• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defense Chief Giving Don't Ask Don't Tell a Closer Look

Ethereal said:
That is irrelevant. The military is not run by consensus.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why it doesn't really matter how many people sign a petition.

Flag and general officers are the highest ranking officials within the military. Nobody cares what a bunch of junior officers straight out of OCS think.
Click to expand...

I meant to ask "what percentage of all flag and general officers"?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Apparently, the Obama appointees believe that gays/lesbians are stupid, and don't realize that this is far short of what was promised.
Click to expand...

Obama understands that he's got the gay vote locked up. All he has to do is toss them a few crumbs every so often to keep them from bolting.

The GOP does the same thing with single-interest groups such as the pro-life crowd.

Single-interest voters are the voters politicians love most dearly. You have to do little or nothing to placate them other than mentioning them glowingly in your convention speech.

:cool:
 
RightinNYC said:
Right, which is why it doesn't really matter how many people sign a petition.
Click to expand...

I suppose. Double-edged sword. I suppose if Obama wants to ignore the advice of his most experienced military advisors then that's his prerogative, you know, since he knows so much about the military given his extensive experience in that regard.

I meant to ask "what percentage of all flag and general officers"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Flag/General officers are very uncommon. 1,001 sounds like a lot to me. Four years in the Marines and I only physically encountered two general officers. It does sound like a large percentage, but I'm just speculating.
 
Ethereal said:
Four years in the Marines and I only physically encountered two general officers.
Click to expand...

Were those male or female general officers you encountered physically?

:rofl
 
rathi said:
I suspect a lot of "jilted lover's" might be sending in letters then.
This half-assed crap is just pathetic. Obama is president, and the democrats might even get a filibuster proof majority in congress. There is no excuse to tiptoe around it other than cowardice or lying about wanting to get rid of the policy in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting one thing: (see my sig)
 
Goobieman said:
You're forgetting one thing: (see my sig)
Click to expand...

And your sig forgets to mention that the politicians that lean right do the SAME DAMN THING, yet you suck up their koolaid each election.
 
TheNextEra said:
And your sig forgets to mention that the politicians that lean right do the SAME DAMN THING, yet you suck up their koolaid each election.
Click to expand...
That's not at all necessarily the case.
Eaxmple:
Even though they knew it would cost the party in 2006 and 2008, the GOP and the Bush administration held the line in Iraq, putting what they beleived to be the right thing to do in front of their personal and partisan power.

Can you cite an eample of this on the left? I've seen numerous occasions where they say they arent going to do something they think they should because it would cost them politically -- gun control, for instance.

And by the way... "he did it too" isnt a defense.
 
Goobieman said:
That's not at all necessarily the case.
Eaxmple:
Even though they knew it would cost the party in 2006 and 2008, the GOP and the Bush administration held the line in Iraq, putting what they beleived to be the right thing to do in front of their personal and partisan power.
Click to expand...

Because they knew if they caved in it would be a political onslaught more than what it would have been. They were in a lose/lose situation.

Not a good example there.

Goobieman said:
And by the way... "he did it too" isnt a defense.
Click to expand...

I wasn't defending, only pointing out that your attacking the left leaning politicians was ignorant when the right does the same thing to protect their asses.

You attack the left, but leave the right alone in your comments why? Oh yeah, because you're partisan.
 
TheNextEra said:
Because they knew if they caved in it would be a political onslaught more than what it would have been. They were in a lose/lose situation.
Click to expand...
Harldy. Its unlikely that they would have less support than they had at that point, because the only people supporting them were the faithful.
By defintion -- and like the gsays supporting the dems -- the faithful never go away.

I wasn't defending, only pointing out that your attacking the left leaning politicians was ignorant when the right does the same thing to protect their asses.
Click to expand...
Oh. So your point had nothing to do with mine.
10-4.
 
Goobieman said:
Harldy. Its unlikely that they would have less support than they had at that point, because the only people supporting them were the faithful.
By defintion -- and like the gsays supporting the dems -- the faithful never go away.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. However, IMO the Republicans would have lost more seats in 2006 and 2008 had they done that.

Goobieman said:
Oh. So your point had nothing to do with mine.
10-4.
Click to expand...

Oh it did. The fact you give a free pass to the right and will vote Republican when election time comes.
 
apdst said:
It could have something to do with one thousand, one hundred flag and general officers signing a letter supporting a ban on gays in the military. Kinda hard for a CIC to go up against 1,100 general officers.
Click to expand...

I cannot find anything on this letter. Do you have a source, with information like how many are active duty, and when this letter was done?
 
TheNextEra said:
Your opinion.
Click to expand...
And a perfectly reasoned one at that.

However, IMO the Republicans would have lost more seats in 2006 and 2008 had they done that.
Click to expand...
THAT is unlikely, for the reasons stated,

Oh it did.
Click to expand...
Not according to what you just said -- you admitted that you werent addressing what I said, you were attacking me for saying it.
 
Goobieman said:
Not according to what you just said -- you admitted that you werent addressing what I said, you were attacking me for saying it.
Click to expand...

I was addressing the fact you weren't saying the same thing about the right? Why? Of course, because you were being partisan and giving the right a free-pass when they do the same thing.
 
apdst said:
It could have something to do with one thousand, one hundred flag and general officers signing a letter supporting a ban on gays in the military. Kinda hard for a CIC to go up against 1,100 general officers.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
I cannot find anything on this letter. Do you have a source, with information like how many are active duty, and when this letter was done?
Click to expand...

Oh wait, I think I found it: Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly - Military- msnbc.com

More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

Is that the one?

Oh, or how about this one: washingtonpost.com

But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit's readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
I was addressing the fact you weren't saying the same thing about the right?
Click to expand...
So rather than address the point, you attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger.
 
Goobieman said:
So rather than address the point, you attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger.
Click to expand...

So rather than address the fact that all politicians do this, you only focus on the left?

Why is that? Oh yeah, because it beings me to the FACT, you are partisan.
 
TheNextEra said:
So rather than address the fact that all politicians do this, you only focus on the left?
Why is that? Oh yeah, because it beings me to the FACT, you are partisan.
Click to expand...
So rather than address the point, you again attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger x2
 
Goobieman said:
So rather than address the point, you again attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger x2
Click to expand...

Point is, all politicians do this, yet you focused on the left. Thanks for proving your partisanship and giving a free pass for the right to do the same thing.

Thank you for proving my original point without any rebutal. :2wave:
 
TheNextEra said:
Point is, all politicians do this, yet you focused on the left. Thanks for proving your partisanship and giving a free pass for the right to do the same thing.
Click to expand...
So rather than address the point, you yet again attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger x3
 
Goobieman said:
So rather than address the point, you yet again attack me.
Must be because you know you cannot defend against the point.
Roger-roger x3
Click to expand...

The point was addressed, as well as your excusing the right x5.

No wonder conservatives are losing elections, they are listening to you :rofl
 
Goobieman said:
That's not at all necessarily the case.
Eaxmple:
Even though they knew it would cost the party in 2006 and 2008, the GOP and the Bush administration held the line in Iraq, putting what they beleived to be the right thing to do in front of their personal and partisan power.

Can you cite an eample of this on the left? I've seen numerous occasions where they say they arent going to do something they think they should because it would cost them politically -- gun control, for instance.

And by the way... "he did it too" isnt a defense.
Click to expand...

Let's use your example of the Iraq war:

During the leadup to the Iraq war, it was increasingly popular with people. And yet, when the vote on the Iraq Resolution took place, 126 democrats in the House voted against it, and 21 democrats in the Senate voted against it, despite the fact that their vote was bound to be unpopular and might cost them political power. By your very logic, that means your signature is clearly flawed

Sources:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution[/ame]
 
apdst said:
All, plus alotta retired general officers.
Click to expand...

I know this is asking alot of you, but can you actually source this letter, so we can find out the truth about it?
 
Redress said:
I know this is asking alot of you, but can you actually source this letter, so we can find out the truth about it?
Click to expand...

I know it sounds like a huge leap for you, to provide supporting docs for you comments, but I don't have a problem fulfilling your request.

Despite mixed signals from the Obama administration, a distinguished group of retired leaders called Flag & General Officers for the Military has taken a stand in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve openly in the military. That law, frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has been upheld by the courts as constitutional several times. It enjoys solid support among active duty military men and women who recognize its positive effect on recruiting, morale and readiness.

1,000+ Retired Officers Change Debate on Gays in the Military - HUMAN EVENTS
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom