What’s good for the goose….
Of course, dicksmith at VetVoice is writing about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, ONCE AGAIN. They might as well rename the VoteVets blog to “One Track Mind”. But today, he’s quoting ISAF CSM Marvin Hill who intimates that soldiers who disagree with the repeal have to make up their own minds about whether they stay or go when the time comes.
Of course, dicksmith takes that to mean that the Command Sergeant Major is telling them “Just like any policy in the military, if you don’t like it you can get always get out when your enlistment term expires. There is no room in military service for people who allow their bigotry to inhibit combat readiness.”
I wonder if dicksmith would apply that to the criminals like Dan Choi who couldn’t comply with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and became disruptive influences in the ranks. Or is dicksmith just telling people who have opinions that don’t track with his to STFU?
dicksmith should come out of the intellectually shallow end of the pool.
Category: Military issues
.
Onw wonders: is dicksmaith a Choi-dicksmith?
One also wonders if I can spell.
“If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward — if that’s the way that we have to go,” Hill says in an interview with Roland Martin, scheduled to air Sunday.
==========
Wasn’t one of the claimed reasons for the necessity of the repeal of DADT that the military was kicking out good soldiers simply for being homosexuals?
But now the military is quite alright with kicking out good soldiers simply, because they have an issue with open homosexuals?
Brilliant.
So “what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service” is to cater to <1% of the military force at the expense of 99% of the military force. And if the military loses 10-20% of the force, because they don't like the repeal of DADT, so be it. So long as the military doesn't abandon its most treasured standard of diversity, as Chief of Staff of the Army GEN Casey said after the Fort Hood massacre.
Wonderful.
“I wonder if dicksmith would apply that to the criminals like Dan Choi who couldn’t comply with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy…..?”
Good question, or should I say, good diversionary tactic. Too bad the policy question is all about Dan Choi, as you would like to make it.
Considering Choi is the one who wants to smoke a cock at company formation, yeah, it kinda IS about him in this instance.
That would be a violation of the UCMJ then, wouldn’t it?
>That would be a violation of the UCMJ then, wouldn’t it?
When has that stopped Choi from acting out now in the name of his “cause.” Obviously he cares more about himself then service to his country. Face it, the man is a douche. The worst thing that happened to DADT repeal was him becoming its poster boy!
So what, Joey? You really think Choi, or another cock-smoker will be held to the same standard? Like Hasan was, when he began his journey to jihad?
How about you respond to the post Michael in MI made in #3, and the seeming contradiction that the military is going to kick out far more good soldiers, if they can’t just get along with gays in the ranks? After all, the idea behind the repeal of DADT is supposedly to make the military stronger, right? Losing far more good soldiers, Marines, Airmen and women, sailors and Coasties to their unwillingness to put up with serving with Bruth and Bruth, is going to make the military better? As Michael said, “Brilliant”…..
The soldiers who can’t handle it don’t belong IMHO. Obviously they’ll be a migration – some will leave the service and some will have a new opportunity to enlist. I don’t think anyone can predict the numbers or the quality of soldiers in this influx\outflow that will undoubtedly occur. Who’s to say at this point that the military won’t experience a net gain in readiness when all is said and done? In the crudest terms, is an intolerant, bigoted soldier from the bible belt any better than a gay soldier from, say, NYC? Neither you nor anyone else can say with certainity that, as you put it, the service will be, “Losing far more good soldiers, Marines, Airmen and women, sailors and Coasties to their unwillingness to put up with serving with Bruth and Bruth”. Just more fear mongering and propaganda by the intolerant.
The Army has kicked out far more soldiers for weight than for being gay. So when do we give the “Gravitationally Challenged” their free pass? Since when are you not suppose to adapt to the Army,now it has to adapt to you!
The soldiers who can’t handle it don’t belong IMHO.
==========
Couldn’t one also say “the soldiers who can’t handle DADT don’t belong”? What’s the difference? Homosexuals can serve just like everyone else, they just can’t be open about it. Why not tell them “If you can’t handle DADT, then you don’t belong in the military. That is the law. Follow it or leave.”
Just more fear mongering and propaganda by the intolerant.
As opposed to the fear mongering and propaganda by the LGBT who say that DADT is causing the military to lose lots of our top soldiers who are homosexuals. “We need to repeal DADT because we’re losing many great soldiers, because of the law!” Nah, that’s not scaremongering and propaganda there.
As an aside, I tire of the MF-ing media’s BS framing of this issue. At the top of the hour news, they framed it as “the military policy banning homosexuals from serving”. That is not the case at all. It *should* be “the Congressional law banning homosexuals from serving in the military”. It is no mistake that they always frame it “the military policy” instead of what it actually is “the Congressional law”.
Actually, it would be even more accurate to say “the Bill Clinton policy banning homosexuals from serving in the military”. Isn’t DADT a policy created by Clinton as a compromise? The actual Congressional law bans homosexuals from serving at all, but DADT was created by Clinton to allow them to serve, so long as no one knew about it, right?
Michael, the policy doesn’t “ban” homosexuals/lesbians, they just can’t do it openly. Joey doesn’t care what may transpire, as long as the LGBT lobby has their way. Then, it’ll be homosexuals serve, why can’t they get housing, allowances, etc, etc. Well, if DOMA doesn’t let them get housing, we have to change that law, and if they can’t do whatever, we have to change those laws.
This isn’t about the desire or ability to serve, that option is there. It’s about fundamentally changing society to accept the aberrant behavior of <1% of the population.
And, as for "those who can't handle it, don't belong"? The ignorance displayed in that statement is just astounding. This, coming from a douche who has not one iota of what it's like to, you know, actually serve.
>The ignorance displayed in that statement is just astounding. This, coming from a douche who has not one iota of what it’s like to, you know, actually serve.
Also someone that doesn’t have any understanding of the military doesn’t realize that DADT was about as neutral(stay out of your bedroom) a position on homosexuality that you are going to get. Once something is formally acknowledged in the military(open homosexuality) & accepted; the military must take a positive, protective position on that activity/trait etc. So to make less than 1 percent of the military feel good about themselves they are going to alienate(we will be conservative) 20 percent of the force who can’t accept what they deem bad behavior. This new policy suddenly becomes very intrusive, and is very bad for the team, because it creates a “special” group that the military is protecting. All bad OERs etc. are scrutinized for homophobia, and any allegation brings the unit to a stand still, because only the allegation can kill careers. All so Joey can say that Mike is his boyfriend which isn’t even relevant to the mission of the military.
Joe,
Lifting DADT will not do anything to help readiness. It will mean more mandatory diversity training, more fraternization issues, more b.s to distract from training and further lower standards. This will get troops killed in war. And this “gay soldier…from NYC” does not exist, at least not in the numbers needed to replace those “bigoted soldier[s] from the bible belt.” Interesting that you think people from the Bible belt are all bigoted and those from NYC are all awesome. Sounds like a bit of projection.
Folks like you act like there is a gay battalion from San Francisco chomping at the bit to fight for their country, if only they were allowed to (and I’m sure they would look fabulous). The vast majority of military recruits come from conservative places – appreciation for military service and patriotism are not as valued in blue America as in red America – so even if DADT were lifted, I wouldn’t expect a massive influx of the Ivy League or Berkeley crowd. Simply put, they hate the military (I know, not all of them hate the military).
I have been in a combat support MOS my whole career – it seems we spend half our training time dealing with fraternization/EO issues. We don’t need anything like that in the combat arms. Gay soldiers are allowed to serve, and God knows I have served with several (mostly lesbians). But there is a clearly defined boundary, and everyone knows not to cross it. DADT is fine the way it is.
This isn’t about the desire or ability to serve, that option is there. It’s about fundamentally changing society to accept the aberrant behavior of <1% of the population.
==========
Bingo.
I’ve expressed this in the comments at Blackfive and all the repeal DADT proponents claim that I am off my rocker, in so many words. I said that it was the hidden agenda behind the repeal of DADT. That this is not the end game, but the first step in the rest of their agenda (repeal DOMA, create “same-sex marriage” or redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, etc). They claim that it is not a hidden agenda, that they are right out in the open about repeal of DOMA, etc.
I disagree. They are open about it, but not in the context of repeal of DADT. That is my point about ‘hidden agenda’. As you say, this is not about equality in the military or what is best in the military, it is all about gaining this victory for the LGBT movement in order to use it as a stepping stone for more.
They failed in getting the repeal of DOMA through ballot initiatives and the courts (so far), so now they are changing strategies and getting it done in a round about fashion. Repeal DADT first, then push for housing and benefits for homosexual couples in the military. When they can’t get that, because of DOMA, move for the repeal of DOMA, using the military as an excuse. “Our homosexual couples in the military can’t pass on benefits to their partners, can’t get married housing through the military, etc etc, so we need to repeal DOMA to give them these equal ‘rights’ blah blah blah”.
All so Joey can say that Mike is his boyfriend which isn’t even relevant to the mission of the military.
Hey, leave me out of this. I may have been single for quite a long time now, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a homosexual (NTTAWWT!) or desperate enough to date Joey if I were! heh
>Hey, leave me out of this. I may have been single for quite a long time now, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a homosexual (NTTAWWT!) or desperate enough to date Joey if I were! heh
LMAO– I didn’t even pay attention to the second name I was using. 😉