• 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!

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted

You're so emotionally invested in this issue that see only what you want to see. A little honesty would be appreciated.

Gates said, in the article YOU linked, no less...

...rushing into it, mandating it by fiat with a very short time line would be a serious mistake.

It's obvious that they want to consult the military before making any decisions. That's what Powell and Gates have both said, that is, they will repeal DADT IF the military is on board. You seem to think they are ready to abolish it without conducting a serious analysis first.

When did I say that? I'm all for an objective analysis of how to repeal DADT and what the effects would be. They already had the RAND study, and if it takes a year for the data to prove what we already know, then so be it. It was unlikely to pass before midterm elections in November anyways.

All I was indicating was that for those who were still struggling with the idea that the policy needs to be repealed that this isn't a matter of "if" but "when".

You seem to jump back and forth from outright rejecting the idea of repealing DADT to compromising on repealing it for most units. Pick a position and stick with it. Are you against or for the repeal of DADT?
 
Yeah, it means a minority of two believe it. Not that numbers mean anything, as a minority of two can be correct, but I don't believe these guys are.

First off, I would like you to provide your stats that only two people in the whole damn military support the repeal of DADT. If not, then I want you to rescind your comment of "a minority of two believe it."

When DADT was thrust upon the military, that was supposedly the end of it, and it was against the wishes of the military leadership.

If it's ever repealed... Patty Schroeder types will come out of the wood work and create a hell amongst the troops. It will be politically motivated by those that despise the military.

It will cost lives. The lives of Americans.

Oh no! Doomsday is coming! Just like it came when they desegregated the military! Just like it came when they allowed women in the military!

Oh wait! Doomsday didn't come. It was just a bunch of idiots speculating about **** they didn't know anything about and trying to use their fear mongering tactics to keep change from happening!

The current policy could very well be costing American lives. They dismissed 300 qualified Arab translators just because they were gay during a war when we had a shortage of translators. Essential intelligence could have been missed. Intelligence which could have prevented needless deaths.

I'm a lot more inclined to believe that our military isn't as weak as you seem to think it is. I think it can do what 24 other countries have done with their militarys.
 
So Powell agrees there should be a one year review of the policy. That does not mean it will change it depends on what the review reveals.

How do you think the review will differ from the nonpartisan RAND report?
 
How do you think the review will differ from the nonpartisan RAND report?

I don't know. It will take a year, then the congress will have to review it. I would say it is at least 2 years away. That means the GOP could be the majority. There is no guarantee it will be changed. You seem to think it is a done deal. I doubt it will happen during the Obama presidency.
 
Last edited:
You don't have what it takes to clean the boots of those sticking their necks out to defend and protect pathetic ********* like you.

.

Moderator's Warning:
Posts like this and others are not acceptable. Zimmer will not longer be participating in this thread.
 
I don't know. It will take a year, then the congress will have to review it. I would say it is at least 2 years away. That means the GOP could be the majority. There is no guarantee it will be changed. You seem to think it is a done deal. I doubt it will happen during the Obama presidency.

Hey, I'm not claiming it has to happen soon but it is going to happen. Even if it takes another 17 years, it is inevitable. I would hope that the country didn't embrace a nonsense policy for that long, but I've found that politics are usually not guided by reason or evidence. Frankly, the problem with Conservative minded people is that they think stalling something will make it go away. If anything I can't wait to hear a decade from now how all these GOPers are going to justify their arguments in support of this policy.
 
Again, I don't have a strong opinion because I was disallowed service. However, most of my friends who are vets think the policy should be left as-is...and it would appear that most of the vets in this thread feel the same.

#1 priority is maintaining a high degree of military readiness and effectiveness and not damaging morale. I could not personally support removing the requirement unless we were reasonably sure it would not have significant negative effects on morale.

I know there was a poll someone posted somewhere, saying 75% of military officers responded that they had no problem with gays serving. That would mean that 25% do have a problem with it... and "officers" and "enlisted" are two different things. I'd bet there are more enlisted who would not like it.

What's the percentage of gays in the military? 1%? 3%?

Should we create a situation where 25% or more of military personnel have a morale/discipline issue for the sake of the 1 to 3% who are gay?

I don't have the answer, I'm just expressing some concerns.
 
We (military) test for HIV quite extensively; when servicemembers test HIV positive, they are allowed to serve until they get sick enough to where they can no longer perform their duties (after AIDS sets in, usually). With proper treatment, individuals can be HIV positive for years before contracting AIDS.

Also, only the unit commander is allowed to know who is HIV positive in the unit, it is kept completely confidential.

Servicemembers who test positive for HIV are not limited to just gays, as I'm sure you know.

If that HIV positive member is allowed to serve in combat and gets wounded, that presents problems to the medics who must care for him, not to mention his comrades who come in contact with his blood.
 
Kept his mouth shut? So, you subscribe to the idea that gays in the military should lie about who they are? This sounds like how whites used to talk about blacks.

The truth is this stupid law has never been followed as it was intended. Most of those discharged did not out themselves. I heard a Lt Colonel last night talk about how a civilian outted him. Do you think a Lt Col will be missed? Do you think he can easily be replaced?

So, which causes more trouble? To keep them or to kick them out?

This is the 21st century. Evolve people.
Will they have separate quarters for gay soldiers?
 
I don't know how many times I have heard the expression "Let's let the generals decide this issue". Well, the top general (actually, an admiral - same thing), has spoken. He is not only an Admiral, but is CHAIRMAN of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Yes, and that's a General if he wants to continue to be a General with the Joint Chiefs of Staff better be in league with anything Obama wants, otherwise, he's out of a job. How objective can he be if he is constantly worrying about that job?
 
Generals have very very little interaction with the regular troops and the ones they do talk to or see have been prepped and are on ther best behavior and will not give thier honest opinion if is not what they think the general wants to hear. I would be willing to say that most of them have very little idea what the troops are feeling exspecially if they were not enlisted first.

How would you know? Like I said, those Generals have been down there with the troops. If those top Generals see a need for change they have very good reasons for it. The cave men below them will just have to follow their new orders and man up... or be disciplined or then kicked out themselves. We don't need any kind of phobes in the military or anywhere.
 
If that HIV positive member is allowed to serve in combat and gets wounded, that presents problems to the medics who must care for him, not to mention his comrades who come in contact with his blood.

HIV postive servicemembers are non-deployable.
 
Hey, I'm not claiming it has to happen soon but it is going to happen. Even if it takes another 17 years, it is inevitable. I would hope that the country didn't embrace a nonsense policy for that long, but I've found that politics are usually not guided by reason or evidence. Frankly, the problem with Conservative minded people is that they think stalling something will make it go away. If anything I can't wait to hear a decade from now how all these GOPers are going to justify their arguments in support of this policy.

I want to hear the justification for Obama taking so long to change it.
 
Last edited:
How would you know? Like I said, those Generals have been down there with the troops. If those top Generals see a need for change they have very good reasons for it. The cave men below them will just have to follow their new orders and man up... or be disciplined or then kicked out themselves. We don't need any kind of phobes in the military or anywhere.

So sitting in the pentagon is being with the troops?
 
So sitting in the pentagon is being with the troops?

You mean they never came up the ranks, they just started as generals and admirals?
 
You mean they never came up the ranks, they just started as generals and admirals?

You act like they are in tune now. How many years since they were on the battle field carrying a gun?
 
I want to hear the justification for Obama taking so long to change it.

A whole year in office? It may have something to do with him having to deal with so many domestic and economic issues.
 
A whole year in office? It may have something to do with him having to deal with so many domestic and economic issues.

It might have to do with blaming Bush as an excuse to do nothing.
 
Bush did leave an unparalleled pile of tidying up to be urgently dealt with. The collapse of the world economic system and stuff. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom