• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

TacticalEvilDan said:
In what universe does the Commander in Chief need to appease the military in order to maintain their support in a time of war?

He doesn't need your support. He needs your obedience. Are you going to withhold your obedience while we're fighting two wars in the middle east?
Click to expand...

You don't understand these things because you tend to go extreme. It's not a matter of defiance. It's a matter of support. President Clinton had a very hard time with military support due to his lack of experience, which was compounded by his quest to alter social structure in the military. He was met with immediate friction and was criticized at all levels officiall and unofficially. He was constantly seeking support when it came to military matters. If you think I'm like you and just spout off baseless opinions you can read all about it in this book: America Between the Wars.

Presidents very much need military support in times of war. A General was recently fired because of his voiced opinions criticizing the Administration. Imagine an entire military aggrivated. Clinton saw it first hand and Obama isn't as stupid as to pretend this history doesn't exist.
 
apdst said:
Morale is as much the CIC's responsibility, as anyone else's, in the chain of command. The CIC can't afford to inact decisions that could possibly destroy morale.
Click to expand...

5.In July 1993, Rand researchers at the National Defense Research Institute, a think tank founded by the Air Force, completed a study commissioned by Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Prepared by over 70 social scientists based on evidence from six countries and data analyses from hundreds of studies of cohesion, concluded that sexual orientation alone was “not germane” in determining who should serve. Rand found that “none of the militaries studied for this report believe their effectiveness as an organization has been impaired or reduced as a result of the inclusion of homosexuals.” In Canada, where the ban had just ended, Rand found “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or organizational effectiveness.” The same conclusions were reached about Israel. The study reported that even in those countries where gays were allowed to serve, “in none of these societies is homosexuality widely accepted by a majority of the population.”v
What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center
 
winston53660 said:
How have other countries that do allow homosexuals to serve in their ranks dealt with the situation?
Click to expand...

Alot of those countries--Switzerland, Sweden, Germany--haven't been in a real fight in decades, even centuries. The last time the Germans were in a real war, they got their asses handed to them.

Not only that, we're talking about other countries, with different cultures. What works there, isn't guaranteed to work here.
 
BDBoop said:
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no clue you were one of the neocons. Off to ignore with you - you're in good company, no worries. Every neocon on the board is in there.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a NeoCon is? It has nothing to do with anything. And this issue is far from a political one except for the partisan slaves who seek it as one.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So in other words, obedience will be withheld during the fighting of two wars over anti-gay prejudices?
Click to expand...

Nice job at putting words into my mouth.

Low morale can effect how a force performs in the field. You do understand the importance of morale?
 
MSgt said:
You don't understand these things because you tend to go extreme. It's not a matter of defiance. It's a matter of support. President Clinton had a very hard time with military support due to his lack of experience, which was compounded by his quest to alter social structure in the military. He was met with immediate friction and was criticized at all levels officiall and unofficially. He was constantly seeking support when it came to military matters. If you think I'm like you and just spout off baseless opinions you can read all about it in this book: America Between the Wars.

Presidents very much need military support in times of war. A General was recently fired because of his voiced opinions criticizing the Administration. Imagine an entire military aggrivated. Clinton saw it first hand and Obama isn't as stupid as to pretend this history doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Huh, so I guess that whole "fighting for my country" or "defending our freedoms" thing only applies when you agree with The Man's policy on fags. :lol:


TED,
Loves how you label simple logic as "baseless opinion."
 
apdst said:
Alot of those countries--Switzerland, Sweden, Germany--haven't been in a real fight in decades, even centuries. The last time the Germans were in a real war, they got their asses handed to them.

Not only that, we're talking about other countries, with different cultures. What works there, isn't guaranteed to work here.
Click to expand...

17.A 2009 study by the University of Florida professor Bonnie Moradi and the Rand researcher Laura Miller, entitled “Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members,” and published in Armed Forces & Society, was the first-ever statistical analysis of whether openly gay service has any impact on military readiness. The study shows that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member has no bearing on the unit’s cohesion, concluding that “the data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness.”xviii
 
winston53660 said:
5.In July 1993, Rand researchers at the National Defense Research Institute, a think tank founded by the Air Force, completed a study commissioned by Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Prepared by over 70 social scientists based on evidence from six countries and data analyses from hundreds of studies of cohesion, concluded that sexual orientation alone was “not germane” in determining who should serve. Rand found that “none of the militaries studied for this report believe their effectiveness as an organization has been impaired or reduced as a result of the inclusion of homosexuals.” In Canada, where the ban had just ended, Rand found “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or organizational effectiveness.” The same conclusions were reached about Israel. The study reported that even in those countries where gays were allowed to serve, “in none of these societies is homosexuality widely accepted by a majority of the population.”v
What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center
Click to expand...

I put more stock in what actual veterans have to say on the subject, than what a civilian think tank says. The Rand Study is nothing more than an opinion poll. We all know how those can turn out to be wrong.
 
apdst said:
Alot of those countries--Switzerland, Sweden, Germany--haven't been in a real fight in decades, even centuries. The last time the Germans were in a real war, they got their asses handed to them.
Click to expand...

How about the IDF? That was the subject of the report he linked to earlier.
 
apdst said:
I put more stock in what actual veterans have to say on the subject, than what a civilian think tank says. The Rand Study is nothing more than an opinion poll. We all know how those can turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...

National Defense Research Institute, a think tank founded by the Air Force,
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Huh, so I guess that whole "fighting for my country" or "defending our freedoms" thing only applies when you agree with The Man's policy on fags. :lol:


TED,
Loves how you label simple logic as "baseless opinion."
Click to expand...

Do you support a draft dodger?

I love how Libs are demanding obedience in the ranks in regard to gays serving in the military, yet when someone deserts his unit, because he think we're involved in an illegal war, he suddenly becomes some kind of patriot.
 
apdst said:
Nice job at putting words into my mouth.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you're not talking about obedience. I was just making sure.

apdst said:
Low morale can effect how a force performs in the field. You do understand the importance of morale?
Click to expand...

So, you're telling me that our military is so unprofessional, that the homophobia of its members is going to affect performance in the field once gays are allowed to serve openly?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
How about the IDF? That was the subject of the report he linked to earlier.
Click to expand...

That's one army. And, again, that's a different culture. The IDF also has an 8% casualty rate, during training, because they're training is ultra realistic. Should we replicate that, too?
 
MSgt said:
We aren't taught how to dehumanize people. Have you ever been in a fight? Did you have to dehumanize him to punch him?
Click to expand...

Oh goodie... another Regressive assumption fan... consider yourself persona non grata in regards to me. I don't waste my time with people who presume to tell me what I think.
 
winston53660 said:
National Defense Research Institute, a think tank founded by the Air Force,
Click to expand...

The Air Force has vast experience with Army and Marine Corps combat arms units? I'm thinking, "no!".
 
apdst said:
Do you support a draft dodger?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about gays in the military.

apdst said:
I love how Libs are demanding obedience in the ranks in regard to gays serving in the military, yet when someone deserts his unit, because he think we're involved in an illegal war, he suddenly becomes some kind of patriot.
Click to expand...

I don't recall supporting the desertion of anybody who signed themselves up for service.

My feelings on the draft are different, strictly because I think it's a clear violation of what the 13th Amendment literally says, but I'm not going to debate that in this thread.

Also, I'm not a "Lib." Please stop calling me one just because I disagree with you. If you continue to call be a "Lib," you will be lying and I will ask you to stop lying each time you do it.
 
apdst said:
That's one army. And, again, that's a different culture. The IDF also has an 8% casualty rate, during training, because they're training is ultra realistic. Should we replicate that, too?
Click to expand...

Yes.





.
 
apdst said:
The Air Force has vast experience with Army and Marine Corps combat arms units? I'm thinking, "no!".
Click to expand...

Would you like an army study? I have one.
 
The Uncola said:
Oh goodie... another Regressive assumption fan... consider yourself persona non grata in regards to me. I don't waste my time with people who presume to tell me what I think.
Click to expand...

Way to duck his question.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So, you're telling me that our military is so unprofessional, that the homophobia of its members is going to affect performance in the field once gays are allowed to serve openly?
Click to expand...

Why are you folks having such a hard time seeing the big picture? Is it a lack of military experience? You're just being obtuse? What?
 
apdst said:
That's one army. And, again, that's a different culture. The IDF also has an 8% casualty rate, during training, because they're training is ultra realistic. Should we replicate that, too?
Click to expand...

So first you dismiss the results in a number of different countries because of how long its been since they've seen a "real" war, then you dismiss the IDF because their culture is different.

In other words, the IDF is more professional than we are when it comes to personal feelings on gays, so we couldn't possibly handle it as well as they do.

Got it.
 
apdst said:
Why are you folks having such a hard time seeing the big picture? Is it a lack of military experience? You're just being obtuse? What?
Click to expand...

I'm not having a hard time seeing the big picture. I'm trying to get one of you to admit that the ONLY reason letting gays serve openly would affect unit cohesion is that we have a military that isn't professional enough to set aside personal prejudice in the name of serving their country.

You guys keep sorta hinting at that. I just want you to come out and say it.
 
winston53660 said:
Would you like an army study? I have one.
Click to expand...

So, you're going to take these studies, done by who knows, who and ptu that up against decades of combined experience of combat soldiers that are telling you something completely opposite? We've been there and done that, but we're all full of ****?

Listen to yourself!
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not having a hard time seeing the big picture. I'm trying to get one of you to admit that the ONLY reason letting gays serve openly would affect unit cohesion is that we have a military that isn't professional enough to set aside personal prejudice in the name of serving their country.

You guys keep sorta hinting at that. I just want you to come out and say it.
Click to expand...

What unit did you serve in?
 
apdst said:
What unit did you serve in?
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. You don't want to answer the question -- is the reason that unit cohesion would be impacted by gays serving openly the fact that our military isn't professional enough to set aside personal prejudice in the name of serving their country -- so you try to assault my credibility.

That's not going to work, because I'm not claiming to be an expert, or to have experience.

I'm just asking a question.

I can't seem to get a straight answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom