2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

Untill you been cramed together with a bunch of other smelly young men in close quaters, all pissed off cause you been shot at all day, im sorry, you just have no clue. Nothing in the civilian life compares to war.

MrVicchio said:

The first time you did it, was fine, repeatedly doing so is trollin because you have the excuse to be an ass to someone. That's not cool CC. And I think you wouldn't tolerate say, me doing that to another poster so knock it off.

There is SOME weight to the argument that if you haven't served, you cannot see the internal issues at play, and if you cannot agree that someone that's been there, done that has valid experience to bring to the discussion... whose playing games?

I won't disagree that a blanket "you MUST have served else you have no say" is silly, cause it IS silly. But it's more so a veteran (oh the irony) poster wasting multiple posts to attack a new guy over something so... silly.

Click to expand...

And I plan on stepping up my attacks on this issue, MrV. It's not just about one poster. I've seen MANY posters, some "veteran" posters, make this argument. It is an anti-debate tactic and VERY weak and I'm tired of seeing it. One who serves has just as much a right to argue their position as one who does not. Does a veteran have more say? Absolutely not. Does a veteran have more knowledge? Perhaps in some ways, nut not in others. Does a veteran have different knowledge? Yes.

And for your information, if I saw another poster doing this, I would support them completely. Thus far, I haven't seen anyone have the gumption to confront this ridiculous position. I am attacking the lack of logic of a debate tactic. Now, if posters want to make the claim that veterans would have DIFFERENT insights into this issue, I will not argue that point. But the ONLY insights? I would hope that they would prove themselves to be consistent and NOT debate any topic that they are not involved in as a profession.

Edit: and if you agree that the argument, "you MUST have served else you have no say" is silly, how about pointing it out when folks do it?

Vanskills said:

Untill you been cramed together with a bunch of other smelly young men in close quaters, all pissed off cause you been shot at all day, im sorry, you just have no clue. Nothing in the civilian life compares to war.

Click to expand...

You still haven't addressed the issue that I presented. Here, I'll repost it:

CaptainCourtesy said:

Wait... are you an 18-20 year old who has been around a bunch of "homos" in close quarters? I'm sorry, but if you are not, you have no experience on this issue, know nothing about it, and have no business discussing it.

Click to expand...

Do you see the inconsistency of what you are arguing, yet?

bub said:

I tried to summarize what you said. You repeat during 20 lines that it's gonna be bad but don't explain why. The two reasons you give are that it will affect morale and discipline/order.

I'm just trying to understand why it can affect morale and discipline. Is that too complex?

Click to expand...

For you, the concept is too complex.

I'll try to break it down, but I'm not getting my hopes up that you'll take this seriously.

You have a group of young men, in an institution that is to say the least, built around trust, honor, and bravery. That's part of being a soldier, sailor airman or marine. The more ground combat oriented the particualr job is, say an army platoon close combat infantry unit, or a marine expiditinary unit... the more the emphasis is on being a "man". Now, right or wrong, good or bad, part of being a warrior is being big, tough, strong and getting freaky with the ladies.

With me so far?

Now introduce an openly gay male into that enviroment.

How well will those manly men respond to a "fairy" in their midst? I can tell you from experience, when someone is found to be gay, things get ugly for that person. No one respects them and and they get drummed out.

But what if they can't be drummed out... what if they are in charge of that platoon? Or that unit? and this person, who NEEDS his people to respect him to carry out the mission... has to overcome that built in prejudice to carry out the mission.

Will it happen? Slowly, over time eventually the idea that your squad leader likes taking it doggie style won't be a big deal, but for the unforeseeable future IT WILL be an issue. That get's people KILLED in the field. Let's say our Gay Squad leader orders his men into the line of fire and some of them balk. Or even ignore the squad leader. That WILL happen. It happened when blacks were intigrated in. Sure, peopel got over that, but it took time, and it was needed.

Neither you, nor any of the other pro-gays serving folks have given a mission oriented positive reason to change the system. It's all about feelings, and whats "fair" vs. what's good for the service. Is the COST of doing this really worth the effort.

I say no, and it's based around saving lives and keeping the military from a needless distraction.

MrVicchio said:

For you, the concept is too complex.

I'll try to break it down, but I'm not getting my hopes up that you'll take this seriously.

You have a group of young men, in an institution that is to say the least, built around trust, honor, and bravery. That's part of being a soldier, sailor airman or marine. The more ground combat oriented the particualr job is, say an army platoon close combat infantry unit, or a marine expiditinary unit... the more the emphasis is on being a "man". Now, right or wrong, good or bad, part of being a warrior is being big, tough, strong and getting freaky with the ladies.

With me so far?

Now introduce an openly gay male into that enviroment.

How well will those manly men respond to a "fairy" in their midst? I can tell you from experience, when someone is found to be gay, things get ugly for that person. No one respects them and and they get drummed out.

But what if they can't be drummed out... what if they are in charge of that platoon? Or that unit? and this person, who NEEDS his people to respect him to carry out the mission... has to overcome that built in prejudice to carry out the mission.

Will it happen? Slowly, over time eventually the idea that your squad leader likes taking it doggie style won't be a big deal, but for the unforeseeable future IT WILL be an issue. That get's people KILLED in the field. Let's say our Gay Squad leader orders his men into the line of fire and some of them balk. Or even ignore the squad leader. That WILL happen. It happened when blacks were intigrated in. Sure, peopel got over that, but it took time, and it was needed.

Neither you, nor any of the other pro-gays serving folks have given a mission oriented positive reason to change the system. It's all about feelings, and whats "fair" vs. what's good for the service. Is the COST of doing this really worth the effort.

I say no, and it's based around saving lives and keeping the military from a needless distraction.

Click to expand...

Very well said sir, and with that gnight :2wave:

MrVicchio said:

For you, the concept is too complex.

I'll try to break it down, but I'm not getting my hopes up that you'll take this seriously.

You have a group of young men, in an institution that is to say the least, built around trust, honor, and bravery. That's part of being a soldier, sailor airman or marine. The more ground combat oriented the particualr job is, say an army platoon close combat infantry unit, or a marine expiditinary unit... the more the emphasis is on being a "man". Now, right or wrong, good or bad, part of being a warrior is being big, tough, strong and getting freaky with the ladies.

With me so far?

Now introduce an openly gay male into that enviroment.

How well will those manly men respond to a "fairy" in their midst? I can tell you from experience, when someone is found to be gay, things get ugly for that person. No one respects them and and they get drummed out.

But what if they can't be drummed out... what if they are in charge of that platoon? Or that unit? and this person, who NEEDS his people to respect him to carry out the mission... has to overcome that built in prejudice to carry out the mission.

Will it happen? Slowly, over time eventually the idea that your squad leader likes taking it doggie style won't be a big deal, but for the unforeseeable future IT WILL be an issue. That get's people KILLED in the field. Let's say our Gay Squad leader orders his men into the line of fire and some of them balk. Or even ignore the squad leader. That WILL happen. It happened when blacks were intigrated in. Sure, peopel got over that, but it took time, and it was needed.

Neither you, nor any of the other pro-gays serving folks have given a mission oriented positive reason to change the system. It's all about feelings, and whats "fair" vs. what's good for the service. Is the COST of doing this really worth the effort.

I say no, and it's based around saving lives and keeping the military from a needless distraction.

Click to expand...

You know...If I was at a gay bar, it certainly wouldn't stop me from chasing the ladies.

Seems to me that you've stereotyped military men as mild homophobics. I get the macho man thing that you're saying, but I don't think a lot of guys would stop being who they are just because a gay guy is around.

Onto your next point, if the some soldiers decide not to follow orders from their superiors....it's not the fault of the gay squad leader. I haven't been in the military, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty dang sure if you don't follow orders from your superiors YOUR ass is in trouble, amarite??

So, really, that wouldn't be a gay issue, it would be a not-following-your-orders issue.

Vanskills said:

I served, you did not. So you have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe you have not been around large numbers of young men, im sorry to disapoint you but they are very crude. :2wave:

Young men and women in the military have enough to worry about, like not getting shot than to worry if some homosexual got offended by something said

Click to expand...

You can't assume that I never served.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

You can't assume that I never served.

Click to expand...

hey weren't you my waiter the other night?

Great service BTW

MrVicchio said:

For you, the concept is too complex.

I'll try to break it down, but I'm not getting my hopes up that you'll take this seriously.

You have a group of young men, in an institution that is to say the least, built around trust, honor, and bravery. That's part of being a soldier, sailor airman or marine. The more ground combat oriented the particualr job is, say an army platoon close combat infantry unit, or a marine expiditinary unit... the more the emphasis is on being a "man". Now, right or wrong, good or bad, part of being a warrior is being big, tough, strong and getting freaky with the ladies.

With me so far?

Now introduce an openly gay male into that enviroment.

How well will those manly men respond to a "fairy" in their midst? I can tell you from experience, when someone is found to be gay, things get ugly for that person. No one respects them and and they get drummed out.

But what if they can't be drummed out... what if they are in charge of that platoon? Or that unit? and this person, who NEEDS his people to respect him to carry out the mission... has to overcome that built in prejudice to carry out the mission.

Will it happen? Slowly, over time eventually the idea that your squad leader likes taking it doggie style won't be a big deal, but for the unforeseeable future IT WILL be an issue. That get's people KILLED in the field. Let's say our Gay Squad leader orders his men into the line of fire and some of them balk. Or even ignore the squad leader. That WILL happen. It happened when blacks were intigrated in. Sure, peopel got over that, but it took time, and it was needed.

Neither you, nor any of the other pro-gays serving folks have given a mission oriented positive reason to change the system. It's all about feelings, and whats "fair" vs. what's good for the service. Is the COST of doing this really worth the effort.

I say no, and it's based around saving lives and keeping the military from a needless distraction.

Click to expand...

thanks!

So you think that they'll not be respected.

But aren't there harsh sanctions for those who do not respect orders? Isn't it enough to keep discipline?

And I don't know how it is in the USA, but we're in 2010 and people today seem reasonable enough not to bully a gay, especially in dangerous situations like in a battlefield!

texmaster said:

Dont forget the polygamists and cross dressers. You let in one life style choice why not the rest of them? Aren't they people too? Don't they deserve "rights?" :roll:

Click to expand...

You mean the Klingers?

Vanskills said:

I was a Marine for 8 years so i think im qualified to talk about it.

If they let OPEN homosexuals join the military i feel sorry for that person, they will be mocked and teased untill they quit and recieve a "dis-honorable" discharge. OR they will join just so they can sue the military for harrasment and quit with a huge payout. Military soldiers do NOT need this BS, keep your social projects in civiilan life.

Men in the military is like men in contruction, im sorry but its not homo friendly :2wave:

Click to expand...

You must have been surrounded by enlisted people.

I have a close friend from college who was in the Marines (an officer) from 1988 until 2009, with whom I have had discussions with on this subject matter. He's not gay. Your description is laughable, at best.

Vanskills said:

You are too ignorant to realize throwing openly flaming homosexuals into the military would cause a TON of problems with young 18-20 year old males that dominate the military. Listen bleeding liberal, you will NEVER change the mind or behavior of MILLIONS of young men with raging testorene to suddenly be kool with a bunch of homo's around them in close quaters

Click to expand...

With the posts in this thread of yours, I am ashamed that you served our country. Your attitude is horrible and incredibly immature.

MrVicchio said:

No, I cannot. Because you refuse to accept that it's not so much "their ability" as it is the effect on the morale and good order and dicipline that is at stake. To you, this is a civil rights issue, an unfair denail of service to good, honest hard working mena nd women being denied their right to serve their country because some homophobes can't handle the thought of gays serving in "their military".

Click to expand...

First, thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

Second, for me, this isn’t about civil rights. It’s about letting people who are qualified to serve in the military serve in the military. I understand there are limits regarding physical capacity, mental capacity, and what not, but if someone is qualified to serve, he/she should be able to service. I don’t see that as a “civil rights” argument.

While I WON'T deny, there are hate filled homophobes out there that will never accept openly gay men and women in the service, that's not where the real issue lay, and never has to be honest. You refuse to address this, because to address this takes the argument from your carefully constructed world of "civil rights" and into reality.

Click to expand...

See above.

Reality check is, that such a move would have a net NEGATIVE impact on the services for an unforeseeable amount of adjustment time. It could take only a few years, or it could take a decade to get things under control. We just don't know.

Click to expand...

You think it will have a net negative impact. But how can you be so sure? I have more faith in the men and women who serve our county that all would be okay, overall.

You and others seem to think that by allowing a gay person to serve will mean that gay people will be making out in public, making passes at others in public, saying, “I’m gay” in conversations regularly, being attracted to everyone who is the same sex as the gay person. To me, I don’t see human exchanges in the service as being any different than real life, including work life. I mentioned this yesterday. I am sure there are LOTS of gay people where I work. I know some who are gay because I am personally friends with them and I know their sexual orientation. These discussions don’t occur in professional settings. There is no relevance to them.

You say "Too bad, they just need to get over it" And part of me AGREES with you, however, having served and having an insight into the military mind being a third generation service member, I knwo that a lot of folks would have a very hard time adjusting to taking orders from a "man" that loves another man. It's JUST HOW IT IS.

When you have to trust the person giving you orders, that your LIFE is on the line, distractions are not needed. People have to trust those above them. There WILL be a trust issue that will arise. There will be issues with good order and dicipline. There will be morale problems.

Are those worth allowing what, 5% of the population the ability to openly serve gay or lesbian? When you tell me what the COMBAT benefit of allwoing Gays to openly serve is, then maybe we can get soemwhere.

Click to expand...

I understand you have personal experience and are from a family who has had personal experience with serving. But you cannot speak for everyone who is serving and would be exposed to this policy. Additionally, you seem to think that everyone will be informed, “Sergeant Joe Shmo is gay.” The only reason anyone would know someone was gay was if the person decided to tell everyone.

I don't know about you, but I don’t walk around telling people, “I’m heterosexual.” Do you? If not, do you think gay people will run around telling everyone, “I’m gay”?

We oftentimes think that all hell will break loose, and it doesn’t. Sure there will be adjustments. Those who refuse to take orders from someone who is qualified to be in a position to give orders should suffer consequences. The worst thing that could happen is that they decide to change the policy back, which I don’t see happening if they do allow gay people to serve. But to say the policy absolutely won’t work is not a good argument, IMO.

Well what do you know? Those who argue, "I served and thus I KNOW that it won't work," LMAO!

More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders -- including the former head of the Naval Academy -- have signed a statement calling for an end to the military's "don't ask-don't tell" policy, according to a California-based think tank that supports the movement.

Retired Adm. Charles Larson, the former Naval Academy superintendent, tops the list of 104 retired general and admirals who want the government to repeal the policy, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced Monday.

104 retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell' - CNN.com

Click to expand...

Other speakers, including retired Army Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich said it would help the nation's military to repeal the law. He and 27 other retired high-ranking military leaders had signed a letter saying they supported pushing back the policy, he said.

Speaking on behalf of the other retired military leaders, Laich said, "12,000 patriots ... had their military service cut short by a failed policy called 'don't ask, don't tell,' and were individually harmed by the very nation they had sworn to protect."

Laich said the leaders support the comments of retired Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton when the law was passed.

At the time, Shalikashvili supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt military cohesion. But in a New York Times editorial in January of this year, Shalikashvili said he was convinced the United States could abandon the policy.

"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," he wrote.

Military vets, activists protest 'don't ask, don't tell' - CNN.com

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON -- The commandant of the Marine Corps, who previously had publicly opposed lifting the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, on Wednesday softened his position by endorsing a Pentagon study of the issue.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Marine Gen. James T. Conway cautioned, however, that the study should focus only on how a change in military policy on gays and lesbians would affect the military's ability "to fight the nation's wars."

Top Marine softens stance on don't ask, don't tell' - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com

Click to expand...

Does Ethereal still serve? If so, I think the military would have serious problems with his smoking marijuana. Because he smokes, it's okay to smoke. Because he's heterosexual, it's not okay to allow gay people to serve.

aps said:

Does Ethereal still serve? If so, I think the military would have serious problems with his smoking marijuana. Because he smokes, it's okay to smoke. Because he's heterosexual, it's not okay to allow gay people to serve.

Click to expand...

Especially if they smoke weed. :lol: Ooopps..... *walks away*

RightinNYC said:

Got a link for this patently false claim, or is this another "oh it's not official but that's just how it works" situations?



So are you still claiming that Congress cannot change the UCMJ without the Supreme Court's approval, or have you given up on that?

Click to expand...

Got anything to add, or are you just trolling?

But, yes that's how it works in the military. Ask anyone who has been there and they'll tell you the same thing.

National defense and national security trump civil rights.


Marine Corps: Words of warning about lifting 'gay' ban (OneNewsNow.com)


The Marine Corps' top uniformed officer says that the ability of troops to fight and win wars must trump other concerns as the nation weighs whether to allow homosexuals to serve openly.



Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway told a House panel Wednesday he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights would ultimately have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the nation.


Conway is seen as the most resistant among the service chiefs to efforts under way in Congress and the Pentagon to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.


He said his concern was that military effectiveness would become "secondary to the discussion."

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm happy to discuss the issue and don't completely disagree with you. I, however, will NOT tolerate someone making the ridiculous claims that because you do not have direct experience in an area, you cannot discuss it. It's a weak debate tactic, and I will confront it when I see it and demonstrate it's lack of logic. Or, if folks would prefer, I can play the same game throughout the forum.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?".

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.

ptif219 said:

National defense and national security trump civil rights.


Marine Corps: Words of warning about lifting 'gay' ban (OneNewsNow.com)


The Marine Corps' top uniformed officer says that the ability of troops to fight and win wars must trump other concerns as the nation weighs whether to allow homosexuals to serve openly.



Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway told a House panel Wednesday he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights would ultimately have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the nation.


Conway is seen as the most resistant among the service chiefs to efforts under way in Congress and the Pentagon to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.


He said his concern was that military effectiveness would become "secondary to the discussion."

Click to expand...

You base your assertion on one guy's opinion? Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

aps said:

You base your assertion on one guy's opinion? Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Click to expand...

apsy, don't shoot the messenger. He was only quoting.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

Alright ..we'll build separate barracks and bathrooms for them and raise your taxes to pay for it.

Problem solved :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

The problem is even more easily solved. no new housing...house men and women in the same rooms. Whats the difference?

American said:

apsy, don't shoot the messenger. He was only quoting.

Click to expand...

I got the impression he had incorporated that opinion as his own.

aps said:

You base your assertion on one guy's opinion? Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Click to expand...

Another general. The left started this by saying a couple generals said it should be repealed. Fact is their are generals on both sides

ptif219 said:

Another general. The left started this by saying a couple generals said it should be repealed. Fact is their are generals on both sides

Click to expand...

Ahhh. Okay. On that point, we agree.