Page 20 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 815

Thread: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Yeah, I have no answer. Repealing DADT allows the military to have a higher number of qualified people to serve our country. Look at us now--we are suffering tremendously because our military is stretched thin with numbers of people. To me, anyone who meets the qualifications (physical) to serve should be able to serve. How anyone can argue that such isn't anything but positive is beyond me.
    They can serve and are serving you make no sense

  2. #192
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Moderator's Warning:
    2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay PolicyTell you what... cease all the "typical lefty" and "typical righty" partisan BS now, or you will find yourself removed from the thread.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #193
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I can think of many ways. I doubt it would matter to you.
    It does matter. I asked because I want to understand why people are making that argument because it doesn't make sense to me. If you don't have a good response, just say so.

  4. #194
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    They can serve and are serving you make no sense
    Yes, they are serving, but if it is confirmed that the person is gay, the person is discharged. I just spoke to a co-worker who has a friend who was in the Air Force as a Russian linguist. He has been discharged because he's gay. Gee, I wonder how many Russian linguists we have in the service.

  5. #195
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No one is saying you can't discuss it. Only that those who propose the abolition of DADT and have never served in the military are opining from an uninformed position, such as the, "they'll do it and like it, because that's how the military works and it's not a democracy and blah, blah, blah", talking point that is a million miles from reality.
    OK, this is a reasonable response, and I agree with you that those who never served who do not take into consideration the special culture of the military ARE coming from an uninformed position. However, I disagree that someone who has not served cannot understand that culture. It certainly needs to be taken into consideration.

    Most service members are telling you, from different angles, that repealing DADT is a bad idea. If 7 out of 10 mechanics say your car is broke, do you think it might be broke? Or are you going to go along with the 3 guys that say it isn't, just because that's what you want to believe.
    No, but I'd want to know why the 7 think it's broke and why the 3 think it's not. The majority is NOT always correct.

    Even more tiring is the, "I've never spent a day in th military and up till now didn't even give a **** about the quality of our fighting force, but I know more than a veteran about how the military works, just the same; and do you have a link for that?".
    Again, I agree with you. This is not what I am arguing. My position is that it is nonsense to assume that because someone has not directly experienced a situation, they cannot have a valid opinion/position on it.

    We've talked till we're blue in the face, tlling you all about the problems that are going to grow out of this and how it's not going to have the magically wonderful positive affect on our armed forces that some folks think it will and we're repeatedly told that we--serving and former service members--don't know what the hell we're talking about. And, no, we don't have a link to prove it.
    I don't see this as a "link" based issue and have never asked for one. However, it is weak debating to assume that lack of experience equates to lack of knowledge. There are many ways to look at this issue. I don't think it would be an easy integration, however, I seriously question anyone who says that soldiers would have a problem following orders from someone who is openly gay. This places the professionalism of our military in an extremely negative light.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #196
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    OK, this is a reasonable response, and I agree with you that those who never served who do not take into consideration the special culture of the military ARE coming from an uninformed position. However, I disagree that someone who has not served cannot understand that culture. It certainly needs to be taken into consideration.
    You're right, it doesn't prevent someone with no service from understanding the culture. However, when someone with no time in uniform starts calling a service member--active or not--names and claiming that that service member is wrong is an obvious misunderstanding of the culture.



    No, but I'd want to know why the 7 think it's broke and why the 3 think it's not. The majority is NOT always correct.
    Agreed and the service members that have voiced concerns about the abolition of DADT have explained numerous times why they believe the removal of the policy will cause problems and what problems those are.



    Again, I agree with you. This is not what I am arguing. My position is that it is nonsense to assume that because someone has not directly experienced a situation, they cannot have a valid opinion/position on it.
    You're right, however I think that person should provide more than, "it's just the right thing to do", as an argument in favor of the repeal of DADT.



    I don't see this as a "link" based issue and have never asked for one. However, it is weak debating to assume that lack of experience equates to lack of knowledge.
    Didn't you call me a liar in the past, therefore I must be wrong? I know RightNYC has. I thought you had done that, too. I could be mistaken.


    There are many ways to look at this issue. I don't think it would be an easy integration, however, I seriously question anyone who says that soldiers would have a problem following orders from someone who is openly gay. This places the professionalism of our military in an extremely negative light.
    Some soldiers will, some soldiers won't. Will the majority swing to either side? No way of telling until we actually get into that scenario. There are many factors that will make the difference, either way; the most important two factors will be the demographical makeup of the unit and even moreso, the leadership ability of that leader/commander. If that leader has weak leadership skills, then orders will be ignored and vice-versa if that leader is a strong leader. Soldiers respond favorably to a strong leader, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation. Pesonally, if I were gay and a serving officer, there's no way I would allow my sexual oreintation to become known to my unit, because I would be professional enough to take that factor out of the leadership equation. I wouldn't want to give my soldiers any kind of reason to use an excuse not to follow my leadership, because that's what's best for my unit and unit cohesion, mission accomplishment and troop safety and welfare are more important than advertising my personal lifestyle to the entire world.

    Soldiers aren't robots that are programmed to conduct themselves in a certain way and never vary from that. They're humans. Humans **** up. It's the reason that regulations and the UCMJ exist, so as to govern the conduct of those human beings. If a soldier disobeying the orders of a weak leader makes you question the professionalism of our armed forces, then the current crime rate within the ranks must leave with zero confidence in our service members.
    Last edited by apdst; 02-25-10 at 03:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #197
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Yes, they are serving, but if it is confirmed that the person is gay, the person is discharged. I just spoke to a co-worker who has a friend who was in the Air Force as a Russian linguist. He has been discharged because he's gay. Gee, I wonder how many Russian linguists we have in the service.
    No single person in the military is irreplacable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #198
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Some soldiers will, some soldiers won't. Will the majority swing to either side? No way of telling until we actually get into that scenario. There are many factors that will make the difference, either way; the most important two factors will be the demographical makeup of the unit and even moreso, the leadership ability of that leader/commander. If that leader has weak leadership skills, then orders will be ignored and vice-versa if that leader is a strong leader. Soldiers respond favorably to a strong leader, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation. Pesonally, if I were gay and a serving officer, there's no way I would allow my sexual oreintation to become known to my unit, because I would be professional enough to take that factor out of the leadership equation. I wouldn't want to give my soldiers any kind of reason to use an excuse not to follow my leadership, because that's what's best for my unit and unit cohesion, mission accomplishment and troop safety and welfare are more important than advertising my personal lifestyle to the entire world.

    Soldiers aren't robots that are programmed to conduct themselves in a certain way and never vary from that. They're humans. Humans **** up. It's the reason that regulations and the UCMJ exist, so as to govern the conduct of those human beings. If a soldier disobeying the orders of a weak leader makes you question the professionalism of our armed forces, then the current crime rate within the ranks must leave with zero confidence in our service members.
    I thanked your post because of this part. Really nice discussion, apdst.

  9. #199
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're right, it doesn't prevent someone with no service from understanding the culture. However, when someone with no time in uniform starts calling a service member--active or not--names and claiming that that service member is wrong is an obvious misunderstanding of the culture.
    I have a ton of respect for ANYONE who has served. Calling a member of the military names simply because they are part of the military is cowardly. The service member might be wrong, but the person had better have some information to back the claim up.

    Agreed and the service members that have voiced concerns about the abolition of DADT have explained numerous times why they believe the removal of the policy will cause problems and what problems those are.
    I've heard the concerns, and I think many are reasonable. However, I think there are reasonable opposition to some of those concerns. I do not think this is a cut and dry issue.

    You're right, however I think that person should provide more than, "it's just the right thing to do", as an argument in favor of the repeal of DADT.
    I agree completely: just saying that is foolish. Further, I don't see this as solely a civil rights issue. That's being naive.

    Didn't you call me a liar in the past, therefore I must be wrong? I know RightNYC has. I thought you had done that, too. I could be mistaken.
    I don't think so. We've argued about things before, but I don't think I stated what you said above. I don't tend to make the fallacy of assuming that because someone is wrong about one thing, they're wrong about everything.

    Some soldiers will, some soldiers won't. Will the majority swing to either side? No way of telling until we actually get into that scenario. There are many factors that will make the difference, either way; the most important two factors will be the demographical makeup of the unit and even moreso, the leadership ability of that leader/commander. If that leader has weak leadership skills, then orders will be ignored and vice-versa if that leader is a strong leader. Soldiers respond favorably to a strong leader, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation. Pesonally, if I were gay and a serving officer, there's no way I would allow my sexual oreintation to become known to my unit, because I would be professional enough to take that factor out of the leadership equation. I wouldn't want to give my soldiers any kind of reason to use an excuse not to follow my leadership, because that's what's best for my unit and unit cohesion, mission accomplishment and troop safety and welfare are more important than advertising my personal lifestyle to the entire world.

    Soldiers aren't robots that are programmed to conduct themselves in a certain way and never vary from that. They're humans. Humans **** up. It's the reason that regulations and the UCMJ exist, so as to govern the conduct of those human beings. If a soldier disobeying the orders of a weak leader makes you question the professionalism of our armed forces, then the current crime rate within the ranks must leave with zero confidence in our service members.
    Excellent comments, and excellent points. From my interactions with folks in the military, I see our soldiers as being eminently professional. I hear what you are saying about a weak leader vs. a strong leader. Interestingly enough, I would say that this applies anywhere... the military, the private sector, anywhere. I just have a hard time imagining a soldier, in a combat situation, refusing to follow an order because of their leader's sexual orientation alone. I see our military as being far more professional than that.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #200
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: 2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I've heard the concerns, and I think many are reasonable. However, I think there are reasonable opposition to some of those concerns. I do not think this is a cut and dry issue.
    I've stated what I believe the problems will be, based on my experience and my knowledge of military regulations and the general attitudes of soldiers in general. Granted, all my military service was in the infantry, but infantry units are where the proverbial rubber meets the road and they are the last place we can afford for unit cohesion to be endangered, because people's lives are at stake.



    I agree completely: just saying that is foolish. Further, I don't see this as solely a civil rights issue. That's being naive.
    I trully believe that most opponents of DADT see it soley as a civil rights issue. They throw the, "we need to keep these valuable people", argument in for good measure so as to appear they actually give a ****.



    I don't think so. We've argued about things before, but I don't think I stated what you said above. I don't tend to make the fallacy of assuming that because someone is wrong about one thing, they're wrong about everything.
    I stand corrected, then. Although, I believe this is the first time you've ever engaged me civiliy.



    Excellent comments, and excellent points. From my interactions with folks in the military, I see our soldiers as being eminently professional. I hear what you are saying about a weak leader vs. a strong leader. Interestingly enough, I would say that this applies anywhere... the military, the private sector, anywhere. I just have a hard time imagining a soldier, in a combat situation, refusing to follow an order because of their leader's sexual orientation alone. I see our military as being far more professional than that.
    Believe it, or not, soldiers can justify insubordination with damn near any excuse you can imagine, even a leader's sexual orientation.

    Wanna know the kicker? It want necessarily be the soldier's fault. It's highly possible that that gay leader could shoulder most of the blame for not properly leading and training that soldier and possibly be relieved for being a substandard leader.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 20 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •