• 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 to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

I wasn't doing that. You just think I was. I'm more than willing to hear other sides of the issue. That's probably why I have such a moderate or centrist position on the matter. I see both the benefits and negatives associated with DADT.

Well then let's consider the facts one more time...

1. This policy lead to the dismissal of 300 qualified Arab translators during a war where such translators were in short supply.
2. It is not inconceivable that vital intelligence was missed as a result.
3. Because that vital intelligence may have been missed, people very well could have needlessly died or were hurt.

Now you are telling me that this policy is worth any needless deaths that may have occurred as a result and may occur in the future? You conscience is fine with national security being dictated by bias and prejudice even if it leads to people needlessly getting hurt or dying?
 
Well then let's consider the facts one more time...

1. This policy lead to the dismissal of 300 qualified Arab translators during a war where such translators were in short supply.
2. It is not inconceivable that vital intelligence was missed as a result.
3. Because that vital intelligence may have been missed, people very well could have needlessly died or were hurt.

Now you are telling me that this policy is worth any needless deaths that may have occurred as a result and may occur in the future? You conscience is fine with national security being dictated by bias and prejudice even if it leads to people needlessly getting hurt or dying?

Haven't I already said that I do not favor the zero tolerance policy? Haven't I said time and again that it should be left up to the discretion of the commander? Are you purposely ignoring my arguments?
 
Haven't I already said that I do not favor the zero tolerance policy? Haven't I said time and again that it should be left up to the discretion of the commander? Are you purposely ignoring my arguments?

It's already up to the discretion of the commander. You are advocating no change.
 
Sorry if my reasons don't help your cause in the way you would like....:roll:

Tough XXXX, deal with it.......;)
 
Oh, I've also said, many times, that I think DADT can be repealed almost immediately in non-combat MOS's. That would include your translators...
 
Is it? Can you show me where it says that?

Easy. The commander gets to decide what he reports and what he doesn't report. The fact of this is in the numbers. As the war has gone on longer and longer, and the number of men available has shrank, the number of gays who are reported and dismissed is getting fewer and fewer. They just can't afford to lose vital assets. Of course, it didn't bother them earlier on when they dismissed men they could really use now.
 
Oh, I've also said, many times, that I think DADT can be repealed almost immediately in non-combat MOS's. That would include your translators...

But that isn't your position. If you wanted to argue that infantry units should still have a DADT policy, but every other unit should not, then you might be a able to make a decent argument, but your position is that DADT should exist for the whole military. Frankly, if men who were serving in a combat capacity turned out gay and were moved to a different division, it would be considerably more reasonable than dismissing them from the whole military.

Heck, women make better fighter pilots because of their superior dexterity and body fat distribution which serves to help them cope with higher G forces than men, but they aren't allowed to be fighter pilots.
 
Last edited:
Easy. The commander gets to decide what he reports and what he doesn't report.

No, the commander does not get to decide what parts of the UCMJ he wants to enforce and which parts he doesn't. He can ignore the UCMJ but he does not have the legal authority to do so. I would alter the language of the UCMJ so that it states explicitly a commander has discretion.

The fact of this is in the numbers. As the war has gone on longer and longer, and the number of men available has shrank, the number of gays who are reported and dismissed is getting fewer and fewer. They just can't afford to lose vital assets. Of course, it didn't bother them earlier on when they dismissed men they could really use now.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure the military has been consistently meeting or exceeding its recruitment quotas. Do you have any evidence that would suggest otherwise?
 
But that isn't your position. If you wanted to argue that infantry units should still have a DADT policy, but every other unit should not, then you might be a able to make a decent argument, but your position is that DADT should exist for the whole military.

Dude, no offense, but are you retarded? I just told you what my position is and you simply told me that, no, that's not my position. How are you going to tell me what my position is?

I'll say it again: I support the repeal of DADT in non-combat units. I also support altering the language of the UCMJ so as to provide infantry unit commanders with the legal authority to exercise discretion in the enforcement of DADT.

We clear?
 
Oh, I've also said, many times, that I think DADT can be repealed almost immediately in non-combat MOS's. That would include your translators...

It should be repealed for all MOS's.
 
Seems to me the military should have zero tolerance for the poor behavior of those who are too afraid of gay people to serve next to them.

What unit or ship were you on?
 
with our economy in complete crisis, with our nation facing serious questions about its future, while fighting, supposedly, 2 wars, is NOW really the judicious time to introduce a resolve so divisive as this?
 
The translators would not have been discharged had they not broken the law...........
 
I'll say it again: I support the repeal of DADT in non-combat units. I also support altering the language of the UCMJ so as to provide infantry unit commanders with the legal authority to exercise discretion in the enforcement of DADT.

We clear?

Works for me.
 
Oh, I've also said, many times, that I think DADT can be repealed almost immediately in non-combat MOS's. That would include your translators...

That is so much horse **** and a total cop out my left wing friend........DADT is a ****ing law.....You can't have a law for some people and not for others.....Get a ****ing clue.........
 
That is so much horse **** and a total cop out my left wing friend........DADT is a ****ing law.....You can't have a law for some people and not for others.....Get a ****ing clue.........

My concern is one of practicality. Fairness doesn't apply in the military. You just do as your told, Sailor.
 
My concern is one of practicality. Fairness doesn't apply in the military. You just do as your told, Sailor.

:rofl

Compromise is so great. You get to pick the position that is most practical but get hated by everyone for doing it.

Although I can't deem a downside to DADT being limited to combat units at commander discretion as long as servicemen are transferred to a different division upon outing themselves rather than dismissed from the military entirely.

If anything, such a policy would probably do a lot to actually protect gays in the military.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it again: I support the repeal of DADT in non-combat units. I also support altering the language of the UCMJ so as to provide infantry unit commanders with the legal authority to exercise discretion in the enforcement of DADT.

We clear?

I agree. This sounds like a decent compromise. We've made a lot of changes in our treatment of gays in the last few decades. We can't make every change that's needed over night. While I'd love to see DADT completely removed we can't just shove it down everyone's throat.

And yes I just went there.
 
:rofl

Compromise is so great. You get to pick the position that is most practical but get hated by everyone for doing it.

I just want to keep things running smoothly is all. I think it's a damn shame that proud men and women must hide their sexuality in order to serve, but they should do so with the knowledge that their sacrifice IS appreciated by people of good will.

Although I can't deem a downside to DADT being limited to combat units at commander discretion as long as servicemen are transferred to a different division upon outing themselves rather than dismissed from the military entirely.

If anything, such a policy would probably do a lot to actually protect gays in the military.

That would certainly be an option. Like I said, whatever keeps things running smoothly.
 
My concern is one of practicality. Fairness doesn't apply in the military. You just do as your told, Sailor.

Fairness applied in thr Navy I was in for 21 years and you don't make a law for one man and not the other.........DADT is a federal law like any other law..Iff you don't like it you try and change it........you don't break it........If you were actually in the military you would know that..........
 
Fairness applied in thr Navy I was in for 21 years and you don't make a law for one man and not the other.........DADT is a federal law like any other law..Iff you don't like it you try and change it........you don't break it........If you were actually in the military you would know that..........

No such thing as fair in the military, sailor. You just shut up and follow orders. Doesn't matter if you think it's fair.
 
I just want to keep things running smoothly is all. I think it's a damn shame that proud men and women must hide their sexuality in order to serve, but they should do so with the knowledge that their sacrifice IS appreciated by people of good will.



That would certainly be an option. Like I said, whatever keeps things running smoothly.

Well whatever options they pick in repealing DADT, it will probably take at least a good 5 years to enact it. Even if they choose to segregate gays from certain combat units, it will come down to what works. Obama is wise enough to wait until Congress and the top military leaders are behind the change.
 
May I ask...since you too know of process....does the Legislature ever get up behind the always stoic Supreme Court and applaud after the President chastises their decisions?

Don't want to interrupt, just wonderin.

No. Although I think Obama was right for calling them out. I thought the Democratic cheerleading squad went overboard (as usual at the SOTU address).


Now back to the issue.......
 
No such thing as fair in the military, sailor. You just shut up and follow orders. Doesn't matter if you think it's fair.

That is where you and I are different....I gave the orders, you took them..........
 
Back
Top Bottom