. Liking gays or lesbians is not a requirement. However, anyone who willing raises his or her right hand and repeats an oath at least deserves a mediocrum of respect.


T.

P.S. Don't suppose anyone has a dozen SAPI plates I can borrow...

PSM
12-19-2010, 00:08
However, anyone who willing raises his or her right hand and repeats an oath at least deserves a mediocrum of respect.


T.



And if they serve as agents provocateurs?

Pat

trvlr
12-19-2010, 00:20
Good Luck especially to the Officers who have to deal with all the headaches.
[...]
Good Luck 2012 can not come fast enough.

Actually I think the junior NCOs will have it the worst. Officers will not have the most interaction with the majority of the new additions. That NCO that hates homosexuality will have to be extra careful because he/she'll be the one that gets crushed by the EO complaint.

What's happening in 2012? Is America going to "toughen up" because it has a new president? I doubt that.

EX-Gold Falcon
12-19-2010, 00:29
And if they serve as agents provocateurs?

Pat
What you mean like zeee Germans?!


T

J8127
12-19-2010, 01:07
Since due to genetics, we will never get the average woman's physical strength up to the average man's, I guess we should let men's standards drop to the women's PT standards. Is that what you are advocating?

Negative, I am advocating one PT standard that will ensure anyone can perform the basic combat soldiering skills that will be required of them. If I could choose from what is available today, it would be the AFSOC PT minus the swim or the Male USMC PT standards and a 12 mile ruck.

Yes, some will scream discrimination, but it is entirely equal treatment. An easier PT test for women as it stands today is special treatment.

(My fantasy land comes with the end of the kindler gentler military)

Which set of standards will apply to that transgender troop you have? Will the Army have to pay for sex changes now?

There is only one standard in this fantasy world, if you mean dress and appearance that would be between the troop and their supervisor. The military would not pay for sex changes, just as they do not pay for cosmetic (aside from a few ridiculous exceptions) surgeries today. I asked the AF to remove a mole on my neck and they told me no unless a doctor says it needs to come off for medical reasons/testing. Same thing here.

What will happen when we send gay troops to countries where that act carries the death penalty? Just in case we ever have to go to the Middle East? We made women follow cultural norms, as best they could. Will we allow the locals to stone gay service members to death, as their laws require?

What will happen is that being gay is not illegal in OUR country, will not be illegal for OUR soldiers, and OUR soldiers will follow OUR laws. Sorry sir, I think this one is a little out there. I can see why certain communities like yours would have a larger issue with this than the big military, but (my outside, unqualified opinion) I don't see an actual issue.

Not when you are a protected species. Now they are.

Also not something I am advocating, I am advocating one truly equal standard. No special treatment.

wet dog
12-19-2010, 01:07
What's happening in 2012?

For some 2012 is....

http://www.december212012.com/

http://www.december212012.com/articles/news/Personal_Seed_Bank_for_2012.htm

How can Shirley MacLaine, Jesse Ventura, Dan Aykroyd, Woody Harrelson, Janeane Garofalo and Mel Gibson be wrong? Deon Warwick could not see her own career end?


Will there be a major cataclysm in 2012? Quite possibly.

We are currently in a period of eleven years all of which have a day with the last two digits of the year repeated three times in mm/dd/yy form (or dd/mm/yy or yy/mm/dd). So May 5, 2005 was 05/05/05; June 6, 2006 will be 06/06/06; July 7, 2007 will be 07/07/07, etc.

Actually, a more significant date is December 21, 2012, as this is the end of the Mayan calendar. This will mark the end of the Piscean Age of secular materialism, and the true beginning of the Age of Aquarius, which will last for one thousand years. It is also prophesied in Revelation chapter 20 verses 1-3.

December 21, 2012 is 6 years, 6 months, 15 days from June 6, 2006, or 6/6/6 (or 2390 days)
December 21, 2012 is 7 years from December 21, 2005 (or 2557 days).
December 21, 2012 is 11 years, 3 months, 10 days from September 11, 2001 (or 4119 days)

I'm thinking the same thing will happen on Dec 21, 2012 that happened on Jan 1, 2000 - I'll get up, have a cup of coffee and consider, "Is it too warm or too cold to ski, shoot or fish?"

I'll consider it for roughly 10 minutes and then decide to do all the above.

Also betting upon my return to the house, the wood burning stove will work just fine.

Wet Dog

PSM
12-19-2010, 01:17
What you mean like zeee Germans?!


T

You answer a serious question with a silly question?

Pat

Masochist
12-19-2010, 01:36
Far too many other "Americans" view the military and national service as either a joke or an endeavor for the ignorant. Liking gays or lesbians is not a requirement. However, anyone who willing raises his or her right hand and repeats an oath at least deserves a mediocrum of respect.

As has been discussed here before, gays have been allowed to serve. Just not openly. Some have excelled at being soldiers, some have done poorly. Just as those (straight, gay or otherwise) have done before. It's when, in a profession of discipline and uniformity, you want to stand up and say, "Oooh! Oooh! Look at me, I'm special!" that it becomes an issue. And not that kind of special because you excel at your job, but one that detracts from excelling at it.

blue02hd
12-19-2010, 01:40
Sir, with all due respect (and I truly mean that) referring to another human being who willing chooses to serve as a "species"; is extreme.

Far too many other "Americans" view the military and national service as either a joke or an endeavor for the ignorant. Liking gays or lesbians is not a requirement. However, anyone who willing raises his or her right hand and repeats an oath at least deserves a mediocrum of respect.


T.

P.S. Don't suppose anyone has a dozen SAPI plates I can borrow...

Ex,,

Would you offer this same argument to the DREAM ACT, where citizenship is not required? Since you have served 4 years in the Army, you must remember that soldiers waive many rights that are constitutionally protected for civilians. "Anyone" is not needed nor required to serve in the military, but rather those that are best suited to accomplish the mission required. When did this become about individual rights? DADT preserved a delicate balance that will now be undone and a new balance will need to be found. At this time NO ONE can forecast how that new balance will appear. I appreciate your 4 years service, but I fail to see how that prepares you to speak on this subject when this in reality impacts the CMD level the hardest. Soldiers do as they are told, and they do their tasks as best they can. DADT was not an issue for those who wanted to serve, only to those who wanted to be GAY first and serve second. Sorry if the military inconvenienced your personal life choices, welcome to the club Nancy.

The logistical and UCMJ adjustments that this can of worms now opens is HUGE, for if we now have to consider a soldiers personal sexual preference as a CMD issue, then what other personal preference issues will have to be accommodated? This new direction placed by civilian leadership will now have to be directed, supported, and executed by the military leadership who just now is beginning to investigate the issues involved. "Two ongoing wars, NK and China, plus Chavez. The continuing threat from AQ, but hey wait guys, let me deep dive into this DADT issue that "could" represent an issue." Really? Did you really think this would just "happen" at the snap of the fingers? This will most likely remain what it is now, a political hot potato that a new group of politicians will leverage when it is needed to secure more votes.

And I agree with my mentors. For those who strongly disagree with this decision, retirement is always a legitimate and honorable COA.

7624U
12-19-2010, 02:46
For those who strongly disagree with this decision, retirement is always a legitimate and honorable COA.

True blue, Retirement just looks more attractive now two more years and im out.

greenberetTFS
12-19-2010, 06:47
I think that they should have issued 'Pink Berets"to all gays and lesbians............:eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

Richard
12-19-2010, 07:33
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Dusty
12-19-2010, 08:42
Well, the openly homo system worked with the military in Rome circa the time of its fall.

The Reaper
12-19-2010, 08:58
I don't think your average American, or even Congresscritter understood the evolution of the policy in the first place.

Prior to DADT, you could be investigated for suspicion of homosexuality and put out of the military if found guilty. You could be as gay as you pleased on the inside, you just had to abstain from homosexual conduct.

After DADT, the military was not allowed to pursue allegations of homosexuality unless it was overt and was brought to the attention of the chain of command. Be gay as you want, just don't get caught in the act.

Now it would appear that you can flaunt your gayness. Get ready for the transgender soldiers and the military float in your local gay pride parade. There are going to be some hilarious blotter reports from this. And the first promotion/assignment complaint because of discrimination is only months away.

TR

Richard
12-19-2010, 09:03
For those who want to know where their reps stood on the vote:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/2/votes/281/

Richard

ryno
12-19-2010, 09:51
And the first promotion/assignment complaint because of discrimination is only months away.

TR

Sir you've hit the nail on the head for anyone in a leadership position. I didn't think I'd become a dinosaur in my mid-thirties, but I guess I'm old fashioned. We're in two wars, recruiting and retention is through the roof, and we're worried about a small group who could already serve as long as they kept their private business private. Now, for a reservist like me training time is at a premium, but now we'll have to take even more time out of the training schedule for integration/sensitivity training. Seven years is all I've got left to deal with this unless they start offering early retirement.

RichL025
12-19-2010, 12:03
Well, the openly homo system worked with the military in Rome circa the time of its fall.


Specious argument.

It also worked well in classical greece at the time 300 Spartans held off the Persian Hordes at the Hot Gates.

It worked well when Alexander the Great's army conquered the entire "known" world., and when Xenophon led the 10,000 on their epic retreat back from betrayal in the Indus valley ("the Anabasis").

Let's be real - the problem is not with homosexuals, it is with society's reaction to homosexuals.

Pete
12-19-2010, 12:41
Specious argument.

It also worked well in classical greece at the time 300 Spartans held off the Persian Hordes at the Hot Gates.

It worked well when Alexander the Great's army conquered the entire "known" world., and when Xenophon led the 10,000 on their epic retreat back from betrayal in the Indus valley ("the Anabasis").

Let's be real - the problem is not with homosexuals, it is with society's reaction to homosexuals.

Not so - your examples have one thing in common. They are empires thrown into the dustbin of history.

Empires rise and fall. Most declines are caused by similar social reasons. Rome did not fall in a day - took a couple of hundred years.

So the question about DADT repeal is "Is it helping us up or helping us down?"

Dusty
12-19-2010, 12:58
Not so - your examples have one thing in common. They are empires thrown into the dustbin of history.

Empires rise and fall. Most declines are caused by similar social reasons. Rome did not fall in a day - took a couple of hundred years.

So the question about DADT repeal is "Is it helping us up or helping us down?"

And the answer (down) will be painfully obvious within the year, IMO.

ryno
12-19-2010, 13:16
Why is it when anyone brings up Thermopylae they neglect to mention the 300 Spartans were only a small percentage of the thousands of Greek troops there? Anyway, as far as ancient Greece went, it wasn't so much homosexuality as it was pederasty or what we would call child molestation. The whole argument is irrelevant anyway as Greece was never as great as the GREEK historians recalled, just as Rome was not as great as the ROMAN historians recalled. All of it is irrelevant when comparing it to our military today.
I personally do not want to share cramped quarters with or shower with anyone who is openly homosexual. Just as a vast majority of females I've served with did not want to shower with me (no matter how big my ego was).

Dusty
12-19-2010, 13:32
No matter the opposing argument, I can't seem to gin up a vision of a flameboy on a Team.

Paslode
12-19-2010, 14:00
Why is it when anyone brings up Thermopylae they neglect to mention the 300 Spartans were only a small percentage of the thousands of Greek troops there? Anyway, as far as ancient Greece went, it wasn't so much homosexuality as it was pederasty or what we would call child molestation. The whole argument is irrelevant anyway as Greece was never as great as the GREEK historians recalled, just as Rome was not as great as the ROMAN historians recalled. All of it is irrelevant when comparing it to our military today.
I personally do not want to share cramped quarters with or shower with anyone who is openly homosexual. Just as a vast majority of females I've served with did not want to shower with me (no matter how big my ego was).


Pederasty (we refer to as Pedophilia) brings up an interesting point for those that wish use homosexuality as a positive or mute point in that the Spartans were openly gay or bi-sexual.

How would you feel if NAMBLA members were allowed to serve openly in the Military.....I mean it is only Pederasty and beside the Spartans did it :rolleyes:

So if the Homosexuals have the right to equal protection and equal rights........why not NAMBLA? They do have a lobbying group you know...




Wasn't Tony Curtis a victim of Pederasty in Sparticus.....or was that just a homosexual act with a slave boy???

wet dog
12-19-2010, 14:52
Not so - your examples have one thing in common. They are empires thrown into the dustbin of history.

Empires rise and fall. Most declines are caused by similar social reasons. Rome did not fall in a day - took a couple of hundred years.

So the question about DADT repeal is "Is it helping us up or helping us down?"

Richard is correct regarding empires.

But in Rome, the fall was triggered by an economic event. The salt mines flooded, (Rome's single largest revenue producer and natural resource export), causing an interruption in revenue and the ability to pay for legion guards to protect the city (Rome) from invaders. An attack was not "around the corner", it simply went unguarded for a few decades, then a century, then another. Rome felt safe for a short season, a 100 years, but Rome the city never recovered, nor did the mines ever re-open, still today.

Rome the empire could not financially sustain itself in remote regions. Religious and/or Idealogies pursuit changed the fabric of the city, the empire. The nature of Rome turned to self indulgence, the arts, entertainment.

Agriculture slowed because Rome was no longer exporting salt, revenues from crops or supported the supply chain management in feeding occupying troops in remote locations. Legions who would nornally buy/pay for services from local farmers began to starve. They remained in the area, but left the empire to marry locals and take up plows, farms and families or took up jobs working for other armies. Back in Rome, families were viewed as "old establishments". Being single, not having babies, families, was the "new" fashion. Rome the city was ripe to invading Northmen, rich in posessions, but lacking in substance/revenues.

Before there was a Greece, there was only a region.

Greece became a collection of countries, co-operating in collective benefits, agriculture to textile industry.

A woman launches a thousand ships and Greece invades Troy, a 8-12 year campaign according to Homer, depending on your start point, not a 3 hour episode.

Rome rises out of the dust of Troy, but that took awhile too.

America will fall when the following conditions exist...

Ecomonic instability:
When we are importing more than we export.
Our cash management, coffers, treasuries are thin.
Debt is high.
When we are held hostage to energy and supply chain management.

Occupation:
When our enemies can occupy terrain and land without consequences.
When having large families are not viewed as socially acceptable.
When the lines of culture are squewed.
When self indulgence is more important then responsibility.

Invasion:
Overt and covert
When the army is indifferent to leadership

When we are weak,....

I could be wrong, this has never happened before.

Dusty
12-19-2010, 14:58
How would you feel if NAMBLA members were allowed to serve openly in the Military.....I mean it is only Pederasty and beside the Spartans did it :rolleyes:

How many years ago was the thought of homos serving openly as abhorrent?

greenberetTFS
12-19-2010, 15:37
Does this also apply to "transvestites"?..........:confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

abc_123
12-19-2010, 15:48
Just wait until Married couple Bob and Steve move in next to you in on-post housing!

J8127
12-19-2010, 18:49
How many years ago was the thought of homos serving openly as abhorrent?

And how many years ago was the thought of blacks or women serving abhorrent?

Pedastry is illegal, bestiality is illegal, those arguments are ridiculous.

And like you, I can't picture a flaming, poor me-victim penetrating (pun intended) any special operations community, or lasting very long in a conventional combat arms community. I am positive there are homosexuals out there more than capable of honorably and professionally serving in SF, SEALs, CCT, Rangers, whatever, they already have been for years and will continue to do so no matter what happens with DADT.

wet dog
12-19-2010, 18:51
Just wait until Married couple Bob and Steve move in next to you in on-post housing!

And Bob is your Sr Rater on your upcoming NCOER

Dusty
12-19-2010, 19:06
Pedastry is illegal, bestiality is illegal, those arguments are ridiculous.


Are you saying homosexuality isn't (or wasn't until the repeal) re: UCMJ?

SouthernDZ
12-19-2010, 19:13
Just wait until Married couple Bob and Steve move in next to you in on-post housing!

ABC_123 - you beat me to it.

This will no doubt be the first challenge the military will have to face. Not only will two male Soldiers and/or two female Soldiers dance together at the Dining-In and Christmas Party, there will be demands to get married and recieve BAQ. I suspect the gay agenda has "test cases" waiting in the wings as we speak.

I'm constantly amazed how many resonably smart people (congress?) do not really understand what a ripple effect is.

uplink5
12-19-2010, 19:20
ABC_123 - you beat me to it.

This will no doubt be the first challenge the military will have to face. Not only will two male Soldiers and/or two female Soldiers dance together at the Dining-In and Christmas Party, there will be demands to get married and recieve BAQ. I suspect the gay agenda has "test cases" waiting in the wings as we speak.

I'm constantly amazed how many resonably smart people (congress?) do not really understand what a ripple effect is.

Who knows what the next round of correctness will bring, and what will the next incremental challenge be? woman in combat arms MOSs; Rangers; Special Forces; living arrangements? Sky's the limit for these folks and their on a role. The people behind this have other targets in their folder to be sure.....jd

J8127
12-19-2010, 19:21
Are you saying homosexuality isn't (or wasn't until the repeal) re: UCMJ?

It is not illegal for an American citizen to be a homosexual, that is what I was referring too.

Oral sex is illegal under the UCMJ as well...

Dusty
12-19-2010, 19:27
It is not illegal for an American citizen to be a homosexual, that is what I was referring too.

Oral sex is illegal under the UCMJ as well...

The subject, as I see it, pertains to the UCMJ; oral sex is more than likely a homosexual act, I would think-so why call the comparisons ridiculous?

trvlr
12-19-2010, 19:28
And how many years ago was the thought of blacks or women serving abhorrent?

Apples and oranges. First, you generallycan't hide what ethnic group you belong to if you're black. Black/White males and females have the same physiology.

Homosexuality is currently viewed as a lifestyle choice, and can be easily hidden.

While I am obviously for the repeal, it's not the same as black males being allowed to shoot with the Confederates or Union in the Civil War. It's not the same as black males being integrated into other combat MOSs after the Korean war. It's not the same as women being allowed to serve in certain Army units.

J8127
12-19-2010, 19:37
The subject, as I see it, pertains to the UCMJ; oral sex is more than likely a homosexual act, I would think-so why call the comparisons ridiculous?

Oral sex is more than likely a homosexual act? I don't agree with you there, although I may after I've been married a while :p

Dusty
12-19-2010, 19:44
Oral sex is more than likely a homosexual act? I don't agree with you there, although I may after I've been married a while :p

Why? Are you marrying a member of your own sex?


:D

Dozer523
12-19-2010, 19:45
great thread. Been a while, too. . .
I think the biggest loser will be the gay blade (I mean Soldier) who tries swash-buckleing and finds the buckeling (I mean soldiering) not exactly to his/her liking.
DADT was their "Get Out of Jail (I mean Soldiering) Free" card.

Paslode
12-19-2010, 20:05
How many years ago was the thought of homos serving openly as abhorrent?

Not all that long ago. In my life time I have seen homosexuals and others go from being freakish oddities to avoid, to role model celebrities. The military is probably the last Bastian within our nation to succumb to this PC BS...open homosexuality, Indian Turbans, Muslim Females Soldiers will want Multi-cam Burkas and sooner or later NAMBLA will be an accepted part of society.

It's the new kinder, friendlier world were everyone is accommodated.

Personally speaking I think some would like to see the military diluted, and they are pressing their agenda to divide and conquer....

trvlr
12-19-2010, 20:08
great thread. Been a while, too. . .
I think the biggest loser will be the gay blade (I mean Soldier) who tries swash-buckleing and finds the buckeling (I mean soldiering) not exactly to his/her liking.
DADT was their "Get Out of Jail (I mean Soldiering) Free" card.

+1

ZonieDiver
12-19-2010, 20:16
+1

FYI, 'we' don't do that here. (+1, etc.) Have something to add, or let it pass.

That said, well said Dozer! We will be sorting this out for some time, but we'll survive. An 'easy out' for many just went out the door.

We'll see...

RichL025
12-19-2010, 21:14
The subject, as I see it, pertains to the UCMJ; oral sex is more than likely a homosexual act, ...

What??????
Oral sex is more than likely homosexual????

I'm hoping this was a typo on your part....

sinjefe
12-19-2010, 21:35
This is made far more complex than it really is. Homosexualtity is simply wrong. Though I am not a devout christian, I do believe it to be morally, and certainly biblically wrong. It is also physiologically wrong.

From a well known history book: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter

Sometimes things are black and white. I am glad I am retired. What a shame that our military gets to be the test tube for this. Shameful.

Snaquebite
12-19-2010, 21:41
having been a 1SG in charge of a barracks....I can all but wonder how that will be handled and the problems it will bring.....and that's just in garrison.

If you have two gays in a two man room....do they get single bunks or a double?

nmap
12-19-2010, 22:36
First, my sympathy to those who have to deal with this unfortunate change.

That said, I suspect that the policy will not last many years - and that without regard to politics. The book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by
Benjamin M. Friedman suggests that:

Moral Consequences is primarily an extended defense of the hypothesis
that steady economic growth “fosters greater opportunity, tolerance
of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness and dedication to
democracy” (page 4 of the text, cited in LINK (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-11.pdf) )

In the above, terms such as "tolerance of diversity" are seen through the lens of liberal politics as used by the author.

Although the review (linked above) lists a variety of shortcomings within the text (and the application of the theory), the underlying concept seems of value. And growth may be hard to come by in the years (and decades) ahead.

Enforcing policies has a cost. I suspect this policy will have a high cost, and not just in money. Perhaps economics will repeal what politicians will not.

abc_123
12-19-2010, 22:48
ABC_123 - you beat me to it.

This will no doubt be the first challenge the military will have to face. Not only will two male Soldiers and/or two female Soldiers dance together at the Dining-In and Christmas Party, there will be demands to get married and recieve BAQ. I suspect the gay agenda has "test cases" waiting in the wings as we speak.

I'm constantly amazed how many resonably smart people (congress?) do not really understand what a ripple effect is.

Brother, and that ain't all... All those "Gay is Okay" briefings... where will they be held?? .. .Yes, Post Chapels near you!

Anyone want to guess on the date of the first gay pride parade down Ardennes?

I wonder what music will be payed over the loudspeakers?

NovemberPatriot
12-19-2010, 22:58
Are we certain they would gain the same sexual harassment protection that women have? Again, this is a concern to me on fears of a good officer being demoted for saying a word like "flavor" or smoking someone for being a "girly man". Pardon me if these situations are taboo, I have not yet even left for Basic Combat Training so I don't have any experiences.

abc_123
12-19-2010, 23:10
Are we certain they would gain the same sexual harassment protection that women have? Again, this is a concern to me on fears of a good officer being demoted for saying a word like "flavor" or smoking someone for being a "girly man". Pardon me if these situations are taboo, I have not yet even left for Basic Combat Training so I don't have any experiences.

Are you kidding?

blue02hd
12-20-2010, 00:06
To steal Richards penned phrase,,

"And so it goes,,,,"

SF18C
12-20-2010, 03:46
To me it’s not so much being as gay as you want; it is more of with all the issues facing our Military right now is DADT a priority? The services are not hurting for recruitment but they are facing budget issues. We are fighting multiple ...wars on multiple fronts…how much money and time will be bleed off of those to study the new rules, re-write regulation, establish benefits, implement procedures and conduct command briefings. I would rather that money be spent on helping wounded vets re-establish their lives, take care of family members for those lost in the line of duty, equipping and training our forces to be the best fighting force in the world to safeguard our freedoms and way of life.

This is a big shell gaming being played out by politicians (who will trade their votes if there is something in it for THEM) and folks with a progressive social agenda, it has nothing to do with increasing our national security or the benefit of the troops in harm’s way!

khy3eb
12-20-2010, 03:55
I don't know, I'm personally in favor of being able to charge someone with adultry if I know of a gay soldier who is married but spends his down time (no pun intended) with another soldier of the same sex.

As the policy stands now I couldn't even ask what they do on their own time. At least now we could nail them for other things under the law.

To the best of my knowledge no one in my unit is gay, so the only way I can see this currently affecting me is a huge increase in the number of "mandatory training" powerpoints concerning everything from prevention of homosexual sexual harrasment to AIDs/HIV awareness.

Dusty
12-20-2010, 03:59
What??????
Oral sex is more than likely homosexual????

I'm hoping this was a typo on your part....

Even though, according to BJ Clinton, it's not really sex, are you saying that it's a practice limited to hetero's?

SF18C
12-20-2010, 04:09
Oral sex is illegal under the UCMJ as well...

I think my wife and I may have broken a "law" this weekend!:p

Dusty
12-20-2010, 05:27
I think my wife and I may have broken a "law" this weekend!:p

A law which will necessarily will be rewritten, which is my point.



'Yes, Virginia, there really is a Gay Bruce.'

Dozer523
12-20-2010, 07:20
'Yes, Virginia, there really is a Gay Bruce.'Now leave Bronze Bruce outta this!

Dusty
12-20-2010, 07:27
Now leave Bronze Bruce outta this!

:D

The whole issue just makes my buttcheeks scrunch up.

perdurabo
12-20-2010, 13:39
DADT should generally be applied to straights as well as gays during duty hours, raunchy jokes with your buddies not withstanding. Use your judgement.

wet dog
12-20-2010, 14:59
...The military is probably the last Bastian within our nation to succumb to this PC BS...
Personally speaking I think some would like to see the military diluted, and they are pressing their agenda to divide and conquer....

You think, divide and conquer, really? Well, you might be right.

But make no mistake, the military has always been used for social testing before mainstream America considers it.

We've seen this before.

Pete
12-20-2010, 15:29
Are thay going to have to get rid of Iron Mike at Ft. Benning? :D

"Follow Me - I'm right behind the Engineer's" - is his full statement

Dusty
12-20-2010, 15:33
"Follow Me - I'm right behind the Engineer's" - is his full statement

I thought it was "...in the Engineer's behind.":D

Tree Potato
12-21-2010, 00:50
To me it’s not so much being as gay as you want; it is more of with all the issues facing our Military right now is DADT a priority? The services are not hurting for recruitment but they are facing budget issues. We are fighting multiple ...wars on multiple fronts…how much money and time will be bleed off of those to study the new rules, re-write regulation, establish benefits, implement procedures and conduct command briefings. I would rather that money be spent on helping wounded vets re-establish their lives, take care of family members for those lost in the line of duty, equipping and training our forces to be the best fighting force in the world to safeguard our freedoms and way of life.

This is a big shell gaming being played out by politicians (who will trade their votes if there is something in it for THEM) and folks with a progressive social agenda, it has nothing to do with increasing our national security or the benefit of the troops in harm’s way!

Shack. This has nothing to do with national security or improving the safety or combat effectiveness of forces in harm's way; since it's purely a result of political activism it's actually friction against accomplishing our national security goals. The result will be a significant chunk of finite resources being expended against figuring out how to implement this rather than spent figuring out how to better pummel the enemy or enable our forces for victory in the ongoing wars. Our back-office-coffee-sucking-day-weenies only have so much time to do their stuff (I know because I am one); adding this to the pile of must-do's will kick something else off...it is a zero sum game with such staff work.

SF18C
12-21-2010, 01:11
I thought it was "...in the Engineer's behind.":D

Stop messing with the Engineers! We all know the Medics are the pretty boys!:D

csquare
12-21-2010, 08:12
Tick checks. When you go to the woods you have to check each other for ticks, meaning we look at each others butt cracks and other unmentionable areas for those little bloodsuckers. Also, when its cold out and since you didn't have room in your ruck for a sleeping bag because you needed the space for ammo, water, and batteries you grab your ranger buddy and spoon for body heat.
The boundaries on personal space and privacy in the military are virtually non existent. DADT was a good policy because it never prevented gays from serving. It simply preserved an understanding that such behavior has no place among people in the situations described earlier. Imagine, if you are the openly gay soldier, no one (NO ONE) will want you to be their "ranger buddy." Since no one will want to be paired up with you, the unlucky soul stuck with them will be the butt of jokes.
This entire situation is just foisted upon the military in the name of some gay/liberal agenda (ironic because these folks rarely actually join the military) and perpetrated by sycophantic politically oriented generals.
We will be giving preferential treatment to a small subset of society. I am willing to wager that within 90 days we will see a "Matthew Sheppard" situation (Ranger Buddy comment earlier) and the witch hunt will be on for anyone who disagrees with the homo agenda.
Get some Team Sergeants!! Hooah..just frickin hooah.

Sigaba
12-21-2010, 13:00
Tick checks.FWIW, I've been waiting for almost two years for this specific point to be raised in a discussion of DADT. It was TR's posts on ticks that forced me to revisit my own views on the topic.<<SNIP>>

With the diseases ticks transmit, your CoC should understand and have no problems letting you and your buds strip down and check one another's inaccessible areas periodically.

Those ticks didn't dig in in a few minutes, they were left unmolested for quite a while.

I picked off 83 in the team room one morning after just a couple of hours doing team IADs in the area. Hurts a lot less if you get them off before they set up housekeeping.

<<SNIP>>

TR

<<SNIP>>

The self-checks and buddy checks are the best way.

TRIMO, this point about ticks and other comments about personal space open the door for a profoundly powerful--but abstract--cultural argument against gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed services.

Blitzzz (RIP)
12-21-2010, 13:27
You'll know when to stop checking if your "Buddy" starts "getting excited"...or you do.

I posted this inPT/H2H but thought it better here:
Curious to see if with the new "unlimited recruiting" will there now be "Bitch slapping", "Hair pulling" and "Face scratching" 'hand waving", "Clothes tearing" and Hissy fitting" included in Military H2H.

Little aside for J8..This is PS.com not PC.com

PSM
12-21-2010, 14:02
There will be a whole new meaning for Close Order Drill (http://www.*******.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y&feature=player_embedded). :D

Pat

Dozer523
12-21-2010, 17:22
. . . . Also, when its cold out and since you didn't have room in your ruck for a sleeping bag because you needed the space for ammo, water, and batteries you grab your ranger buddy and spoon for body heat.
The boundaries on personal space and privacy in the military are virtually non existent. . good post C.
but "this reminds me of a story . . . :D"There I was wuz E&E phase of SERE.
cold, rainy fall in the Uwharrie. In the hide site.

When we weren't sitting in or skivies twisting the water out of out uniforms we were tryin' to stay warm and get a little sleep.
Ahhhhh. . . . zat wuz la creme de la creme. To bee zee "Lucky Pierre"!

NS! we timed that rotation to the center like The March of the Penguins

Green Light
12-21-2010, 18:26
Along with Hispanic and Black clubs on post, they're going to have to establish Gay Clubs one for each type. Then Gay Hispanic Clubs. Then Black Hispanic clubs. Then Lesbian clubs . . . You get the picture. That ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

Dusty
12-21-2010, 18:53
Along with Hispanic and Black clubs on post, they're going to have to establish Gay Clubs one for each type. Then Gay Hispanic Clubs. Then Black Hispanic clubs. Then Lesbian clubs . . . You get the picture. That ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

Roger that.

You'll have to walk your kids past the "Double-Dildo" counter at the PX-next to the fake tit 'n' wig booth.

Masochist
12-21-2010, 19:26
Along with Hispanic and Black clubs on post, they're going to have to establish Gay Clubs one for each type. Then Gay Hispanic Clubs. Then Black Hispanic clubs. Then Lesbian clubs . . . You get the picture. That ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

Don't worry, Uncle has been doing away with O clubs and the sort for a while.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-08-02-offlicersclubs_N.htm

Maybe this will lead to their reinstatement?

Eagle5US
12-21-2010, 19:47
Don't worry, Uncle has been doing away with O clubs and the sort for a while.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-08-02-offlicersclubs_N.htm

Maybe this will lead to their reinstatement?
Uh...OK...
salsa night, hip-hop night, rainbow night...:rolleyes:

Eagle

J8127
12-22-2010, 00:45
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.

uplink5
12-22-2010, 01:17
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.

Oh hell, I see this as a mixture of seriousness and the fellas cutting-up, as will happen you know, especially considering the subject matter. I see it as quite harmless actually.

You don’t think soldiers (or people in general) are going to essentially change just because DADT is repealed now, do you?

Otherwise, please elaborate....jd
:munchin

Dusty
12-22-2010, 07:07
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.

How's this for a ridiculous scenario?

I get mustered back onto a Team (regardless of my age) because of some kind of emergency need for SOT guys. A homo tries to touch me inappropriately, and I put two 9 millimeter bullets in his heart and one in his head, raising a big stink at the flagpole.

:munchin

Homophobe? Naw, I ain't skeered of 'em; I just don't believe in 'em.

:D

The Reaper
12-22-2010, 07:41
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.

You have a lot of experience in this then?

TR

trvlr
12-22-2010, 08:06
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.


FWIW, the DADT repeal doesn't bother me at all. I have lots of gay friends.

However, when the temperature dropped below 20 I tried my hardest to put the entire diameter of the patrol base in between me and the guy I knew was gay.

There's nothing ridiculous about me not wanting another guy's erect penis around my fourth point of contact. The counter point is if I could have materialized a female to spoon with I couldn't guarantee her that I wouldn't "react."

That being said, I don't think I'd get so angry that I'd commit capital murder over it like Dusty. :)

Dozer523
12-22-2010, 08:48
It's official. Saw it on CNN! DADT is opp-so.
Speech-ified into the history books to loud rancous applause.

Now . . . I would have been really impressed if there had been the same volume to the reciting of, "I (state your name) do solemnly swear or affirm . . ."

I suspect most of those cheering the change have no intention of personally benefitting from it.

1stindoor
12-22-2010, 08:55
Oh hell, I see this as a mixture of seriousness and the fellas cutting-up, as will happen you know, especially considering the subject matter. I see it as quite harmless actually.


He's obviously never been in a teamroom, where nothing is sacred...except maybe for your mom...and then only if no one's actually met her.

I had a Sr. 18E meet my mom once...and then asked if I would mind if he asked her out. I told him no but I'm not calling him dad.

1stindoor
12-22-2010, 08:56
Homophobe? Naw, I ain't skeered of 'em; :D

That's one of my biggest irritants from the left side of the aisle...don't agree with something...then you're a " ____phobe."

Dusty
12-22-2010, 09:10
FWIW, the DADT repeal doesn't bother me at all. I have lots of gay friends.

However, when the temperature dropped below 20 I tried my hardest to put the entire diameter of the patrol base in between me and the guy I knew was gay.

There's nothing ridiculous about me not wanting another guy's erect penis around my fourth point of contact. The counter point is if I could have materialized a female to spoon with I couldn't guarantee her that I wouldn't "react."

That being said, I don't think I'd get so angry that I'd commit capital murder over it like Dusty. :)


Then there's an inherent chance that you would.

:D

SouthernDZ
12-22-2010, 09:31
Congress repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. The Pentagon can now start production on “Iraq: The Musical.” – David Letterman, 20 Dec 10


Obama signs 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

WASHINGTON (AP) —
Declaring that members of the military will no longer be asked to lie, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise Wednesday and signed a landmark law repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the armed services.

"This is a good day," a beaming Obama said. "This is a very good day."

The service chiefs must complete implementation plans before lifting the old policy -- and they must certify to lawmakers that it won't damage combat readiness, as critics charge.

But the signing ceremony was a breakthrough moment for the nation's gay community, the military and for Obama himself. The president vowed during his 2008 campaign to repeal the law and faced pressure from liberals who complained he was not acting swiftly enough.

For Obama, it was the second high-profile bill signing ceremony within a week. On Friday, he signed into a law a tax package he negotiated with Republicans that extended Bush-era tax rates for two more years, cut payroll taxes and ensured jobless benefits to the unemployed for another year.

The two events, however, could not have been more different in tone.

The tax deal divided Democrats and forced Obama to accept extensions of tax cuts for the wealthiest, a step he had promised to not take. With Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell at his side, Obama seemed dutiful and subdued.

The signing of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" had the feel of a political rally. Speaking in the Interior Department's auditorium, Obama appeared in his element as shouts of "Thank you, Mr. President!" interrupted him.

Obama hailed the "courage and vision" of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and praised Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who advocated changing the 17-year-old policy.

"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said.

At least 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the U.S. armed forces under "don't ask, don't tell."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-naw-dont-ask-repeal-20101222,0,7101927.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29

uplink5
12-22-2010, 09:35
Congress repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. The Pentagon can now start production on “Iraq: The Musical.” – David Letterman, 20 Dec 10


Obama signs 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

WASHINGTON (AP) —
Declaring that members of the military will no longer be asked to lie, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise Wednesday and signed a landmark law repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the armed services.



Now, THAT is ridiculous!!!

:mad:.....jd

Paslode
12-22-2010, 10:09
FWIW, the DADT repeal doesn't bother me at all. I have lots of gay friends.

However, when the temperature dropped below 20 I tried my hardest to put the entire diameter of the patrol base in between me and the guy I knew was gay.

There's nothing ridiculous about me not wanting another guy's erect penis around my fourth point of contact. The counter point is if I could have materialized a female to spoon with I couldn't guarantee her that I wouldn't "react."

That being said, I don't think I'd get so angry that I'd commit capital murder over it like Dusty. :)

You can get good result limiting the protruding objects with this widely used homosexual repellent.

Eagle5US
12-22-2010, 10:15
You can get good result limiting the protruding objects with this widely used homosexual repellent.
I like how you thtacked those into thuch a pwetty wainbow...:p

MTN Medic
12-22-2010, 10:42
I could care less what consenting adults do in the privacy of their domicile, as I am keen on letting any one do what ever they want unless it affects me. I stick to the old adage, "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."

My issue with this is logistics. Having two men, one being a homosexual and one a heterosexual as roommates will not work. It is akin to putting a male and female soldier together. This will lead to empty beds and costing more money.

Likewise, showering will become an issue. Do I want to shower with an openly gay male? This, is akin to a male showering with females and would not be accepted.

I suppose in units where there sole mission is to put in 8 hours a day on the computer, this will not affect them on a daily basis. Soldiers that are used to living, fighting, sleeping and showering together are the ones that will be affected. These are the soldiers that cannot have such unnecessary distractions.

I am rather torn as to how I would vote, being a staunch Libertarian but I think that with the amount of distraction and logistical nightmares this will cause, it is a bad idea.

The other issue that I am cringing about is when some corn fed good ol' boy beats the living hell (or a whole squad does it) out of a soldier that decides to brandish his newfound freedom... Its gonna get ugly.

lindy
12-22-2010, 12:45
Soldiers that are used to living, fighting, sleeping and showering together are the ones that will be affected. These are the soldiers that cannot have such unnecessary distractions.

But Doc, there were gay soldiers at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, and Normandy...BHO said so. How else can patriotic homosexuals serve their country unless they are allowed to serve in the military? :rolleyes:

Green Light
12-22-2010, 13:00
Some of your scenarios are pretty ridiculous.

All of us, having spent our entire adult lives in the military, having had to endure endless EEO sessions (in one of the few units in the military that didn't have EEO problems) and having seen the ridiculous lengths the military goes to cater to whatever group comes along for the sake of some officer's OER protection, I'd say that none of these scenarios are all that off the mark.

There WILL be catering to the gays at the expense of heterosexuals. Period. It is going to happen sooner than later.

That's one of my biggest irritants from the left side of the aisle...don't agree with something...then you're a " ____phobe."

That is what the left does: when they can't argue with the facts, they just accuse you of being mentally ill. That's what the "phobe" crap is about.

MTN Medic
12-22-2010, 13:10
But Doc, there were gay soldiers at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, and Normandy...BHO said so. How else can patriotic homosexuals serve their country unless they are allowed to serve in the military? :rolleyes:

By keeping their mouths shut and doing their jobs. :D Seriously though, I wonder if ol' B-ho ever asked himself what would happen during Ghettysburg if one of the soldiers 'came out' to another. :confused:

Dusty
12-22-2010, 13:12
By keeping their mouths shut and doing their jobs. :D Seriously though, I wonder if ol' B-ho ever asked himself what would happen during Ghettysburg if one of the soldiers 'came out' to another. :confused:

If he did, he wouldn't be able to answer himself without the TOTUS.

Bebop
12-22-2010, 13:45
"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said.

At least 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the U.S. armed forces under "don't ask, don't tell."



So 13,000 discharged over a 17 year old period means that we currently have 10,000+ gays in uniform? That doesn't quite add up...

Mr Furious
12-22-2010, 13:48
Now that DADT has been repealed…are there any other organizations in the US where provisions and laws prohibiting homosexuality amongst its workforce exist?

Dusty
12-22-2010, 14:57
Now that DADT has been repealed…are there any other organizations in the US where provisions and laws prohibiting homosexuality amongst its workforce exist?

Hambone's Construction out of Springdale, AR.

:D

Mr Furious
12-22-2010, 15:00
Boy Scouts, I think.

Good. Let me clarify my question: We could probably list many 501(c) organizations that adopt an active stance and promote policies against homosexuality, some with bylaws and charters specifically for that position. The “organizations” that I am referring to are revenue and tax generating entities in the US; private, publicly held and government. My business embraces diversity and abides by DOL regulations and laws (to include expanded provisions of the FMLA). Hopefully that clears up what I’m asking.

Are there any business or government entities with current legal prohibitions on homosexuality amongst its workforce? Is DoD just the last to adjust?

Dusty
12-22-2010, 15:04
Good. Let me clarify my question: We could probably list many 501(c) organizations that adopt an active stance and promote policies against homosexuality, some with bylaws and charters specifically for that position. The “organizations” that I am referring to are revenue and tax generating entities in the US; private, publicly held and government. My business embraces diversity and abides by DOL regulations and laws (to include expanded provisions of the FMLA). Hopefully that clears up what I’m asking.

Are there any business or government entities with current legal prohibitions on homosexuality amongst its workforce? Is DoD just the last to adjust?



I doubt it.
Just thinking about prohibiting homos in the civilian workforce is a hate crime, probably punishable by death, right?

Paslode
12-22-2010, 15:06
I like how you thtacked those into thuch a pwetty wainbow...:p


Cut and Paste :D

Paslode
12-22-2010, 15:09
I doubt it.
Just thinking about prohibiting homos in the civilian workforce is a hate crime, probably punishable by death, right?

And having 503(c) advocating Heterosexual behavior would be akin to "Whites Only' club in the minds of the liberals.

Dusty
12-22-2010, 15:23
If one extrapolates what's happening to the Military with regard to "progressive" political infiltration of its policies, maintained at the rate of damage it's doing at this juncture, one can envision a gay muslim airsoft brigade based at Bragg in the not-too-distant future.

:rolleyes:

lindy
12-22-2010, 15:53
Now that DADT has been repealed…are there any other organizations in the US where provisions and laws prohibiting homosexuality amongst its workforce exist?


If work force equals citizens, then yes.

Virginia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and the UCMJ all have laws against homosexuality. However, they have all been ruled unconstitutional (by an activist SCOTUS in my opinion) by Lawrence vs. Texas (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102) in 2003.

Dozer523
12-22-2010, 16:00
There's nothing ridiculous about me not wanting another guy's erect penis around my fourth point of contact. The counter point is if I could have materialized a female to spoon with I couldn't guarantee her that I wouldn't "react."

That being said, I don't think I'd get so angry that I'd commit capital murder over it like Dusty. :) I always get a kick out of every Hetero male assuming a Gay male will find him attractive. I guess the thought of "Dude, he's just not that into you" is equally threatening.
As for Dusty and his capitol murder solution . . . I'm assuming there is a plan B.
I doubt it.
Just thinking about prohibiting homos in the civilian workforce is a hate crime, probably punishable by death, right?
Then again . .

trvlr
12-22-2010, 16:15
I always get a kick out of every Hetero male assuming a Gay male will find him attractive. I guess the thought of "Dude, he's just not that into you" is equally threatening.

I'm definitely not one of those guys. But I'm enough of a realist to understand that after days/weeks in the field, one's standards may begin to drop. :D

T-Rock
12-22-2010, 16:19
I always get a kick out of every Hetero male assuming a Gay male will find him attractive.

After having been the target of a group of flamboyant gay men who knew my point of view, leads me to believe similar scenarios that I had as a civilian may not play out very well with those on the pointy end of the spear. Listening to gay men during lunch break discuss felching and which anal bleach works best is one of the reasons why I chose to leave Baptist Hospital in Winston Salem, NC.

Eagle5US
12-22-2010, 16:20
I always get a kick out of every Hetero male assuming a Gay male will find him attractive. I guess the thought of "Dude, he's just not that into you" is equally threatening.

And why should it be any different for me to check out any number of chicks soaping up at the post gym.
I may not find them attractive, then again, I might. Perhaps my seeing them naked, will influence me.
Gay guy sees me naked and thinks my junk is something he wants....not necessarily "me", you know...strictly physical. ;)

Perhaps I have a nipple fetish, or I like a woman who waxes. Maybe her lack of personal hair hygiene would be "the thing" that would prevent me from ever asking her out. Or the perfection of her diamond cutting, out and up pointing pink pyramids of perfection would be "the thing" that DID tip my decision to ask her out.
Again, could care less about her as a "person" , but am diggin her for her physical qualities.

Awwww what the hell, why even have clothes other than for elemental protection? Once we are in a temperature controlled area, all clothing is removed. The we are all equal.
Remove all brand names from everything, and make everything the same price...FREE! Oh, yes! And make us all eunuchs too - we can procreate through some test tube scientific method. More equality! We can live in "Smurf Village"

Really? Do I really care if he finds me attractive or not? I probably would care IF I were gay, IF I wanted a relationship with him, IF I wanted to participate in that lifestyle choice and was concerned in the least bit if I appealed to him as a potential partner in ANY way.
As none of those things apply, I could care less if a homosexual male finds me attractive....that doesn't mean I want to be his entertainment...positive or otherwise.

nmap
12-22-2010, 16:20
It seems to me that Dusty's solution is not capital murder. In fact, if the report was written the right way, and if the right attorney were involved, I suspect a case for legitimate self-defense could be made.

Dusty
12-22-2010, 16:25
:DIt seems to me that Dusty's solution is not capital murder. In fact, if the report was written the right way, and if the right attorney were involved, I suspect a case for legitimate self-defense could be made.


You know the old saw. "I'd rather be tried by twelve than cornholed at all."

mark46th
12-22-2010, 16:32
Do these BDU's make my ass look big? Do they come in mauve?

Eagle5US
12-22-2010, 16:33
Do these BDU's make my ass look big?
OMG That's funny:D

TrapLine
12-22-2010, 16:36
:D


You know the old saw. "I'd rather be tried by twelve than cornholed at all."

Caution: Please avoid drinking Gin and Tonic at the office before reading the above post. Failure to follow directions could lead to keyboard damage.

Requiem
12-22-2010, 17:01
Now that DADT has been repealed…are there any other organizations in the US where provisions and laws prohibiting homosexuality amongst its workforce exist?

Sir, don't know about organizations, but it looks like the institution of marriage may be next.

Just hours after he repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, President Obama acknowledged the discrepancy in his position on supporting gays in the military, while opposing same-sex marriages, and conceded his "feelings are constantly evolving."

Link. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hours-repealing-ban-gays-troops-obama-mulls-sex/story?id=12459702)

Since when do we base policy on "feelings?" :(

Susan

J8127
12-22-2010, 20:51
lol,

The ridiculous scenarios I was referring to was the notion that because DADT has been repealed there are going to be double ended dildos at the check out counter at the px and some kind of homo-fashionable BDU put out (purple marpat?).

I certainly understand the fears, even more so from your community, but I really don't think it's going to be as horrible as everyone thinks. I want the best guys on line with me, and as long as they are capable of behaving professionally (as ALL soldiers should), I really don't care if they want me or not.

There was a stand-up comic a while ago I saw on TV, he made a joke along the lines of "if somebody has to cover my ass in a firefight, I want the guy who thinks my ass is pretty cute."

I see it as the root problem being unprofessional behavior, not homosexuality. (not downplaying moral objections). If you need a ranger buddy to make it through the night, and yours happens to be gay but he does nothing wrong, who's fault is it if you go cold? Sexual harassment, gay or straight, is unprofessional (and illegal) behavior. Some ridiculous haircut is unprofessional behavior. Whatever stereo-typed based fears are unprofessional behavior. The HIV fear is legitimate, I would say homos cant give blood, just like they cant in the "outside" world. But what about the gay soldiers who behave like a soldier should, but the problem is your (general sense) inability to get over your insecurity? How is that their fault? Personally, I think the good ones will greatly outnumber the flamers.

Like somebody else said, I also just can't picture bruno making it to a team. The problem ones will more likely than not be prolific in support career fields.

blue02hd
12-22-2010, 21:05
lol,

I certainly understand the fears, even more so from your community, but I really don't think it's going to be as horrible as everyone thinks. I want the best guys on line with me, and as long as they are capable of behaving professionally (as ALL soldiers should), I really don't care if they want me or not.

There was a stand-up comic a while ago I saw on TV, he made a joke along the lines of "if somebody has to cover my ass in a firefight, I want the guy who thinks my ass is pretty cute."



If you can find the time to stop digging, you might want to hand me that shovel. Fact is many in this community do not agree with this decision. I find your choice to support a comedian's one line logic over those who have served in the fashion and manner of those here on this website quite telling about your character.

You have your opinion, got it, but I would highly suggest you show some respect for the opinions of the members here.

And BTW, you do NOT understand this community, but thanks for trying.

The Reaper
12-22-2010, 21:18
lol,

The ridiculous scenarios I was referring to was the notion that because DADT has been repealed there are going to be double ended dildos at the check out counter at the px and some kind of homo-fashionable BDU put out (purple marpat?).

I certainly understand the fears, even more so from your community, but I really don't think it's going to be as horrible as everyone thinks. I want the best guys on line with me, and as long as they are capable of behaving professionally (as ALL soldiers should), I really don't care if they want me or not.

There was a stand-up comic a while ago I saw on TV, he made a joke along the lines of "if somebody has to cover my ass in a firefight, I want the guy who thinks my ass is pretty cute."

I see it as the root problem being unprofessional behavior, not homosexuality. (not downplaying moral objections). If you need a ranger buddy to make it through the night, and yours happens to be gay but he does nothing wrong, who's fault is it if you go cold? Sexual harassment, gay or straight, is unprofessional (and illegal) behavior. Some ridiculous haircut is unprofessional behavior. Whatever stereo-typed based fears are unprofessional behavior. The HIV fear is legitimate, I would say homos cant give blood, just like they cant in the "outside" world. But what about the gay soldiers who behave like a soldier should, but the problem is your (general sense) inability to get over your insecurity? How is that their fault? Personally, I think the good ones will greatly outnumber the flamers.

Like somebody else said, I also just can't picture bruno making it to a team. The problem ones will more likely than not be prolific in support career fields.

IMHO, people who are in the Air Force supporting conventional units should not be telling experienced SF guys to shut up and get over it.

Your knowledge of the world we live and operate in is seriously lacking.

TR

Guy
12-22-2010, 22:00
I certainly understand the fears, even more so from your community, but I really don't think it's going to be as horrible as everyone thinks. I want the best guys on line with me, and as long as they are capable of behaving professionally (as ALL soldiers should), I really don't care if they want me or not.No FEAR, homo-phobia, etc. Because folks disagree does not mean they have some deep-seated fear/phobia.

There was a stand-up comic a while ago I saw on TV, he made a joke along the lines of "if somebody has to cover my ass in a firefight, I want the guy who thinks my ass is pretty cute."A stand-up comic would understand?:rolleyes:

Stay safe.

Tree Potato
12-22-2010, 22:46
It seems to me that Dusty's solution is not capital murder. In fact, if the report was written the right way, and if the right attorney were involved, I suspect a case for legitimate self-defense could be made.

I can hear it now: "Sir, he pulled out a gun and pointed it at me." :eek:

J8127
12-22-2010, 22:54
My intention was not to tell experienced SF guys to "shut up and get over it" and I apologize if it comes across as so. My posts are mostly light hearted, hence the stand-up reference.

nmap
12-22-2010, 23:00
I can hear it now: "Sir, he pulled out a gun and pointed it at me." :eek:

Not exactly. Although I'm stretching the Texas law...and Texas laws wouldn't apply anyway...here's what I'm looking at.

The law, SB 378 (.pdf), allows the reasonable use of deadly force without retreat when the intruder is:

•committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes.

Rhetorical questions: So...where is the line for sexual assault? Where is the use of deadly force justified? These lead to the point about writing the report in a certain way.

Even I, a scruffy civilian in good standing, can see that such potential situations would not be good for a military unit.

Paslode
12-23-2010, 00:20
lol,

The ridiculous scenarios I was referring to was the notion that because DADT has been repealed there are going to be double ended dildos at the check out counter at the px and some kind of homo-fashionable BDU put out (purple marpat?).

I certainly understand the fears, even more so from your community, but I really don't think it's going to be as horrible as everyone thinks. I want the best guys on line with me, and as long as they are capable of behaving professionally (as ALL soldiers should), I really don't care if they want me or not.

There was a stand-up comic a while ago I saw on TV, he made a joke along the lines of "if somebody has to cover my ass in a firefight, I want the guy who thinks my ass is pretty cute."

I see it as the root problem being unprofessional behavior, not homosexuality. (not downplaying moral objections). If you need a ranger buddy to make it through the night, and yours happens to be gay but he does nothing wrong, who's fault is it if you go cold? Sexual harassment, gay or straight, is unprofessional (and illegal) behavior. Some ridiculous haircut is unprofessional behavior. Whatever stereo-typed based fears are unprofessional behavior. The HIV fear is legitimate, I would say homos cant give blood, just like they cant in the "outside" world. But what about the gay soldiers who behave like a soldier should, but the problem is your (general sense) inability to get over your insecurity? How is that their fault? Personally, I think the good ones will greatly outnumber the flamers.

Like somebody else said, I also just can't picture bruno making it to a team. The problem ones will more likely than not be prolific in support career fields.

Regardless, it is obvious just in this thread that this political stunt in DC has created a distraction, and the last thing any of these active duty service members needs or wants is distraction.


From personal experience it becomes disconcerting when you and your team mates have to think twice about walking into a shower for fear of walking in on a certain individual indulging in who knows what. Praying not to be the odd man out when it comes to hotel rooms and who is stuck with the option of the floor or sleeping in the same bed as said individual. Confrontations because someone may have got to close to someone.

We all liked him, but there was a lack of trust that was always in the air. As long as it was daylight everything was okay, but when the sun began to sit people got edgy. And it kind of f-d up the dynamics so to speak.

Maybe we were being childish, maybe not regardless it is the way it was and it was a uncomfortable situation for all.


I know I would not want to deal with it if my life had been on the line.

Richard
12-23-2010, 05:58
FWIW some random thoughts on this issue:

I'm not sure any or many gays are going to want to openly identify themselves even if the 'rules' change on that, and - if they had good SA - I would think they would be even less inclined to do so in a combat arms environment.

We had a gay officer in Bad Tolz - you woulddn't know it and he was 'outed' when someone saw him hanging out with a certain crowd in Munich. He's a professor at a college in Wisconsin now and has written the most complete history of the Bad Tolz SS Junkerschule available.

The 7th SFG Cdr was making an unannounced barracks inspection in 1973 and walked in on one of the guys on Walt Shumate's team bending a kid from Svc Co over his bunk. You would have never known either was gay; both were discharged and Walt caught a lot of grief over it all from the other senior NCOs.

We had a female SGM in the TrashCom who everyone suspected was gay as she was single and more masculine than many of the male soldiers assigned there. Whether she was gay or not, she was very discrete in her behavior and a very professional soldier - better than a number of the other SGMs there - and nobody found it necessary to challenge her sexuality.

I knew a number of soldiers (male and female) I suspected were gay, but they never gave any evidence of that actually being the case and served like everybody else.

I also knew soldiers who you would have never thought of as being gay and, surprisingly, turned out to be so.

The unwritten rule of don't tell and we won't ask seemed to work pretty well for the most part - although I also knew a couple of funamentalist religious types who always seemed to be on some sort of mission to 'out' everyone. They were pretty much shunned by most and the best retort to their personal crusade was, "You sure seem overly focused on gays - are you sure you don't have some sort of latent homosexual tendencies you want to tell us about?"

IMO this lifting of the current policy will certainly have more than its fair share of issues and there will eventually be a policy adopted which may be very different from what anyone now envisions, but I suspect we will end up with something which will be workable (whether, as with DADT, it will be acceptable to everyone or not) and the US military will do as it has always done - improvise, adapt, and overcome under a 'mission first' focus.

YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Golf1echo
12-23-2010, 06:08
Frankly, I do not get it when it comes to the SF and certain other missions. Granted America has been a very liberal country since it's inception but I can't recall the last time I saw an ODA at the mall. The ingenious peoples around the world have their own standards of tolerance. An openly gay soldier will potentially be a huge liability for mission and the guys on the left and right.

Pete
12-23-2010, 06:13
.....IMO this lifting of the current policy will certainly have more than its fair share of issues and there will eventually be a policy adopted which may be very different ................

But as many have noted. This is not about the "average" gay person who serves with little notice - and could under DADT.

This is about the "agenda gays", those who are out to make a statement, get in your face and change the world to their liking. It is those gays who are going to keep the military legal system jumping for the next few years.

Let a Catholic Priest touch a little boy and it's headline news all over the country. Let a gay guy pimp out his adopeted kid over the internet and it's "Shhhhhh, he's one of the protected group."

Dusty
12-23-2010, 06:22
FWIW some random thoughts on this issue:

IMO this lifting of the current policy will certainly have more than its fair share of issues and there will eventually be a policy adopted which may be very different from what anyone now envisions, but I suspect we will end up with something which will be workable (whether, as with DADT, it will be acceptable to everyone or not) and the US military will do as it has always done - improvise, adapt, and overcome under a 'mission first' focus.

YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard :munchin


I hope you're right.

I'm not one to scream "the sky is falling!" to be honest, but I'm convinced that allowing homos to serve openly can only be detrimental to the Military if solely for the fact that the practice of homosexuality is a verifiable abomination. How can any good ever come from allowing abhorrent sexual deviancy to flourish in the rank and file of combat troops? (I'm not talking about a puta sammich in Colon, either.)

Is the honor (and pride) of our warriors upgraded by the appeal, or otherwise?

What's next?

I hate the overused buzzphrase "slippery slope", but it's certainly applicable in the case of the repeal.

ZonieDiver
12-23-2010, 07:19
Since when do we base policy on "feelings?"

I'd say since about 1972... maybe a bit sooner. :D

1stindoor
12-23-2010, 07:57
I can't recall the last time I saw an ODA at the mall.

If we're doing our job right you never will.

Mr Furious
12-23-2010, 08:24
I’m of the “who cares” opinion. If I’m covered with ticks I really don’t give a damn what your partner looks like and who or what you worship, help me get the ticks off the places I can’t reach. IMHO - Mission first regardless of your cultural choices (sexual orientation, religion, etc), period. When mission becomes your secondary purpose and you put your personal agendas and choices first, then that’s where I take issue as it effects the others around you and the organization’s goals. I’ve served with guys and gals I knew were gay, and they did their job. I have not served with a person who was gay and placed that agenda first, so I can't talk from that experience. It will be a bit interesting to see how things unfold . I just don’t think you find many who volunteer and serve our country for the sake of flaunting a personal agenda first.

From a macro view I completely acknowledge that this was a political agenda fulfilled, but I don’t see it placed before the mission. I just don’t see this new law impacting dramatic changes that will alter the course of operations, or disrupt National Security; seriously. I believe whole heartedly that we have the finest military and will continue to have that. I think it will be interesting to revisit this thread a year from now to see what’s really changed.:munchin

The Reaper
12-23-2010, 08:40
I’m of the “who cares” opinion. If I’m covered with ticks I really don’t give a damn what your partner looks like and who or what you worship, help me get the ticks off the places I can’t reach. IMHO - Mission first regardless of your cultural choices (sexual orientation, religion, etc), period. When mission becomes your secondary purpose and you put your personal agendas and choices first, then that’s where I take issue as it effects the others around you and the organization’s goals. I’ve served with guys and gals I knew were gay, and they did their job. I have not served with a person who was gay and placed that agenda first, so I can't talk from that experience....

That is because it was illegal and they put anyone acting like that out of the service.

Now, things will be different, and anyone who objects will be branded a homophobe.

TR

olhamada
12-23-2010, 08:49
I don't think your average American, or even Congresscritter understood the evolution of the policy in the first place.

Prior to DADT, you could be investigated for suspicion of homosexuality and put out of the military if found guilty. You could be as gay as you pleased on the inside, you just had to abstain from homosexual conduct.

After DADT, the military was not allowed to pursue allegations of homosexuality unless it was overt and was brought to the attention of the chain of command. Be gay as you want, just don't get caught in the act.

Now it would appear that you can flaunt your gayness. Get ready for the transgender soldiers and the military float in your local gay pride parade. There are going to be some hilarious blotter reports from this. And the first promotion/assignment complaint because of discrimination is only months away.

TR

Yup. I think we're screwed. And not just the military, but our entire country and in more than one way - militarily, fiscally, diplomatically, morally, immigration, nationalism, work ethic, and on and on. In the past few years, I've seen little improvement (except in the area of technology) - only progressive internal destruction. I fear we are in an irrecoverable tailspin.

(Puns intended)

In my opinion, this is because our "leaders" have taken their eyes off the ball. It's become about reelection and partisanship. Few truly care about the future of our country.

Redline18c
12-23-2010, 11:12
Just saw two soldiers at the Ft. Bliss PX dressed in drag. And so it starts.....

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 11:24
Just saw two soldiers at the Ft. Bliss PX dressed in drag. And so it starts.....
IF you are serious about this, and you know they are soldiers....
then it is your responsibility to make the appropriate corrective action. //[i]edited to add...I see you are no longer "in" so I was incorrect in stating your responsibility - apologies...I'd STILL have gotten their unit contact info and called their CSM...retired or not. Just my personal choice...//

The repeal has yet to take effect.
The message from the Post CG that was sent out "en masse" on Monday clearly states that the Regs currently in place have not yet changed.

Eagle

The Reaper
12-23-2010, 11:42
Okay, situational here.

You are a commander and have two of your soldiers caught in drag cruising the PX.

Now that they cannot be put out for this, can you punish them in any way?

What if they are gay?

Or better yet, what if they are straight, but are mocking gays? All they have to do is say that they really are gay, and that you are discriminating against them, and you will really be in hot water. Plenty of legal beagles, the EEOC, and the ACLU will be lining up to defend them.

We are cursed to live in interesting times.

TR

Dusty
12-23-2010, 11:52
Okay, situational here.

You are a commander and have two of your soldiers caught in drag cruising the PX.

Now that they cannot be put out for this, can you punish them in any way?

What if they are gay?

Or better yet, what if they are straight, but are mocking gays? All they have to do is say that they really are gay, and that you are discriminating against them, and you will really be in hot water. Plenty of legal beagles, the EEOC, and the ACLU will be lining up to defend them.

We are cursed to live in interesting times.

TR

An extension to that very plausible conundrum would be if I were still in the Military and one of the XXXXsuckers got in an EM bind and needed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation while in my immediate vicinity.

They better devise some kind of homo buddy system, because the Dustmeister can't be the only man who would refuse to commit fellatio by proxy.

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 11:53
Shouldn't they be in uniform? Wouldn't they simply be punishable for not being in proper uniform?
Not if they are off duty...

Pete
12-23-2010, 12:14
Would you feel the same if it was a lesbian who needed mouth to mouth?

AIDS?

Dusty
12-23-2010, 12:21
Would you feel the same if it was a lesbian who needed mouth to mouth?

How does she look?:D

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 12:22
AIDS?
HIV/AIDS is not transmitted through saliva...

That being said, "abrasions in the mouth or throat" that cause bleeding in currently the only population that is seeing a rise in the diagnosis of HIV/AIDS (that being men who have sex with men) and the increased promiscuity that has been shown to be associated with that same population, does present an increase in risk for exposure to the virus that causes the disease over all other groups (heterosexual men and women, and lesbian or bisexual women)

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 12:25
Would you feel the same if it was a lesbian who needed mouth to mouth?
Is she the short haired stocky one with 12 earrings, wearing size 42 jeans and a tie or is she the pretty size 4 with the long hair skirt and heels?:D

We are so predictable:lifter

Dusty
12-23-2010, 12:28
Fear of contracting AIDS isn't why I wouldn't lock lips with a XXXXsucker. It would be because he, being a homo, probably has oral sex with other homo men.

Now, to give a straight answer re: the lesbian-I know what you're driving at, and I will admit that I wouldn't have the same reticence to help, because she probably hasn't done anything I haven't done lately.

Lesbians don't gross me out.

ZonieDiver
12-23-2010, 13:02
Fear of contracting AIDS isn't why I wouldn't lock lips with a XXXXsucker. It would be because he, being a homo, probably has oral sex with other homo men.

Now, to give a straight answer re: the lesbian-I know what you're driving at, and I will admit that I wouldn't have the same reticence to help, because she probably hasn't done anything I haven't done lately.

Lesbians don't gross me out.

Hmmm. Not sure about posting this, but here goes:

As a single man after 24 years of marriage, I found myself in the position of kissing many (okay... several... oh, alright... a few) women who may possibly have had oral sex with another man at some point in their lives.

In fact, at my age, I was pretty sure I would NOT want to be in relationship with a woman of similar longevity who had NOT done such an act up to that point. (I am in educational activities all day long, and wish not to educate in my time off! Or more likely... find myself having to plead for such activity.*)

* Related joke:

Why do women have "Crow's Feet"?
From saying, (eyes all scrunched up creating Crow's Feet) "You want me to suck what?"

Why do men have "Crow's Feet"?
From saying, (eyes all scrunched up creating Crow's Feet) "Please, please, please...!!!"

Blitzzz (RIP)
12-23-2010, 13:04
An extension to that very plausible conundrum would be if I were still in the Military and one of the XXXXsuckers got in an EM bind and needed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation while in my immediate vicinity.

They better devise some kind of homo buddy system, because the Dustmeister can't be the only man who would refuse to commit fellatio by proxy.

Kissing a straight woman may not be so different.

Dusty
12-23-2010, 13:08
Kissing a straight woman may not be so different.

Roger that, but the only straight woman I kiss is Mrs. Dusty, and the chances of her having "lipped" another dude are the same as Carrey's character in "Dumb and Dumber" getting a piece of the rich hottie: About one in a million.

:confused:

Hey...I don't like them odds.

:D

Dozer523
12-23-2010, 13:12
Would you feel the same if it was a lesbian who needed mouth to mouth?Maybe. . . but I'd watch:)

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 13:13
As a single man after 24 years of marriage, I found myself in the position of kissing many (okay... several... oh, alright... a few) women
LMAO!!!
Dude - you are so spot on...:D

wet dog
12-23-2010, 13:22
Well, according to the CDC, the only way that's going to happen is if there is also blood or open sores in both mouths....also according the CDC, woman to woman transmission of HIV is a rare occurrence.

Oh, and that was a real question.... I was interested in Dusty's answer ...not posing a hypothetical for argumentative purposes.

I can just see it now...

http://www.*******.com/watch?v=J77OSkVwku4

Team Sergeant with a clip board.

greenberetTFS
12-23-2010, 13:45
Maybe. . . but I'd watch:)

I'll second that!..............;)

Big Teddy ;)

Pete
12-23-2010, 15:18
.......... First, you're SF, for heaven's sake! Like a gay guy is going to bother you by looking at you?? I work in Detroit and get leered at by creeoy gross men all the time. ........

NG;

It's not Fear it's the dislike of drama. Team dynamics can be a pressure cooker under stressful deployments.

The end of the work day finds the same individuals in a very small team room. The end of the day is the time to "let your hair down" and release some of the built up pressure from the day. The back and forth banter can get some very deep digs in at times.

It just adds to the drama - for no good reason.

And NG are those creepy groos men at work with you or out on the street?

I think DADT was working well.

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 15:25
Second, although I completely support that you shouldn't be forced to shower with gay guys -- when you're out on a life-or-death mission and being shot at--you're worried about some team member checking out your ass??


There is a generalization that goes along the lines of...

"100% of the fighting is generally done in 1% of your time".

The rest is planning, training, equipping, traveling, gathering intel, decompressing, etc....

When the bullets are flying, few are worried as long as your team member performs. But gay or straight, if no one gets along with him for WHATEVER reason....it causes a problem and they generally do not last. Other than decorating the teamroom, I am lacking a significant positive belonging solely to the gay population to bring to the table that another straight soldier cannot provide without the added aforementioned drama.
Hence "TEAM"

Tree Potato
12-23-2010, 15:28
Okay, situational here.

You are a commander and have two of your soldiers caught in drag cruising the PX.

Now that they cannot be put out for this, can you punish them in any way?


In the AF I can. The CSAF issued a memo to all Airmen stating that even though the President has signed the repeal, the current rules remain in effect.

I've followed up with a direct order to my subordinates that current policies remain in effect and that any unprofessional behavior will result in punishment for violation of orders and intentional degradation of unit morale. Separation may no longer be an option but letters of reprimand, EPR/OPR impacts, and potentially Art 15/UCMJ action for violation of orders and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline are still on the table.

I won't put up with any buffoonery about this issue, either for or against, and my troops know it. For attention seekers, "Remedial Instruction" about being an effective team member is an option... ie., all those involved get to have a hearty breakfast and discussion about team work, followed by a gentle team building PT session that dispels with their greasy breakfast.

An extension to that very plausible conundrum would be if I were still in the Military and one of the XXXXsuckers got in an EM bind and needed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation while in my immediate vicinity.

They better devise some kind of homo buddy system, because the Dustmeister can't be the only man who would refuse to commit fellatio by proxy.

The fear of giving rescue breathing to someone who may pass a communicable disease isn't new and is being looked at by the medical professionals. I'm not a doc but I have regular beer lifting sessions with a few, and they've said removing rescue breathing from CPR is a legitimate option and in some cases may be better care regardless of the disease concern. Here's a generic article on the subject:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1907068/cpr_without_rescue_breathing_may_save.html

wet dog
12-23-2010, 15:44
Okay, ....you have two of your soldiers caught in drag cruising the PX.

TR

http://www.*******.com/watch?v=PBCdHPVVFk0

T-Rock
12-23-2010, 15:45
HIV/AIDS is not transmitted through saliva...

I wouldn’t be so sure, time to break out the Listerine :D

“…We now report what appears to be a case of HIV transmission from a woman to a man exclusively by oral sex…”
Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198901263200414

“…The risk of HIV transmission via oral secretions is an issue of growing interest to dental health professionals, above all with the upsurge in the number of infected…”
Source: http://www.lifelube.org/docs/OralHIVtrans06.pdf

Although rare, it can happen…bloody fluids are a huge concern, considering roughly 1 out of 5 gay men carry HIV and don't know it :eek:

Source: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know

Eagle5US
12-23-2010, 16:22
I wouldn’t be so sure, time to break out the Listerine :D


Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198901263200414


Source: http://www.lifelube.org/docs/OralHIVtrans06.pdf

Although rare, it can happen…bloody fluids are a huge concern, considering roughly 1 out of 5 gay men carry HIV and don't know it :eek:

Source: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know
Those are not from saliva...they are from blood elements within the mouth.
Got gingivitis?:D

Mr Furious
12-23-2010, 16:31
How often does everyone get blood drawn for HIV testing now?

It seemed that I would get tested before and after every trip, like at SRP times. Can't remember for certain. I retired in 2005, and haven't had a test for that since then. I would think that if someone had HIV regardless of sexual preference it would be discovered, and they wouldn't be running around with it. Is that right, or am I screwed up on that? :confused: I'm not a medic/dr and really haven't spent much time looking at the subject.

AngelsSix
12-23-2010, 17:41
AF Security Forces... (Couldn't stop myself)

I am against the clusterfuck this whole situation has become, I am against doing this right now, I am against giving two shits what armchair commandos thinks, but I DO think gays should be allowed to serve openly, because ideally (which I realize is not reality) any of the foreseen issues would be controlled by standards already in place. Speaking of standards, and the master plan that will never come true, I think their needs to be one standard across the board for our military. One PT test, One uniform, One set of regulations that applies to every man, woman, tranny, hetero, homo, and whatever else that signs up.

Sexual Harassment is already illegal, gay or straight.

Unprofessional conduct gets dealt with by smoke sessions, paperwork, and discharges.

Being a flaming cry-baby victim is another problem soldier that may come up, but they should be dealt with like every needle user, fat ass, or general dirtbag should be getting dealt with.

Really? Not funny. Try again.

edoo118
12-24-2010, 09:43
Really? Not funny. Try again.

Meh, I got a chuckle from it.

Pete
12-24-2010, 10:20
A thoughtful piece from J D's Bunker

"Consequences Intended or Not"

"................Has anyone given even a modicum of thought about the feelings of homosexuals who are serving and are doing so because they want to be identified as Soldiers first before they are identified as being homosexuals? How many of them will end up like the college kid from Rutgers because people like Congressman Barney Frank insists that we accept a person because of their sexual orientation before we accept them as anything else?............"

Eagle5US
12-24-2010, 11:03
For those who think there is no "agenda" to move forward....
Let see what our VP Joe Biden has to say on this wonderfully progressive subject...

Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

Vice President Biden says U.S. attitudes are evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.

He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage
that happened with gays' service in the military. happened??? already???:confused:
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.

Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz1935O4RlE

text highlighting done by me (see I can use a progressive term "highlighting")

Took less than a week....though I am not surprised....
No agenda here....:rolleyes:

Paslode
12-24-2010, 11:27
For those who think there is no "agenda" to move forward....
Let see what our VP Joe Biden has to say on this wonderfully progressive subject...

Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

Vice President Biden says U.S. attitudes are evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.

He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage
that happened with gays' service in the military. happened??? already???:confused:
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.

Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz1935O4RlE

text highlighting done by me (see I can use a progressive term "highlighting")

Took less than a week....though I am not surprised....
No agenda here....:rolleyes:

Changes in the attitude of whom.......maybe in the minds of politicians and bureaucrats but as seen in the most liberal of States Kalifornia the voting Public doesn't think so.

Dusty
12-24-2010, 13:11
It's cyclical. The No Labels nee Progressives nee Liberals nee Progressives tear apart the moral fiber of the Country until they're thrown out of office, we do what we can to fix it, then the idiots who can't learn from history vote their marxist asses back in. Goes all the way back to Wilson.

And the schools and colleges just keep cranking out the snivelling bedwetters to the point to where the Nation is half given over to political ignorance.

Ach, Rrrrrrrronnie! We miss ye!

Razor
12-25-2010, 02:10
AS far as the other stuff, now that you're all in a really good mood.... I've read the entire thread and I can't figure it out. First, you're SF, for heaven's sake! Like a gay guy is going to bother you by looking at you?? I work in Detroit and get leered at by creeoy gross men all the time. Second, although I completely support that you shouldn't be forced to shower with gay guys -- when you're out on a life-or-death mission and being shot at--you're worried about some team member checking out your ass??

Are you forced to live, perhaps in the same room, as the "creepy gross men" that check you out all the time? Do you often change your clothes in front of them? Would you have a problem if your only shower facilities were of an open bay style, and were co-ed so guys could check you out as you all showered? Would you be upset if you got sick of being leered at by your co-workers (although there was no accompanying action), complained to your boss and was in turn investigated for being intolerant? Does your law firm have an unofficial, unspoken but seemingly closely followed quota for the number of homosexuals as partners in the firm, or for supervisory positions? Are you ever likely to be called upon to come into contact with the blood of your coworkers, very likely without personal protective equipment, in order to save their lives? What would be the impact on cohesiveness if you were to hesitate in this sort of situation?

SF_BHT
12-25-2010, 07:32
Are you forced to live, perhaps in the same room, as the "creepy gross men" that check you out all the time? Do you often change your clothes in front of them? Would you have a problem if your only shower facilities were of an open bay style, and were co-ed so guys could check you out as you all showered? Would you be upset if you got sick of being leered at by your co-workers (although there was no accompanying action), complained to your boss and was in turn investigated for being intolerant? Does your law firm have an unofficial, unspoken but seemingly closely followed quota for the number of homosexuals as partners in the firm, or for supervisory positions? Are you ever likely to be called upon to come into contact with the blood of your coworkers, very likely without personal protective equipment, in order to save their lives? What would be the impact on cohesiveness if you were to hesitate in this sort of situation?

Civilians will never get it. No where is there a situation in civilian life that serving in the military equates the same. Some will say Firefighters and Police but it is still only for your shift not your 24x7 life all year long for years on end......

I can not believe that they will not allow separate showers. I understand the logistics burden but I would not shower with an openly gay soldier.

Just my 2 cents.......

Tree Potato
12-25-2010, 19:20
Civilians will never get it. No where is there a situation in civilian life that serving in the military equates the same. Some will say Firefighters and Police but it is still only for your shift not your 24x7 life all year long for years on end......

I can not believe that they will not allow separate showers. I understand the logistics burden but I would not shower with an openly gay soldier.

Just my 2 cents.......

Ever had to order someone to shower daily? It's more common than many people realize or talk about. Heck, one of my problem troops even signed receipt of a written order, disobeyed it, and went to mental health to avoid disciplinary action...was diagnosed with some condition and placed in a single room with solo shower, then finally started staying clean. [No, he wasn't allowed to reenlist past his first term.]

Now there's one more excuse for some to avoid the showers and stink up the farm, and we all know that one "Pigpen" in our units that will use the excuse whether we agree or disagree with the new policy.

PSM
12-25-2010, 20:17
Ever had to order someone to shower daily?

Ever heard of a garbage-can brush shower? Works every time. ;)

Pat

sinjefe
12-25-2010, 20:52
Had a troop when I was a young sergeant who wouldn't shower. Made him cammy up with shoe polish every day unitl he did. Worked like a charm

uplink5
12-25-2010, 23:24
Ever heard of a garbage-can brush shower? Works every time. ;)

Pat

We used a garbage can brush and a green pad on a stinky fella, many years ago. It would probably be seen as hazing and make national news if we tried that today.....jd

greenberetTFS
12-26-2010, 07:03
I can not believe that they will not allow separate showers. I understand the logistics burden but I would not shower with an openly gay soldier.

I completely and totally agree,and nether would I.............. :(:(:(

Big Teddy :munchin

Kyobanim
12-26-2010, 11:14
New Close Order Drill DADT style
(I searched and didn't see it, but I may be wrong)

I was wrong

PSM
12-26-2010, 11:31
New Close Order Drill DADT style
(I searched and didn't see it, but I may be wrong)

http://kyobanim.com/CAMBIOSE.wmv

En Inglés: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=364607&postcount=92 ;)

Pat

Kyobanim
12-26-2010, 11:37
Damn

cetheridge
12-27-2010, 00:37
No more......"Awright, men....tighten up that line...Nuts to Butts, Nuts to Butts".

greenberetTFS
12-27-2010, 06:50
I believe they should have separate shower facilities for lesbians and gays together since they belong in the now open sex law..............:mad: :mad: :mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

Dusty
12-27-2010, 06:53
Logically, open pedophilia followed by DADT vampirism, bestiality, necrophilia and whatnot will be next.

1stindoor
12-27-2010, 08:39
Something I've been thinking about lately...as it relates to EO training, who's going to give the classes...and what kind of "stigma" is going to be attached to the person forced to give the brief.

Dozer523
12-27-2010, 09:03
Logically, open pedophilia followed by DADT vampirism, bestiality, necrophilia and whatnot will be next.PARTY!
"human sacrifice; dogs and cat living together, mass hysteria"
Please run the "if this ; then" past this Jesuit Education survivor.

SF18C
12-27-2010, 09:17
I believe they should have separate shower facilities for lesbians and gays together since they belong in the now open sex law..............:mad: :mad: :mad:

Big Teddy :munchin


I say let the gay dudes shower and bunk with the females, they can share shampoos and skin care lotions…

Oh and the lesbos get to shower and hang out with us guys! But they gotta bring their own beer!

Just joking (or thing about Star Ship Troopers shower scene again!)

Richard
12-27-2010, 09:22
PARTY!
"human sacrifice; dogs and cat living together, mass hysteria"

http://www.*******.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

I think I saw Slimer over on aisle 7 in Albrtson's yesterday. :D

"Who ya gonna call..."

Richard :munchin

trvlr
12-27-2010, 12:22
Something I've been thinking about lately...as it relates to EO training, who's going to give the classes...and what kind of "stigma" is going to be attached to the person forced to give the brief.

One positive; extremely competent urinalysis viewers. aka meat gazers :munchin

afchic
12-28-2010, 00:06
A thoughtful piece from J D's Bunker

"Consequences Intended or Not"

"................Has anyone given even a modicum of thought about the feelings of homosexuals who are serving and are doing so because they want to be identified as Soldiers first before they are identified as being homosexuals? How many of them will end up like the college kid from Rutgers because people like Congressman Barney Frank insists that we accept a person because of their sexual orientation before we accept them as anything else?............"

My bet is that folks like this will more than likely keep on keeping on. They do not want to be seen as having an agenda, and therefore will not be disclosing their orientation any time in the near future.

uplink5
12-28-2010, 01:33
Something I've been thinking about lately...as it relates to EO training, who's going to give the classes...and what kind of "stigma" is going to be attached to the person forced to give the brief.

If sexual orientation becomes another protected class as defined by AR 600-20, EO Advisors will end up having to suck that egg. I'm sure some bureaucrats are at this moment writing changes to the AR, and classes complete with a slide show presentation in PowerPoint, dramatic training and awareness films, and graphic training aids such as posters and maybe even a deck of cards with the "most wanted".

Yep, even the Army's preventive maintenance monthly magazine could come back in vogue......we sure as hell could never go back to the way it was.

Thank God for retirement.....jd

1stindoor
12-28-2010, 07:12
If sexual orientation becomes another protected class as defined by AR 600-20, EO Advisors will end up having to suck that egg.

Therein lies my question. We all know the makeup of the vast majority of EO reps, as well as the "why" they all fit a similar profile...no good will come of this "mandatory training."

Richard
12-28-2010, 08:29
We all know the makeup of the vast majority of EO reps, as well as the "why" they all fit a similar profile...no good will come of this "mandatory training."

EO...shmeeoh...and - based on my experiences with the system - it all depends on the who, what, when , where, how, and why.

I knew guys who got caught up in EO complaints for good reason - they were dumb s***s. They got their peepees whacked and then never passed up an opportunity to carp about how the system was eff'd up and they were victimized by it.

I had an EO complaint filed against me once for relieving an NCO for duty performance after we'd spent a frustrating 90 days working with him to either bring him aboard or replace him. The EO office took the complaint, talked with me and all the NCOs, and told the CofC there was nothing to merit the complaint. It was dropped and nothing more was said. That NCO was also relieved by his next CofC and QMP'd out of the Army as an SSG with 17 years of service.

I went through a lot of mandatory training in my 23 years of service - some of it very good and some of it not so good. Again, it was all situationally dependent.

However - YMMV...and so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Dozer523
12-28-2010, 08:48
Yep, even the Army's preventive maintenance monthly magazine could come back in vogue......we sure as hell could never go back to the way it was.

Thank God for retirement.....jd
In 1968 we were in Nurenberg. Dad was with a SP 155 Bn. brought PM magazine home. I thought Connie was SO HOT!
I was 12, didn't see my first Playboy for another year.

Todd 1
12-28-2010, 15:17
What will happen when a soldier says it is against his/her religion to sleep in the same area or to be naked around homosexuals? IMHO the repeal of DADT should have been discussed, studied, and debated for many years before any changes.

Dusty
12-28-2010, 15:48
What will happen when a soldier says it is against his/her religion to sleep in the same area or to be naked around homosexuals? IMHO the repeal of DADT should have been discussed, studied, and debated for many years before any changes.

Well, they passed an imbecilic health care bill without reading it. They don't give a flyin' fuck about the individual soldier.

uplink5
12-28-2010, 15:48
What will happen when a soldier says it is against his/her religion to sleep in the same area or to be naked around homosexuals? IMHO the repeal of DADT should have been discussed, studied, and debated for many years before any changes.

What religion makes these distintions?

If a soldier makes such a claim, he/she would need to provide the doctrinal evidence I guess, and not just someone in that religion's opinion either. I'm sure the Westboro Baptist Church would make such a claim but, it's not in any Baptist doctrine that I'm aware of so, nutjobs wouldn't count.

I'm sure if this evidence does exist, and a complaint is filed, then the JAG would persue it...jd

T-Rock
12-28-2010, 16:37
What will happen when a soldier says it is against his/her religion to sleep in the same area or to be naked around homosexuals?


If a soldier makes such a claim, he/she would need to provide the doctrinal evidence I guess, and not just someone in that religion's opinion either.


Lifting DADT has got to be a Zionist conspiracy, designed to purge Muslims from the ranks of the US Military (pink font) :D

Do you think Jihadi propagandists will likely use the presence of gays in the Military for recruitment purposes? :confused:

Dusty
12-28-2010, 16:39
Do you think Jihadi propagandists will likely use the presence of gays in the Military for recruitment purposes? :confused:

That's probably why Iraq said, "OK, get out. We're done here.)

uplink5
12-28-2010, 17:41
To answer your question read the bible. It states homosexuality is an abomination unto God. It also states people should not associate with them in any way shape or form. He destroys Soddom and Gommorrah for their devieant sexual behavior. I don't know exactly where it is ie verse and chapter but it is stated in both the old and new testament. I am sure there are others better versed in the bible than me that can point you in the right direction.

Where do we draw the line then since most Christian churches also allow gays to attend services, don't they? Love the sinner but hate the sin.....
Also, do Synagogues or Mosques allow gay attendance? I don't know but it may not matter.

I used the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of a church that would not allow gays, I'm sure there are others. I doubt though that the courts would side with them any more than they would for the Westboro nutjob demands.

We also have seperation of church and state issues which might forbid the government from drawing the line along religious objections.

I wonder what our esteemed legal eagles would think of this, there might be something to it?....jd

Pete
12-28-2010, 18:19
......We also have seperation of church and state issues which might forbid the government from drawing the line along religious objections.................

The government crossed the Rubicon a long time ago on that one. Turbans? Beards? The government has an official position of allowing religious objections - as long as it's one of the protected religions.

uplink5
12-28-2010, 18:23
The government crossed the Rubicon a long time ago on that one. Turbans? Beards? The government has an official position of allowing religious objections - as long as it's one of the protected religions.

No argument there, as long as it fits their agenda, no problem. Of course "other" religious objections wouldn't fit.....jd

T-Rock
12-28-2010, 19:01
Ah yes, the Bible...that bastion of information on how to be a good Godly person....Let's see here....

Good thing the verses you cited are descriptive for that particular historical time and place as opposed to being prescriptive, otherwise, if those Bible verses were eternal and universal, those violent Christians would be executing millions :D

ZonieDiver
12-28-2010, 21:46
Good thing the verses you cited are descriptive for that particular historical time and place as opposed to being prescriptive, otherwise, if those Bible verses were eternal and universal, those violent Christians would be executing millions :D

Huh?

Groleck
12-28-2010, 21:59
Ah yes, the Bible...that bastion of information on how to be a good Godly person....Let's see here....

There's slavery:

Quote:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
And if that doesn't float your boat then there's some good 'ole fashioned rape:

Quote:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

I thought it went without saying:

Context is crucial.

Todd 1
12-28-2010, 22:14
DADT is a very sensitive subject to many soldiers and civilians of different sexual orientations, religions and backgrounds and it seems to me that our lawmakers made the decision to repeal the current policy in a very cavalier manner. Winds of change will blow, but not always in the right direction.

T-Rock
12-28-2010, 23:04
Huh?

Mosaic Law applied to very few people (Jews) and only for about a thousand years. Applying OT Law post crucifixion to a Christian is the same mistake Phelps and his bunch make.

Don
12-29-2010, 06:16
Ah yes, the Bible...that bastion of information on how to be a good Godly person....Let's see here....

There's slavery:



And if that doesn't float your boat then there's some good 'ole fashioned rape:

Wow...a few months ago I was arguing those very points you brought up...exactly to a tee...chapter and verse...as they were thrown out as an argument against Christianity on a leftist, atheist website.

Talking points...

wet dog
12-29-2010, 22:10
How's this for a ridiculous scenario?

I get mustered back onto a Team (regardless of my age) because of some kind of emergency need for SOT guys. A homo tries to touch me inappropriately, and I put two 9 millimeter bullets in his heart and one in his head, raising a big stink at the flagpole.

:munchin

Homophobe? Naw, I ain't skeered of 'em; I just don't believe in 'em.

:D

How about another scenario?

The entire SF regiment conducts a "sit-in"? ODAs refuse to accept "new" members. Team Sergeants just keep walking the new guy down to the SGM's office saying, "He ain't fitting in - No pun intended".

Can I say fitting in, or did I just offend someone? New guy says, "I'm trying to fit in, but nobody wants me."

Team Sergeant keeps thinking, "I signed up for this? I should have taken the offer for truck driving school."

What if teams are just overwhelmed with sensitivity training, better yet, have all openly gay soldiers participate in "how to get along" training with straight soldiers.

Maybe the answer for them is, get back in the closet, Don't Ask - Don't Tell.

I see a future when SF is subjected to nothing more than walking the square with the SGM.

http://www.*******.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780&feature=fvw

blue02hd
12-29-2010, 23:37
It's my experience from serving several years on an ODA that INDIVIDUALS do not last long, not long at all. If we do not put the TEAM first, then we are neither wanted or needed. We see wash out constantly of those who just cannot adapt to Team Life despite what Tabs and or background they arrive with. If an individual wishes to serve in this community then he has to sacrifice a great deal with respect to personal choices, family life, marriage, finances, health issues, religious practices, and yes even sexual preferences. I have no doubt that those who would chew off their left arm just to get to a SEAL MARSOC or ODA will continue to do so, and whatever choices were made in sacrifice to that goal will continue to remain with that individual. That is what makes a successful Team Mate. Sacrifice. Devotion to Mission. Devotion to the TEAM. I do not see our world and the "Openly Gay" service world colliding, for in my mind those who openly serve as a GAY service member will never make these choices. Not at the team level. :D

However, I am very concerned how the SOF Community will be viewed if my line of thought, which I believe to be true, becomes true. In my experience the SOF Community continues to be marginalized by Big Army politics and Command Influence. With a more liberal minded military to support, I fear the the SOF community will continue to see difficult times ahead when trying to communicate and influence our own Sister Commands. Remember the stigma in the Ranger BN's due to the lack of minorities? I do, I had to fill out numerous surveys about it, most likely because I was in the "minority" section. (Screw that, I was a Ranger, and I answered appropriately)

If the SOF Community continues on recruiting, training, and fielding those soldiers who are best able to complete our SOF missions then I do not see a huge impact on the Teams. Quiet professionals will remain just that.

There will be more spotlights and microscopes put on the SOF Community because, as I fully believe, no social policy will ever change the needed ingredients required for success.

And the Big Army just won't understand why.

akv
12-30-2010, 00:23
And the Big Army just won't understand why.

Your post definitely shed light on this topic. Perhaps its just naive to think any large bureaucratic organizations can be guided by logic and fact. If the Army is observing recent history, conceding the enemy has a say, and committed to the goal of defending American interests, marginalizing the SOF community seems the absolute worst possible choice.

The least common denominator for conflicts US troops have been deployed for since Vietnam is they have been sent in after individuals, either US hostages or despotic leaders. Desert One, Grenada, Noriega, Somali warlords, Balkan War Criminals, Saddam twice and of course UBL. In addition our enemies aren't stupid, everyone saw what happened in GW1, if you fight America conventionally in the open, she can eliminate your military power in a few weeks.

Since America's next war could be completely different, a balanced capability is needed, but given the trend of the past 30 years, the skills and training of the SOF community seem most relevant to the current and foreseeable challenges the US military faces.

Richard
12-30-2010, 06:27
SF has always found a way to survive and thrive in spite of Big Army's attempts to see otherwise. I am sure it will continue to do so.

As for the policy change, I can see a new Gabriel Detachment on the horizon for parades, choir presentations, DAR teas, etc. Maybe they'll rename it something like 'Hank's Honeys' in honor of our esteemed former CG. :rolleyes:

Who could then claim SF is not a sensitive bunch of MFers...well, besides she whose name is banned from my keyboard, of course.

Richard :munchin

lindy
12-31-2010, 22:21
As for the policy change, I can see a new Gabriel Detachment on the horizon for parades, choir presentations, DAR teas, etc. Maybe they'll rename it something like 'Hank's Honeys' in honor of our esteemed former CG. :rolleyes:

I saw this in a local paper.

blue02hd
01-01-2011, 02:23
Well, The Regiment does not have a choir like the 82nd,,,,

The Ballad of the Green Beret Barber Shop Quartet,,,

The Special Forces Show Choir,,,

Crossed Arrows on Ice,,,

Unconventional Warfare, The Musical,,,,,

And, you won't be able to say that they wouldn't "Think outside the box".

greenberetTFS
01-01-2011, 07:30
Well, The Regiment does not have a choir like the 82nd,,,,

The Ballad of the Green Beret Barber Shop Quartet,,,

The Special Forces Show Choir,,,

Crossed Arrows on Ice,,,

Unconventional Warfare, The Musical,,,,,

And, you won't be able to say that they wouldn't "Think outside the box".

Damn,your right on target...............;)

Big Teddy :munchin

Dusty
01-01-2011, 07:50
"Crossed Arrows on Ice,,,"


:D:D:D

SF_BHT
01-01-2011, 08:56
"Crossed Arrows on Ice,,,"



I thought 10th SFG already had them:eek:;)

Pete
01-03-2011, 06:09
And so it begins - or just continues

"Navy opens investigation into raunchy videos"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/02/navy.videos/index.html

".............There are also anti-gay slurs, simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together..............."

This happened a while ago while the Commander was only the XO.

Where the clips unprofessional? Were they tasteless? Do they show a lack of leadership? We'll find out.

But he did need to stop and think - with a 6,000 person mixed crew not everyone is going to have the same sense of humor.

Dusty
01-03-2011, 06:19
deleted post

Dusty
01-03-2011, 06:24
And so it begins - or just continues

"Navy opens investigation into raunchy videos"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/02/navy.videos/index.html

".............There are also anti-gay slurs, simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together..............."

This happened a while ago while the Commander was only the XO.

Where the clips unprofessional? Were they tasteless? Do they show a lack of leadership? We'll find out.

But he did need to stop and think - with a 6,000 person mixed crew not everyone is going to have the same sense of humor.

Nor will everybody put up with this BS being forced down their throats (NPI).

SouthernDZ
01-03-2011, 06:34
Unfortunately this will result in a renewed round of standdowns, chain-teaching and sensitivity seminars for the entire military community.

This commander is an idiot to ever think this video was ever a good idea. I work closely with the AMEDD community and I've seen many skewered for this type of activity. Recently one of the female hospital commanders was relieved of her duties for "flashing" her subordinates as a "joke". You really have to question some people's judgement.

PedOncoDoc
01-03-2011, 08:58
Recently one of the female hospital commanders was relieved of her duties for "flashing" her subordinates as a "joke".

I've been working at the wrong hospitals, apparently. :D

(Of course, we tend to not have much of a sense of humor with this sort of thing in children's hospitals.)

Richard
01-03-2011, 09:26
Seems as if there is a lot of stupid @$$ $**t going on out there...

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/09/navy-David-Solms-relieved-091410/

The commanding officer of the Trident Training Facility in Bangor, Wash., was fired Tuesday because of “inappropriate personal behavior,” according to a Navy spokesman.

Capt. David Solms, the 14th CO fired in 2010...

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

wet dog
01-03-2011, 12:15
Unfortunately this will result in a renewed round of standdowns, chain-teaching and sensitivity seminars for the entire military community.

This commander is an idiot to ever think this video was ever a good idea. I work closely with the AMEDD community and I've seen many skewered for this type of activity. Recently one of the female hospital commanders was relieved of her duties for "flashing" her subordinates as a "joke". You really have to question some people's judgement.

We had a returning ODA Tm Ldr who came back to the company after a two year break in Bn S3 shop as the new CO.

When reviewing the troops, his old ODA (Dive Team) starting with the ODA Cpt, XO, but upon reviewing the Tm Sgt, (hear gear, awards, jacket) looking down saw his pecker out of his trousers just below the seam of his jacket. STOPPED, looked down the rest of the ODA suspecting similar images he rather not see, concluded this ODA was mission ready and needed no further review. He finshed with other ODAs, released the formation and returned to his office not to be seen for the rest of the day.

SouthernDZ
01-03-2011, 14:48
We had a returning ODA Tm Ldr who came back to the company after a two year break in Bn S3 shop as the new CO.

When reviewing the troops, his old ODA (Dive Team) starting with the ODA Cpt, XO, but upon reviewing the Tm Sgt, (hear gear, awards, jacket) looking down saw his pecker out of his trousers just below the seam of his jacket. STOPPED, looked down the rest of the ODA suspecting similar images he rather not see, concluded this ODA was mission ready and needed no further review. He finshed with other ODAs, released the formation and returned to his office not to be seen for the rest of the day.

Amazing how much there's a world of difference between an ODA and every other element upon the earth. My junior demo sergeant returned from Disneyworld with 12 sets of Mickey Mouse ears. Looked great with 1/5th flashes sewn on them as we stood the SGM's formation. He went up and down the line and told me I needed to put a little more polish on my boots and went back to his office. :D

uplink5
01-03-2011, 15:07
We had a returning ODA Tm Ldr who came back to the company after a two year break in Bn S3 shop as the new CO.

When reviewing the troops, his old ODA (Dive Team) starting with the ODA Cpt, XO, but upon reviewing the Tm Sgt, (hear gear, awards, jacket) looking down saw his pecker out of his trousers just below the seam of his jacket.

During a Flinlock exercise many years ago, myself, the Company and Battalion CDR and some other fellas took a departing photo with some Royal Green Jackets. Weeks later, my wife asked me if I would explains something to her, as she gave me the photo. Everyone of the Brits behind us had there peckers out.....No harm done, Brit humor.....haha

In our country today this might make the national news!!!

I agree with Dusty and SouthernDZ and I think this XO should have known his audience better but, I hate seeing what at this point is just dirty laundry made national news. Perhaps this could have been handled at the lowest level? This Captain may have screwed up and we'll know more soon enough I'm sure but, if this is just an XO's silly attempt at humor while trying to make a few points, then don't make it national news, and don't destroy the career of what looks to be a otherwise good commander. Reprimand him if its warrented but dont let civilian "PC thinking" convict him in the court of public opinion.

I don't know, maybe its just me......jd

wet dog
01-03-2011, 15:36
During a Flinlock exercise many years ago, myself, the Company and Battalion CDR and some other fellas took a departing photo with some Royal Green Jackets. Weeks later, my wife asked me if I would explains something to her, as she gave me the photo. Everyone of the Brits behind us had there peckers out.....No harm done, Brit humor.....haha

In our country today this might make the national news!!!

I agree with Dusty and SouthernDZ and I think this XO should have known his audience better but, I hate seeing what at this point is just dirty laundry made national news. Perhaps this could have been handled at the lowest level? This Captain may have screwed up and we'll know more soon enough I'm sure but, if this is just an XO's silly attempt at humor while trying to make a few points, then don't make it national news, and don't destroy the career of what looks to be a otherwise good commander. Reprimand him if its warrented but dont let civilian "PC thinking" convict him in the court of public opinion.

I don't know, maybe its just me......jd

It's not you, it just the rest of the world has gone to shit.

Gays, fags, lesbians, cock suckers, straight or otherwise. Gamers, Hammersmith frauds, dip shits, etc.

My father once said, "If you're trying to be Politcally Correct, you're missing out on a lot of fun".

Kind of wishing the 60's and the cocktail hour would return, maybe I'd could put on a Tux for no real reason and hook up with a pretty girl wearing a cocktail dress, there's something I'd like to ask her.

uplink5
01-03-2011, 15:43
Kind of wishing the 60's and the cocktail hour would return, maybe I'd could put on a Tux for no real reason and hook up with a pretty girl wearing a cocktail dress, there's something I'd like to ask her.

I know...I had the hots for one of the babes who served me my beer and danced at the Dragon Club during lunch. A few things I'd like to ask her too.....
(except now she's probably a grandmother)...

I guess what bothers me is this happened 4 years ago, other more senior personnel had to know about it, and I guess no one complained until now? I've seen this story all over the news today and I'm wondering who did this guy piss off?

Pete
01-03-2011, 16:53
. .......... I guess what bothers me is this happened 4 years ago, other more senior personnel had to know about it, and I guess no one complained until now? I've seen this story all over the news today and I'm wondering who did this guy piss off?

Wonder why I posted it here? In this thread?

Lot of jabs at gays in the videos. Gays are now protected by their lobby.

And so it begins.

Dozer523
01-03-2011, 17:01
When reviewing the troops, his old ODA (Dive Team) starting with the ODA Cpt, XO, but upon reviewing the Tm Sgt, (hear gear, awards, jacket) looking down saw his pecker out of his trousers just below the seam of his jacket. STOPPED, looked down the rest of the ODA . . . . That ain't abuse, that's a "welcome home" During a Flinlock exercise many years ago, myself, the Company and Battalion CDR and some other fellas took a departing photo with some Royal Green Jackets. Weeks later, my wife asked me if I would explains something to her, as she gave me the photo. Everyone of the Brits behind us had there peckers out.....No harm done, Brit humor.....haha That ain't abuse, that's "we sure had fun trainin' with ya" Amazing how much there's a world of difference between an ODA and every other element upon the earth. My junior demo sergeant returned from Disneyworld with 12 sets of Mickey Mouse ears. Looked great with 1/5th flashes sewn on them as we stood the SGM's formation. He went up and down the line and told me I needed to put a little more polish on my boots and went back to his office. :D That ain't abuse, that's "we sure are glad you're our SMG (and bet you wish YOU thought of this when you were on team . . oh yeah YOU did that other thing back in . . . "

trvlr
01-03-2011, 17:28
Wonder why I posted it here? In this thread?

Lot of jabs at gays in the videos. Gays are now protected by their lobby.

And so it begins.

The video in question is on ******* now. (Some of the language is not safe for work)

http://www.*******.com/watch?v=srbLyuMgDe8

IMO, too many viewers = national news. The PC witch hunt (good and bad) started long before DADT.

uplink5
01-03-2011, 18:05
Wonder why I posted it here? In this thread?

Lot of jabs at gays in the videos. Gays are now protected by their lobby.

And so it begins.


Actually I'm not wondering that at all. This is perhaps the best thread for it because of it's content.

My point is 1; either this commander pissed someone off and someone pulled this out of the archives to burn him. Or 2, that because DADT has been repealed, some jack ass in the media out there dug up what wasn't so PC a few years back, to try to hang this Captain now.

I bet there are more than a few senior folks out there who are hoping things they've said years ago in some forum don't just "turn up", because someones using a newly legislated consequence against military commanders....jd

Tree Potato
01-04-2011, 02:57
Seems as if there is a lot of stupid @$$ $**t going on out there...


Richard, you appear a master of the understatement. :lifter
Dumb@$$ery running amok is nothing new; it just seems to have more visibility in recent years as there's a public appetite for taking down people typically held to higher expectations.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons for those firings, the leaders displayed tremendous lack of SA regarding the environment they were in. Every seasoned leader since Tailhook in every branch knows what the stakes are...gamble at one's own peril.

What's just as disappointing is the Enterprise XO wasn't corrected from the start by his boss but instead was allowed so much rope to hang himself with. His bosses had to have seen the videos and tacitly approved, also displaying a lack of SA. Is it okay to trust close peers and immediate teammates with some off-brand humor? Of course. Is it wise to provide such edgy humor to an entire ship crew, and provide video evidence, knowing that many of them had been offended and would be further pushed away from being part of the team? The answer to that should be obvious.

Wiseman
01-04-2011, 06:42
I bet there are more than a few senior folks out there who are hoping things they've said years ago in some forum don't just "turn up", because someones using a newly legislated consequence against military commanders....jd

Imagine if FCC began to regulate speech on the net.

wet dog
01-04-2011, 10:58
Imagine if FCC began to regulate speech on the net.

Or tax network activity. 1% for texting a friend, 2% for sending an email at work, 3% for financial gain, (ie., proposals, project completions, etc), 4% for joke of the day, 5% if you're a website owners, etc. 6% for on line dating, 7% for sending an email to your congressman or senator......

Richard
01-04-2011, 11:14
I'm beginning to miss the "don't tell me and I won't ask you about it" truce already.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Razor
01-04-2011, 16:11
it wise to provide such edgy humor to an entire ship crew, and provide video evidence, knowing that many of them had been offended and would be further pushed away from being part of the team? The answer to that should be obvious.

My answer is obvious to me...some folks need to lighten up. With a crew of close to 5000, I'm pretty sure just about any conversation on any topic on a carrier runs the risk of offending more than one person if they wear their sensitivity on their sleeve. If someone was that offended, they could have gone to the IG if they felt they were being ignored at the command level. The fact the skipper was selected to command a carrier years after these events tells me that if an investigation was initiated due to crew complaints, it lacked any real substance to proceed...until now and the recent changes in whose viewpoint is used to determine acceptability.

The Reaper
01-04-2011, 17:04
I think if everyone is now responsible for everything they ever said, especially in attempts at humor, let he who is without sin, and who has never offended anyone, cast the first stone.

Looked like good natured kidding to me, in an attempt to entertain people in no doubt monotonous (but potentially dangerous) jobs for long periods of time.

He has now been tried in the kangaroo court of public opinion without an opportunity to defend himself, and been sacrificed in order to appease the PC gods.

The questions I have is who stood to profit from revealing it now, and why would the paper get involved?

TR

Dozer523
01-04-2011, 17:36
I was a little taken back by the beginning "statement of deniability" for the captain and the admiral.
Reminds me of when we finished gunnery at Graf in the late 70's. Officers Call at one of the beerhalls (might have been the O Club I forget). ANYway. A LT always got the job of lining up a stripper. The LT who got the job was always an odd duck.
Never understood why THAT one suddenly was so interested in "nekked gurls".
My buddy (another 1LT and the S1) explained it to me. "deniability and expendability -- The BnCO doesn't care about that guy."

I remember thinking,"Glad I'm not THAT guy"

BnCO went on to a third star as an 11A. "That guys" did his 3 or 4 and resigned.

akv
01-04-2011, 17:38
My answer is obvious to me...some folks need to lighten up

I would tend to agree with your conclusion, though Captain Honor's career is now likely torpedoed by political expediency. I watched the videos, they didn't seem offensive, or particularly funny too me. However I'm not stuck on a floating box for six months with 6000 other human beings during a war. His humor is self deprecating for the most part, and I believe he is a good officer who cares for his crew and was trying to keep morale up. I don't see any evidence here of a lack of judgement as it relates to competence at his job which is to kill the enemy while keeping his people safe. Frankly the kind of people who can do the things we order our military to do are often rough around the edges say relative to an accountant. The fact thousands of his crew are campaigning in his support is telling as well.

He is however, IMHO accountable for knowing better, it's clear he wasn't an ignoramus since he as the XO began each broadcast by repeating the Captain and Admiral have nothing to do with this video . It is no news flash politicians are opportunistic hypocrites, he could not have missed Gen. McChrystal's fate. Captain Honor basically handed himself up on a platter to some DC staffer trying to make his bones. If you need to set an example for how things have changed with the DADT repeal what better Xmas present could you have gotten than the skipper of the USS Enterprise? The fact this reeks of hypocrisy is irrelevant, this stuff happened 5 years ago, the NAVY knew and promoted him since , not to mention changing their stance.

Is America safer now without him in command of the big E? Its obvious he didn't get to be XO of the Enterprise based on his sense of humor. While I am sure we have other officers who will step up, hindsight is always 20/20, what a waste...

trvlr
01-04-2011, 17:55
I would tend to agree with your conclusion, though Captain Honor's career is now likely torpedoed by political expediency. Its obvious he didn't get to be XO of the Enterprise based on his sense of humor [...] What a waste...

Agreed. He seemed like a great guy. That being said, I don't feel sorry for him. You can't have your videos go out to thousands and not expect some clown to put it out to the papers. As per his own disclaimers, he knew the risks. I respect him for taking them anyway.

afchic
01-04-2011, 18:06
This whole discussion about the Captain shows exactly what is wrong in the military today. Most senior leaders have completely lost focus on what is important.

What is important; Taking care of your people, even if it is in a manner someone else may not agree with. If the folks are taken care of that is all that really matters.

What is not important: The fact that 4 years after the fact the PC media got a copy of a video and have hung him with it, and that the Navy is allowing them to do it.

Not one senior leader will have have the balls to say that they all knew about the video and promoted him anyhow, because dammit he is a good leader. I don't give a God Damn about what the rest of the douche bag media thinks.

It was pointed out to me today that I will never make O-6 because my staff skills suck; ie a memo I wrote today had an "an" where an "a" should have been, as well as "the" being spelled "hte". I actually took it as a compliment because my jack ass peer that reviewed it thinks being a good leader means you can tear a staff summary sheet to pieces. If I am the exact opposite of him then I must be doing ok.

Where I grew up if I had enough time to "happy to glad" every package that came my way, that meant I wasn't out on the flight line with my troops where I should have been.

This is also the same jack ass that thinks this Captain should be hung.

What in the hell have we come to?