• 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!

Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

apdst said:
It's going to be a complete charlie foxtrot. Alot of the folks who support the abolition of DADT don't care, because they're not, nor will they ever be a member of the armed services and won't have to deal with it. It all looks fine and dandy from their nice, clean, safe, politically correct perch.
Click to expand...

Apdst you are wrong again...Our troops fight for me..they fight for you and they fight for all of the citizens of this nation..I do support the abolition of DADT for exact opposite reasons that you do not support the abolition of it. You don't care about the real issues. Our troops are fighting for me and I realize that. Do you? We are at a point in our ecomonic woes that it is shooting ourselves in the foot to deny our military ALL of the assets we can provide them and that includes the assets of trained Gay soldiers both male and female. It would be neglectful to do otherwise when we are fighting two wars and need to have a properly trained and adequately manned and ready force.
 
goldendog said:
Apdst you are wrong again...Our troops fight for me..they fight for you and they fight for all of the citizens of this nation..I do support the abolition of DADT for exact opposite reasons that you do not support the abolition of it. You don't care about the real issues. Our troops are fighting for me and I realize that. Do you? We are at a point in our ecomonic woes that it is shooting ourselves in the foot to deny our military ALL of the assets we can provide them and that includes the assets of trained Gay soldiers both male and female. It would be neglectful to do otherwise when we are fighting two wars and need to have a properly trained and adequately manned and ready force.
Click to expand...


But, before they fight for you they fight for themselves.

that includes the assets of trained Gay soldiers both male and female.
Click to expand...

You say that like gay soldiers are superior to straight soldiers. Which suggests to me, that you are all about the agenda, regardless of what effect it'll have on the service. But, hey, you're not going to deal with it, so what do you care, right?
 
apdst said:
It's going to be a complete charlie foxtrot. Alot of the folks who support the abolition of DADT don't care, because they're not, nor will they ever be a member of the armed services and won't have to deal with it. It all looks fine and dandy from their nice, clean, safe, politically correct perch.
Click to expand...

Yep, the services are going to have to pay the price for this. No SH policy change and with the removal of DADT you are going to get SH complaints that are totally BS. Loose good people that way, especially derailed NCO careers.

Still, it has to be done somehow. DADT is bull**** on principle. They already have the gays in the unit, but no one knows who they are...could be anyone. Not that that changes with the removal of DADT. Still, DADT is artificial. It needs to be done in a way to preserve cohesion and morale. Seems like SH policy change is the only way. Maybe they (the Prez) will realize that and go for that.
 
Redress said:
No you have not shown anything. You have made tons of claims with no backing facts. Some of the things you have claimed are really stupid, like your wild ideas about what can be sexual harassment, how romance is banned about ship, that gays in the military is like women sharing a shower with men. You have completely failed to show a single thing other than your ignorance on the topic. The best, most complete and up to date study on the topic, requested by the Pentagon, shows that it is not only feasible to allow gays in the military, but that it would have a trivial at worst effect on military readiness and effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Those aren't wild ass ideas, those are facts, sister. Anyone that made it past the grade of E-3 would know that, so I guess it's understandable why you don't.
 
apdst said:
But, before they fight for you they fight for themselves.



You say that like gay soldiers are superior to straight soldiers. Which suggests to me, that you are all about the agenda, regardless of what effect it'll have on the service. But, hey, you're not going to deal with it, so what do you care, right?
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide proof that it will have ANY negative effects.

I'll be waiting.
 
reefedjib said:
Yep, the services are going to have to pay the price for this. No SH policy change and with the removal of DADT you are going to get SH complaints that are totally BS. Loose good people that way, especially derailed NCO careers.

Still, it has to be done somehow. DADT is bull**** on principle. They already have the gays in the unit, but no one knows who they are...could be anyone. Not that that changes with the removal of DADT. Still, DADT is artificial. It needs to be done in a way to preserve cohesion and morale. Seems like SH policy change is the only way. Maybe they (the Prez) will realize that and go for that.
Click to expand...

There'll never be a change to the sexual harrassment policy. The Army's SH policy is a liberal wet dream that they would love to force on the private sector.
 
apdst said:
There'll never be a change to the sexual harrassment policy. The Army's SH policy is a liberal wet dream that they would love to force on the private sector.
Click to expand...

Care to prove that?
 
Back in a few, heading home. Great discussion! :cool:
 
apdst said:
Those aren't wild ass ideas, those are facts, sister. Anyone that made it past the grade of E-3 would know that, so I guess it's understandable why you don't.
Click to expand...

You have not documented a single one of your "facts". I have succeeded in documenting what I say. When you have some actual "facts", feel free to add them to the conversation.
 
Redress said:
You have not documented a single one of your "facts". I have succeeded in documenting what I say. When you have some actual "facts", feel free to add them to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Neither have you. All you've offered up is some screwball study, that doesn't really mean jack ****.

You and Goldendog seem to be the only ones that don't get it. Birds of a feather, I guess.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Neither have you. All you've offered up is some screwball study, that doesn't really mean jack ****.

You and Goldendog seem to be the only ones that don't get it. Birds of a feather, I guess.
Click to expand...

I have offered up the most complete and current study on the issue, I have offered up stats on gays in the military, I have offered up poll numbers showing what people think on the issue. You have offered up...well, nothing at all except some unlikely stories and really stupid claims about the UCMJ and other things you know nothing about. You cannot be charged with sexual harassment for opening doors for some one, which you claim(feel free to show the policy or some one charged for doing so), there are no regulations against romance on ship, which you claim(feel free to find the regulation). I have offered up evidence, you have made unlikely claims.
 
Redress said:
I have offered up the most complete and current study on the issue, I have offered up stats on gays in the military, I have offered up poll numbers showing what people think on the issue. You have offered up...well, nothing at all except some unlikely stories and really stupid claims about the UCMJ and other things you know nothing about. You cannot be charged with sexual harassment for opening doors for some one, which you claim(feel free to show the policy or some one charged for doing so), there are no regulations against romance on ship, which you claim(feel free to find the regulation). I have offered up evidence, you have made unlikely claims.
Click to expand...

But, that's all it is, a study. I think we're all smart enough to know that when the metal meets the meat, those high browed studies don't mean jack.
 
apdst said:
But, that's all it is, a study. I think we're all smart enough to know that when the metal meets the meat, those high browed studies don't mean jack.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what the study says. It looks at what happens in part when "the metal meets the meat". It finds that having gays serve openly has no noticeable effect, and that gays are already there where fighting is happening. That is the thing, it looks at facts, and makes assessments based on those facts, which is something you have not done.
 
Redress said:
I think you misunderstand what the study says. It looks at what happens in part when "the metal meets the meat". It finds that having gays serve openly has no noticeable effect, and that gays are already there where fighting is happening. That is the thing, it looks at facts, and makes assessments based on those facts, which is something you have not done.
Click to expand...

Did the study survey 100% of all units in the armed services? Or did they cherry pick units that would a favorable spin on the study? I don't put stock in studies and polls, sorry.
 
Redress said:
I think you misunderstand what the study says. It looks at what happens in part when "the metal meets the meat". It finds that having gays serve openly has no noticeable effect, and that gays are already there where fighting is happening. That is the thing, it looks at facts, and makes assessments based on those facts, which is something you have not done.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the study but the conclusions you quoted are interesting. I think what the difference between you guys is that there may need to be additional changes made to things like the SH, for DADT to be abolished successfully, and result in an outcome like your study describes. Does the study talk about rules in place for harrassment and co-existence?

I think it is doable to get rid of DADT, but it will be painful.
 
apdst said:
Did the study survey 100% of all units in the armed services? Or did they cherry pick units that would a favorable spin on the study? I don't put stock in studies and polls, sorry.
Click to expand...

I linked to the study, feel free to read it and educate yourself. That is why I like to provide links. I know you put no stock in anything that points to flaws in your reasoning in this poll, as your debate on the UCMJ and modifying it showed clearly, but you are an easy foil to get out my opinions, since you make my positions look very reasoned and strong.
 
reefedjib said:
I haven't read the study but the conclusions you quoted are interesting. I think what the difference between you guys is that there may need to be additional changes made to things like the SH, for DADT to be abolished successfully, and result in an outcome like your study describes. Does the study talk about rules in place for harrassment and co-existence?

I think it is doable to get rid of DADT, but it will be painful.
Click to expand...

No need to change sexual harassment rules, since they would cover situations between people of the same sex. There is no evidence that there would be a large increase in sexual harassment if DADT is removed and gays allowed to serve openly, and since there are ~35k gay soldiers now, and other countries have successfully integrated gays into their military, it seems pretty unlikely. Any sexual harassment cases that do occur can be easily handled by the current rules, and the fact there would be some is not a real problem, since people break just about every rule in the military, and yet we still have the strongest, most effective military in the world.

Racial integration did not break the military, nor did allowing women increased roles. Both cases do point to how best to handle the transition though, and the study I linked does make comparisons and from them recommendations on how to handle things when it does happen, and it is inevitably going to happen before too long.
 
Redress said:
No need to change sexual harassment rules, since they would cover situations between people of the same sex. There is no evidence that there would be a large increase in sexual harassment if DADT is removed and gays allowed to serve openly, and since there are ~35k gay soldiers now, and other countries have successfully integrated gays into their military, it seems pretty unlikely. Any sexual harassment cases that do occur can be easily handled by the current rules, and the fact there would be some is not a real problem, since people break just about every rule in the military, and yet we still have the strongest, most effective military in the world.

Racial integration did not break the military, nor did allowing women increased roles. Both cases do point to how best to handle the transition though, and the study I linked does make comparisons and from them recommendations on how to handle things when it does happen, and it is inevitably going to happen before too long.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are right. I dislike the SH rules for reasons beyond the impact with the DADT issue. I find it hard to believe that just on an accusation a career can be ruined. I wonder if accusations of gays privately telling other soldiers have occurred. And what has been the outcome.

It could still be a big problem, much like the problems that occurred when blacks were integrated. I don't mean when all black units were formed, I mean when blacks were integrated into all white units. Lots of problems occurred, I believe. In wartime, there is always the reports of soldiers who catch a bullet in the back. That level of distrust and dislike will occur.
 
reefedjib said:
Perhaps you are right. I dislike the SH rules for reasons beyond the impact with the DADT issue. I find it hard to believe that just on an accusation a career can be ruined. I wonder if accusations of gays privately telling other soldiers have occurred. And what has been the outcome.

It could still be a big problem, much like the problems that occurred when blacks were integrated. I don't mean when all black units were formed, I mean when blacks were integrated into all white units. Lots of problems occurred, I believe. In wartime, there is always the reports of soldiers who catch a bullet in the back. That level of distrust and dislike will occur.
Click to expand...

There are some real exaggerations on how sexual harassment claims are handled. It's not perfect, but the word of the accuser is not automatically accepted.
 
Redress said:
There are some real exaggerations on how sexual harassment claims are handled. It's not perfect, but the word of the accuser is not automatically accepted.
Click to expand...

And, that would be a blatant falsehood.
 
Redress said:
There are some real exaggerations on how sexual harassment claims are handled. It's not perfect, but the word of the accuser is not automatically accepted.
Click to expand...

Luckily, I served in a combat unit in Germany, so we were all male, as a battalion on our own base (kaserne), so there were no women to get into trouble with. They had some trouble across town in a mixed unit from time to time and the word was that just the accusation of harrassment would get you in trouble. I am not sure of the details, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom