Obama repeal of don't ask, don't tell is foolish!

[sampsonblk]

The policy works, first of all. Repealing it at this time is foolish from a political standpoint, as well as a military one.

Politically, the cost goes without saying. Is a big loser for us in this election cycle, especially when the Republicans are desperate to find something to use against us so they can get back in this game.

From a military standpoint, repealing don't ask, don't tell is the same as openly allowing gays to serve in the military. Regardless of how one feels about the prospect, it will certainly harm readiness in the short term. If done, it should be done in peacetime. Not when we have active military operations already taking place.

Laslty, folks who advocate a repeal never seem to be able to explain the consequences. What will be the problems associated with this change? How will we overcome them? How long will it take? What will be the long term consequences?

All of these questions (and more) need to be answered long before even considering this idea.

[terrya]

1. Horseshit.

Scores of retired military officials...including a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...have called for the repeal of DADT. It's nothing but bigotry, pure and simple. We are getting increasingly alone in our not allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the military. It's discriminatory and should be repealed now.

[Lerkfish]

16. I second that. Its always been Horseshit.

[terrya]

23. Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in its armed forces.

I've never heard any concern about "military readiness" about them, have you?

The Pentagon wants to keep DADT because of their institutionalized homophobia. Well, fuck that. There are zero reasons why a gay man or woman can't serve openly in the military.

[DemVet]

43. Zero reasons? Maybe logical reasons, but...

as a retired military man who is intimately familiar with the culture of our Armed Forces and the American way of life, I honestly fear for the safety of openly gay people in our military...I really do.

[shadowknows69]

49. I fear just as much for black and latino soldiers

I've met some serious "White Power" disciples in my travels on the base.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. What Consequences?

Anybody should be allowed to serve as long as they are committed to esprit de corps.

How does having gays in the military harm esprit de corps?


I think Wes Clark knows more about military culture than most politicians and he favors repeal... People shouldn't be defined by whom they choose to fall in love with...

DSB

[cali]

3. No it does not work. And it's flat out discrimination.

I find it repugnant that any DUer would support this policy. And what
problems do you think would arise from simply allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly? Many countries do allow just that, with
no attendent problems.

[cboy4]

14. Absolutely!

[sniffa]

63. Our troops might catch gay

:scared:

[Chovexani]

174. I'm enlisting just to lick all the sporks in the PX

:P

[terrya]

96. This "we're not ready for it" crap is tiresome.

That excuse is going to used indefinitely. "We're not ready for it, we're not ready for it". We heard that in 1993 and we're still hearing it 15 years later. Gay men and lesbians have served this country, honorably, in the military ever since this country's founding. And it's long, long, long, long overdue for them to serve openly.

[cali]

101. It's maddening as hell and utterly mindless

What if Truman had used it about integrating the armed forces?

[terrya]

112. The armed forces might still be segregated

That was one of the things I admire about Truman...his integrating the armed forces. And, you know, if he was still alive today, I think Truman would be in favor of repealing DADT. I think he would have seen it as foolishness.

I just don't see the problem here. Scores of retired enlisted military, 2 former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikasvili(sp) and Admiral William Crowe, General Wesley Clark AND the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter (who also served in the military) have all come out in favor of repealing DADT.

[cali]

118. The problem is bigotry and ignorance

and it's hurting us.

[wolfgirl]

4. How will allowing

loyal, brave Americans to serve openly in the military hurt our readiness?

:shrug:

They always have and will continue to serve their Country, so explain how being open & honest hurts us?

Believe me, their fellow soldiers know they are gay/lesbian but don't give a rat's ass one way or the other.

[tekisui]

5. We've lost thousands of good people due to this discriminatory policy.

It should be repealed immediately. We've lost valuable translators, intelligence workers, soldiers, etc.

At a time when our military is broken, we need all the help we can get. Very fine servicemen and women have lost their lively hoods due to this. And, it is used more as an excuse to discharge people, not to enforce policy.

[Vinca]

6. Dumbest post of the day. Do you honestly think people in the military

are unaware of their coworkers sexual orientation? What it will mean is officers will not be obligated to boot out important members of the military for idiotic reasons.

[MADem]

20. That is true. The greatest dread of any commander is when their

outstanding gay worker decides they've had enough of the shit they're putting up with, and outs themself to get gone.

The "Telling" part of DADT mandates the discharge of the individual. Most of them wouldn't "tell" if the environment weren't onerous to them. And the only reason the environment is "onerous" is because of the rule.

The military has come a LONG way on this issue. A LONG way. I can remember when it first was implemented, most of the decision makers were foursquare against it. There was a bit more discussion right under that top layer, but it was plain that DADT was the "best" compromise that was going to happen (in other words, the ONLY compromise that was going to happen). The entire JCS had dug in their heels--it was painful.

While everyone denigrates DADT, and gets mad at Bill Clinton, here's what it has done--it has demonstrated to intolerant morons in the decision-making sphere that the sky will NOT fall if gays serve in the military. Some of these bastards are very concrete, and they can't work from theory at all. This is hard proof that there's no great downside to gays in the military. Of course, these same concrete fools actually believed that, pre-DADT, there weren't any/many gays in the military!

[babylonsister]

7. I can't even believe you wrote that. Gays and lesbians should

have every right afforded every other American. If they want to serve their country, why shouldn't they be able to? And it's not cost-effective to kick these folks out, not to mention the skills that are being lost due to homophobia. I guess the idea of a big tent doesn't extend to you. :eyes:

"But I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy," he said. "We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3136746&mesg_id=3136746

[sampsonblk]

18. Service in the military is not about rights

I agree that everyone has the right to serve. But any major changes should be subject to common sense here. Now is not the time to do this.

[MADem]

26. Actually, the time that the military EXPECTED to do it is when President Gore took office.

Really.

The Bush Presidency put the entire transformation on hold.

[sampsonblk]

30. I never heard anything about that

Where do you get that from? And what were the expected problems?

[MADem]

39. Because I was quite close to the throne at the time.

And we didn't expect too many problems, actually. We knew that some instructions would have to be amended. For example, we did anticipate having to reinforce the PDA requirements (personal displays of affection) because you 'couldn't have gay folk holding hands in uniform'--why, the sky would fall! (If you can't detect my :sarcasm: in that comment, I can't help you). There was a review of instructions going on at the latter stages of the Clinton Administration with an eye towards DADT repeal. Hopefully, someone saved the file--otherwise, they'll have to start from scratch.

There weren't a lot of "problems" anticipated, save the same griping, carping and resentment that accompanied, say, the banning of beards in the mid eighties. Time overcomes that, and then, the new reality becomes the norm.

[babylonsister]

33. No, it's way past time to do this. But no worries; it won't happen 'now'

with this admin in place if it hasn't already happened. Hopefully our next president will make this right for everyone who has been discriminated against.

[MADem]

41. If it's McCain, that's iffy. Who knows, though--he might surprise everyone. NT

[mckeown1128]

111. If our country used your logic...

women and minorities would never have been allowed in the military. Their allowed because EVERY American has the RIGHT to serve their country.

[sampsonblk]

129. Women and blacks were not allowed in the military because of their rights

Its because they were needed by the military.

[mckeown1128]

132. Ohh please I spent hours in basic studying Air Force history.

The Air Force was created de-segregated (it was the first branch) and it had nothing to do with needing Airmen. It was de-segregated because it was the right thing to do.

[sampsonblk]

141. The first blacks served in the Civil War. Ever seen Glory?

As a side point, I sure hope you recognize that the US military is not an instrument of righteousness. Unfortunately, the right thing to do doesn't often enter into the calculations.

See, Shock and Awe.

[mckeown1128]

149. You know very well when someone joins the military that..

they are swearing an oath to protect the consititution. So the military's top priority is to defend the right's of America... even at the cost of efficiency (which you haven't proven yet)

[sampsonblk]

167. You are talking about theory, which we all understand.

In theory the military is honest also.

In the real world, the military is not a house of virtue.

The military's top priority should be to defend the constitution. But is that what they are doing in Iraq?

The US military is not made up of saints.

[mckeown1128]

179. You can't justify civil rights violations by saying that the military

isn't perfect. Should we be in Iraq? No... but does that have anything to do with allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the army.. NOPE.. The repeal of DADT should be at the top of any candidates list.

And I applaud Hillary an Obama for taking a strong stand on this issue.

[blogslut]

157. How ridiculous

Our armed forces are overburdened as it is. Are you implying we don't need every soldier we can get? Have you not been paying attention? Have you not read about the lowering of admission standards to allow people with criminal records? The raising of enlistment age to 42? Did you know that the Army forced badly needed Arabic experts out of the corps because those experts were gay?

Don't ask. Don't tell was bullshit and it is still bullshit and everybody knows it except maybe, you.

[Marrah_G]

138. Once upon a time blacks were segregated in the military

People bitched about not wanting integration for many of the same reasons.

[Orsino]

8. If our current military adventures were really as important...

...as our budgeting indicates, our troops would be too busy to care.

I'm tired of listening to excuses for discrimination, though, and tired of eternal war used to justify the indefinite postponement of integration. If Obama really supports the repeal of DADT, and will force some sort of reckoning against the Pentagon's bigoted policy, that will in part make up for his stupid opposition to same-sex marriage.

[BeyondGeography]

9. He'll ask the military to review the effectiveness of the policy

having noted that there is substantial evidence that it isn't workable. Nothing wrong with that, and if McCain makes a stink about it, he'll have to explain why we're safer when gays who serve the military well are booted out of the service.

It's been nearly two decades since the Republicans tried to turn gays into evil science projects gone awry. I don't think the country is as backwards on this issue as it used to be, and even the Republicans realize the political price of placing gay marriage referendums ahead of the war and the economy in terms strategic importance.

[totodeinhere]

10. We need to join the 21st Century and allow full fledged participation in our military...

by fine patriotic GLBT's who will be a credit to this country. Many brave GBLT's have already fought and died for this country ever since this country was founded. Now we need to bring them out of the shadows once and for all and give them the recognition that they are sorely due.

[myrna minx]

11. DADT is nothing but discrimination and bigotry, sanctioned by the state.

It was a HORRIBLE policy, demanding gays and lesbians to deny who they are, while putting their lives on the line for their country. :puke:

[sampsonblk]

19. You ARE aware that it is a great improvement over what we had before, right?

I hope you haven't lost sight of that. DADT represents historic progress.

[terrya]

28. No, it is not.

Discharges of gay men and women have increased since DADT. The idea that it's an "improvement" is a complete lie.

[sampsonblk]

52. I don't know why that is. But the total number isn't all that matters

My experience is that DADT ended what I considered to be witch hunts. That's a good thing. I don't know why the number of discharges would increase.

I'd be interested to know if it spiked after Clinton left office. That's my suspicion. I know people in the military were very upset when the DADT policy was first instituted. Maybe they are getting their revenge now that Bill Clinton is gone. I dunno.

[NeedleCast]

156. DADT did NOT end witch hunts

it just forced them underground.

[Dr. Strange]

36. And Jim Crow laws were a great improvement over slavery.

But I'd still vote for someone who wanted to get rid of them.

[phrigndumass]

38. What exactly did we have before that has been improved upon?

How is it progress?

[sampsonblk]

86. Progress = "don't ask"

That's the part that pissed off the conservatives.

Its as close as Clinton could get to allowing gay people to legally serve.

[myrna minx]

40. Historic progress?

That is just laughable. There have been record number discharges due to DADT. By your logic, "separate but equal" was historic progress. Your position is indefensible.

[mckeown1128]

117. Your argument is sick...

that's like saying that it's ok to segragate buses because blacks sitting the back of the bus is a "great improvement" over not getting to share a bus with white people at all.

[dkf]

12. I could have sworn I've been reading that they haven't been kicking gays out

lately now that our military is so overextended.

Am I completely off base on this?

Seems to me don't ask don't tell is already obsolete.

[shadowknows69]

32. When I was driving taxi on a base I encountered a couple soliders

who were being kicked out due to homosexuality. This amazed me because for the most part, the gay troops I encountered were pretty well out in the open about it, even to their own unit mates, who didn't seem to have a problem with it. Now why were they safe and others not? I'd like to see the statistics on it but I'd wager that a higher percentage of females are kicked out due to sexual orientation than men. I got a clear sense of favoritism and cronyism in most things in the military from the men and women I spoke with.

[tekisui]

37. Many serve openly, those around them know each other very well.

What DADT is used for is a way to unfairly target those when convenient. When one has a grudge or disagreement they are outed, and discharged. Thousands have been discharged in the past 10 years or so.

[shadowknows69]

48. Exactly

You said it better than I did.

[cboy4]

13. Whoop Whoop ** homophobe alert** Warning, Warning....

What a disgusting person you are to print this bullshit.

You are aware you're on a Democratic/Progressive website, right?

Are you telling me that I can't be a fighter pilot because I'm gay?

You're saying it's okay to throw gay people under the bus to win votes?

Despicable.

Why don't you show some backbone sampsonblk?

Show some guts and stand up for what's right, instead of worrying about the Republicans using civil rights issues as wedge issues.

I'm just stunned you wrote this.

Typically, people who hate gays do so under the cover of darkness.

But you're apparently proud of your bigotry.

What an atrocious post this is. :thumbsdown:

[myrna minx]

15. No kidding.

This post is despicable. :puke:

[sampsonblk]

22. Same to you. -nt

[IndianaJones]

50. Obama's pandering has made for a big bigoted tent. nt.

[cboy4]

55. Here's how big the tent is:

[IndianaJones]

59. Hell, its about half as big as South Carolina. nt.

[yardwork]

74. lol!

[mckeown1128]

133. Ok you guys have to get your talking points coordinated...

Is Obama pandering to bigots or is he too much on the side of gay rights. Please get together with the other's and make a choice and stick to it. Thank You.

[LostinVA]

180. I can only wonder what "Ignored" is saying

[closeupready]

90. Agree 100%.

n/t

[TahitiNut]

120. Agreed. It's shameful that such crap is expressed in a "progressive" community..

We sure do lower the bar at times. :puke:

[phrigndumass]

17. Your speculation is only a thin veil, barely covering your underlying belief system

You say, "Regardless of how one feels about the prospect ..."

How do you feel about the prospect? What is it you personally fear about gay people in the military?

All "consequences" are imaginary, stemming from personal bias.

[sampsonblk]

24. No, maybe its because I did my 10 years and have room to talk about what I know - nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. My Best Friend Was Bisexual

He served in the Air Force in the late seventies!

He said it was some of the best sex he ever had~

[phrigndumass]

34. I'll give you room ... what is it that you know about gay people in the military?

Just askin'

[sampsonblk]

85. Answers

I know have served with people who were known to be gay. No one talked about it because we all figured its no one's business.

I know that there are some heterosexuals who declare themselves to be gay in order to get out. If you are really bored, I will tell you the story as it was related to me in one case.

I know that at the time DADT was being debated, there was great hostility toward it. It was going to be the end of the world.

I know that today in the ranks (of the Army at least) there is widespread hostility to the idea of repealing DADT.

I know that becuase of GW Bush and his wars, the retention rate is very poor. In my opinion, if DADT is repealed while we are still in Iraq, it will make the problem much worse in the short term.



What I would like to know:
Some have said they have stats related to discharges. I would like to see them.

[mckeown1128]

130. The retention rate... is mute because of Stop Loss policies.

It doesn't matter that some straight people would have a problem with the repealing of DADT... Do you think that there weren't WHITES against blacks integrating into the army. I am sorry you think that their are so many bigots in the military. I can tell you that my experience is that the majority are tolerant of gays serving.

Here is a stat for you:

The military has discharged 58 gay Arab linguists under Public Law 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654), otherwise known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable language specialists go. Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such “capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war.”


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/05/58_gay_arab_linguists_ousted_from_military/

and linguists are NOT easy to train. They throw thousands of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines at the DLI and less then half make it through. It takes anywhere from 2 to 3 years to fully train cryptologic linguists. Just to have the military through out 58 is pure insanity. That is like two months worth of linguist graduations.

[Political Heretic]

21. The POLICY DOES NOT WORK. You need to look at the statistics

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D91F3DF933A25751C1A9659C8B63

Nearly 10,000 service members have been discharged for being gay under the policy, which was signed into law by Mr. Clinton on Nov. 30, 1993, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights group that monitors military justice.


Many or most of these people did NOT voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation and were discharged anyway, even though in a just society they shouldn't have to hide anything.

[sampsonblk]

27. Where can I read the statistics? - nt

[Political Heretic]

29. I put a quick example in my post on edit.

I don't have time for more right now because I'm on my way out the door for work.

But go watch the West Wing, Season 1, Episode called "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" -- Sam's explanation of how it doesn't work, even if giving fictional examples, is a very good explanation of how it doesn't work.

[Tyler Durden]

25. Obama said NOTHING about repealing DADT.

I want someone to point out where he says "I will repeal DADT, I will repeal DOMA."

I want someone to point out where he says "I will insure that all citizens get Equal Treatment Under The Law as relates to the rights of GLBT people, and as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
(snip)

"Asked what he could reasonably accomplish for the gay community as president, Obama said he can "reasonably see" repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as well as signing legislation to ban workplace discrimination against gays. He said he'd like transgendered people to be covered by the law, but thinks it would be tough to get such legislation through Congress.

Obama also said he's interested in ensuring that same-sex couples in civil unions get federal benefits.

(snip)

[babylonsister]

35. He's in favor of its repeal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3136746&mesg_id=3136746

[Tyler Durden]

47. Let's look at this very closely:

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=53285&page=1

(snip)
If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community -- what can you reasonably get done?

I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.
(snip)

Let's parse that.

"I reasonably can see "don't ask, don't tell" elimintated."

Does he state he will advocate for this? No.
Does he state he is committed to its repeal? No.
Does he state unequivocally he will see to the elimination of DADT? No.

He can "...reasonably see..."

Does he define "resonably?" No.

So in other words, if it is not "reasonable," that is, not politically feasible, or goes against his "Faith," will he support the unequivocal repeal of DADT?

Well, not according to this statement, and don't say well, he could have said...he's had six months to frame this, he is a good orator and a lawyer, so this statement likely says all it intends to say...

And that is very, very little.

[mckeown1128]

134. He raised his hand in one of the debates when the candidates

were asked if they support the repeal.

[Tyler Durden]

146. That'll work.

I don't think that would stand up in court, do you?

[mckeown1128]

148. So you are saying that Obama lied during the debate? nt

[Tyler Durden]

152. Did ANYONE not lie during the debate?

If lies and half truths were snow, we would be asshole deep in Alabama.

[Adelante]

42. The country is ready and the military is ready

It is not the early '90s anymore. A social transition was seen as necessary. DADT was a transition mechanism and never intended to be a permanent restriction. It's past time for gays in the military to have the same status as anyone else.

Attitudes in the military are changing. In 1993, barely 20% of military personnel supported gays serving openly. A December 2006 Zogby Poll found that 3 out of 4 service members are now comfortable with gays. In 1993, few military leaders voiced any support for open service. Today, many are on our side, including retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili; Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.); former West Point Superintendent Daniel Christman; and retired General Wesley Clark, among others. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the military’s dire need for good people, has resulted in a fresh perspective on this issue for many inside the services. It no longer makes sense, they finally understand, to lose good people who can get the job done.

Attitudes in our country are changing, too. An overwhelming 79% of the American public now supports lifting the ban and allowing us to serve openly. Polls show that a majority of conservatives and regular church-goers all support gays serving openly. Respected conservative leaders like former Senator Alan Simpson, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb all agree the time has come to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

And today, perhaps for the first time, we have clear evidence – directly from the horse’s mouth – that the real justification behind the law is not military readiness, unit cohesion or anything similar. It is pure homophobia and personal discomfort. When, last month, General Peter Pace spoke out in favor of the ban, using ‘morality’ as his justification, he pulled the veil off the law. General Pace shined a bright light on the true reasoning behind the exclusion of gay troops. And he tried to use his outdated, personal opinions to influence national policy. But the nation fought back.

http://www.davidmixner.com/2007/04/in_your_own_wor.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. The policy of segregation worked just fine, too

Truman should never have integrated the military. It was foolish from a political standpoint as well as a miltary one.

:sarcasm:

You are a bigot, pure and simple. You don't give a rat's tail about equality, you don't care about the many gay men and women WHO ALREADY SERVE WITH HONOR AND DISTINCTION in the US military but are forced to live in the closet. And you would shut the door to those who would gladly serve because it justifies your bigotry.

I would tell you to go join the Republican Party but, alas, there are quite a lot of Democrats who feel exactly the same way you do, starting with the ass-wipe who signed DADT into law in the first place.

[hulklogan]

45. Gays weren't kicked out of the military until the 20th century.

So many people want to believe that GLBT Americans suddenly appeared in the 20th century, but this country has had GLBT Americans serving in the military from 1776 until today. 150+ years of gays being accepted in the military before the religious fascists took over is surely enough time to understand that there will be no problems with readiness or long term consequences that we haven't already dealt with. I'm sure they didn't have readiness issues during the War of 1812.

[ieoeja]

75. Actually, we did have readiness issues during the War of 1812.

We were definitely not ready. But that had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

In fact, we have had a problem with readiness for every major war through Korea. The first major war we were ready for was ... Vietnam.

[backscatter712]

46. From the beginning, Don't Ask Don't Tell was dumb.

Bill Clinton should have allowed gays to serve in the military. The only rules in place should be a gender-neutral sexual harassment policy that applies equally whether it's male harassing female, male harassing male, female harassing male or female harassing female. He had the opportunity to do it early in his Presidency, so the .mil and the fundies and the people in general could get over it before the next election cycle.

[sampsonblk]

53. What if he had done nothing?-nt

[backscatter712]

Don't Ask Don't Tell is another example of why Bill Clinton is a good adminstrator, but bad leader.

Granted, good administrator, bad leader is far superior to our present situation - bad administrator, horrible leader, but let me make my point.

Bill Clinton should have shown some leadership there and told the .mil to do the right thing - admit and allow GLBT people to honorably serve in our military. That and add that gender-neutral sexual harassment policy, so that problem can be dealt with decisively and fairly.

But no. The fundies screeched, the Repukes screeched and the right-winger generals screeched, and Clinton caved. He should have shown leadership, but he caved. He chose to do the expedient thing and came up with that retarded compromise that is Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's a compromise designed to get everyone to shut up, so there wouldn't be so much shouting in the halls of government - thus enabling him to administer - get things done, at the cost of leadership. He should have done what Bush is doing and told all of them "I'm Commander in Chief, and when I say gays are allowed in the military, that's how it's gonna be!" He would have taken a few hits at the polls, people would have grumbled, but he would have struck a blow for civil rights, and people would have recognized this and the blowback would have been short-lived.

[ruggerson]

73. You apparently don't know the history of DADT

[IndianaJones]

51. why no rec's. this is right in the Obamatons wheelhouse. nt.

[cali]

58. whatf a piece of lying shit

post. And how predictable.

[SoonerPride]

64. plonk

eff you to hell

[ruggerson]

54. Putting aside the morality of your position

You're also on the wrong side of public opinion. This poll is about a year old.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117035477766895153-tt5sKNkAY6_opz6nqIbr9rTV3Q0_20080202.html

A new poll from Harris Interactive found that 55% of Americans think gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

By comparison, 19% of the 2,337 Americans polled said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve "only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret," and 18% said they should "not be allowed to serve in the military at all."

The survey, conducted online between Jan. 11 and 18, also measured American attitudes toward the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy, which prohibits the military from asking personnel about their sexual orientation, but allows homosexuality to be a cause for discharge from the military.

Forty-six percent of respondents said they oppose the policy, unchanged from a Harris poll in 2000, and 36% said they favor the policy, compared with 34% in the previous poll. However, the policy is supported by far more men (43%) than women (29%). And among political parties, Republicans are more likely to support this policy (51%) than Democrats (25%) or Independents (31%), while 18% of Americans remain undecided about the policy.

[Marrah_G]

56. WTF???? what website am I on???

How about treating everyone as equals and not basing law on people's unfounded prejudices?

[KittyWampus]

57. Don't Ask, Don't Act Up... that's fair and covers ALL troops equally.

[ulysses]

60. I have yet to have it explained clearly how it would harm readiness.

Weren't the same fears expressed when Truman integrated the services?

[SoonerPride]

61. I'll answer your questions. THERE WILL BE NO PROBLEMS. PERIOD.

Any discrimination and the person in the military is court martialed. Period.

You make acceptance the law and it will be followed.

And if it isn't follwed, you punish severely.

End of debate.

You lose.

[sampsonblk]

93. While we are in Iraq???

You do realize that the military can't keep enough people in uniform as it is, right?

And you do realize that some of the people who are being discharged are people who volunteered that they are gay, ostensibly in order to get out, right?

[sniffa]

62. Deleted Message

Just saving the Mods some time and deleting my offensive personal attack on you.

:thumbsdown:

[Maddy McCall]

72. Save the drama for Obama.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=53285&page=1

[sniffa]

78. Don't you have a thread to be throwing a tantrum on?

Oh wait, I see you're multi-tasking. Good job. :thumbsup:

[SoonerPride]

80. Did ignore say something else vile?

plonk 'em!

[sniffa]

81. She used to be on the list (long time)

But now she's too much fun to alert on. :D

[yardwork]

65. How will a repeal harm readiness?

We're at war, in two countries. Our recruitment is way down. Our military is exhausted. And we're still kicking people out or refusing to let them serve just because they're gay?

[cooolandrew]

66. Given the last 7 years the GOP don't want to go there on LGBT issues...

Mostly how you haven't really heard much on it this election cycle from them wiht all their scandals.

[sampsonblk]

143. Now THAT'S a good point-nt

[LostinVA]

67. Our troops are ALREADY serving with openly gay soldiers

My BIL was an Army officer. It was no secret that some of his troops were gay. He's all for DADT to be repealed.

Also, our troops are currently working overseas with openly gay soldiers. The United States and Turkey are the only NATO countries that do not allow GLB people to serve openly. I don't see where it's harmed the "readiness" of anybody. The UK and Israel actually set up recruiting tables at gay pride events.

The fact that you're on here promoting bigotry is inexcusable on a progressive message board.

[ieoeja]

68. I don't think "repeal" means what you (and everyone else) think it does.

First, let me add to everyone else's observation that your OP is one of the mostly openly bigoted posts I have ever read on DU. And it frankly astonishes me to see it here.


Repealing something means returning to what was there before. In this case, if all we do is repeal DADT, that would make it okay for the military to question the sexual orientation of their troops.

Obama does go on to say that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. I have not heard Obama promise to allow gays to serve openly. He only says they should. That worries me.

On the other hand, Obama is the only presidential candidate I know of who routinely argues for gay rights in front of hostile audiences. Everyone else either argues against those rights, or changes the subject if it comes up. If he does that during an election, why should he be afraid to do so in front of the JCS?

Of course, Bill Clinton won election while making that very promise. Didn't stop him from chickening out.

I haven't heard/read Hillary saying anything about gays being allowed to serve openly. She probably has, I just haven't heard/read it.

[LostinVA]

77. Hillary also believes gays should be allowed to serve openly

She's brought it up quite a few times, and that she was upset when Bill passed DADT.

[sampsonblk]

99. You are entitled to your opinion about my opinion.

My OP is about the military and political implications of repealing DADT. There is no part of my OP that deals with gayness or gays. In fact, the questions I raised are common to this subject. I promise you, the questions I raised are the ones that are being discussed today in the military. Without question.

Maybe you have a personal issue with someone raising these questions. I say any military policymaker who does not raise these questions - whether its about repealing DADT or changing boot colors - should be fired immediately.

[DarienComp]

69. The policy works, does it?

Then how come the number of discharged gays and lesbians from the military has dramatically increased since DADT was implemented?

[Hissyspit]

102. It works to get gays' civil rights violated and to remove talented and functional

citizens from serving our country, apparently.

:sarcasm:

[Mooney]

70. What does this have to do with Obama?

Your subject line is unclear --- did Obama say this, and if so can you provide a link?

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. That was my question too.

The closest I can find to a discussion about that starts with post #25 above.

[babylonsister]

79. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3136746&mesg_id=3136746

[ieoeja]

82. Human Rights Questionaire

"I believe we need to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."

Source: Last question (#11) on the Human Rights Campaign Questionaire at http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

[Umbram]

84. This was posted upthread

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=53285&page=1

[sampsonblk]

89. Obama: Repeal of "don't ask" possible (link included)

Obama: Repeal of "don't ask" possible

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_el_pr/obama_gay_rights

[GodlessBiker]

71. More than 20 of the 25 NATO countries permit openly gay folks to serve. Other countries that ban it:

Brazil
China
Cuba
Egypt
Iran
Mexico
North Korea
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Venezuela
Yemen

Nice company we keep.

[sampsonblk]

92. Yes. So we know it can be done. This issue is how and when.

If its to be done by us, it has to be done properly. Doing it while we are stuck in Iraq is just plain foolish - for many reasons.

And we also have to be prepared to be in the minority again. Perhaps for quite some time.

[GodlessBiker]

98. How and when? Vote now to end DADT, that's how and when.

I give the American people much more credit than you do. You think they are fear-mongering idiots who would stab politicians in the back for supporting equal opportunities. Indeed, a recent poll shows that more Americans oppose DADT than support it.

The Wall Street Journal reported on a Harris Poll in February 2007:

"A new poll from Harris Interactive found that 55% of Americans think gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

By comparison, 19% of the 2,337 Americans polled said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve "only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret," and 18% said they should "not be allowed to serve in the military at all."

The survey, conducted online between Jan. 11 and 18, also measured American attitudes toward the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy, which prohibits the military from asking personnel about their sexual orientation, but allows homosexuality to be a cause for discharge from the military.

Forty-six percent of respondents said they oppose the policy, unchanged from a Harris poll in 2000, and 36% said they favor the policy, compared with 34% in the previous poll. However, the policy is supported by far more men (43%) than women (29%). And among political parties, Republicans are more likely to support this policy (51%) than Democrats (25%) or Independents (31%), while 18% of Americans remain undecided about the policy."

[SoonerPride]

100. Do it day one. Period. Iraq can't be an excuse. There will always be excuses.

Just do it.

It's pretty simple.

[Lautremont]

124. What are these reasons?

What's the big hairy-bear deal?

[mckeown1128]

139. What reasons? You say that is foolishness... why?

The minority you say?

New Poll Shows 8 Out of 10 Americans Favor Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Washington, DC – A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released today shows 79% support for repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. Only 18% of respondents thought lesbian and gay service personnel should not be allowed to serve openly.


http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=2&record=4099

[closeupready]

83. Take your homophobia to freeperville, and don't let the door hit

your butt on the way out.

[sampsonblk]

87. No, that wasn't hateful of you at all. - nt

[closeupready]

88. Listen up - DU has no room for people who promote homophobia. EVER. DADT is the most

homophobic piece of crap to come out of Bill Clinton's terms, with the exception of DOMA, so don't you lecture me about minding my manners. :mad:

[sampsonblk]

91. No, that is an absurd analysis

Bill Clinton was the first major presidential candidate to make any effort to allow gays to openly serve in the military. And he paid a huge price for it. In the end, DADT was the best he could do. And in that environment, it was a courageous step, which GOPers used agaisnt us to take power in 1994.

"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[LostinVA]

94. There's a big difference in nationwide acceptance of equal rights from 1993 to 2008

I hope that one day, you will be able to leave 1993 behind and join the 21st century with most other Americans.

[yardwork]

104. Maybe the OP would prefer to live in pre-Civil Rights days under Jim Crow.

Something tells me not, though.

Equal rights!....for some people.

[sampsonblk]

107. I am giving credit where credit is due. Pleas try it.

I will not leave 1993 behind. Doing so only gives an opening for dishonest or misinformed people to falsely claim that Bill Clinton did something wrong. What he did was courageous and should be remembered as such.

[LostinVA]

108. Your post makes no sense in reference to what I said

[sampsonblk]

113. I was addressing your insult about leaving 1993 behind

I agree that there is a big difference in acceptance in those intervening 15 years. There is a lot of data available on that subject.

[LostinVA]

114. And yet, you still support outdated, bigoted laws

ASTOUNDING.

[Bluebear]

126. There are two things I give regarding what this poster is saying.

One is a shit and the other's a fuck.

[LostinVA]

163. Your post is a prime example of why

I love you.

:loveya:

[izzybeans]

95. Consequences like losing highly qualified troops and intelligence officers?

Yeah there are no negatives to it at all.

:sarcasm:

[PVnRT]

97. I'm sure Truman heard the same arguments in the late 1940's

...and they were equally as stupid and bigoted back then.

[sampsonblk]

103. The bigot thing is getting old

These questions should always be asked. And if there are no good answers, then it should not be done.

Speaking of blacks, Robert E Lee had the same discussions with his staff - 1865!!!

Surpise, surprise: it was all about readiness, the effect it would have on his army, and the political implications. I did not invent these issues.

[yardwork]

105. You haven't been able to give one reason for why the repeal would harm readiness.

You've ignored every request in this thread to explain what you think the dire consequences would be. Nothing. You ignore every request for any evidence whatsoever.

It's easy to trade insults. You've given no reason for starting this thread other than to cause trouble.

[sampsonblk]

110. I am very able. Here is your answer

In the short term, there will likely be more people who do not re-enlist. And there will be more conflicts that lead to disciplinary action - which means more soldiers missing more duty, and more soldiers getting booted out for disciplinary reasons.

Morale? I think it will suffer in the short term. And that affects readiness. Keep in mind, there were growing pains when blacks were first allowed to serve. When this policy is changed, there are going to be growing pains. For sure.

One upside is that people won't be able to claim they're gay in order to get out. That's something that needs to end.

[mckeown1128]

131. Stop loss... many can't NOT re-enlist. nt

[yardwork]

161. How would there be more conflicts?

It seems to me that there would be far fewer conflicts once people are allowed to serve openly. And, I sincerely doubt that anyone who has served in the military would choose to resign their commission or not reenlist *only* because of a change in policy.

What "growing pains" can you cite that resulted from blacks being allowed to serve?

I notice that your main concern is over people "being able to claim they're gay in order to get out."

[LostinVA]

106. How do explain it not causing readiness issues in countries that allow GLB soldiers to openly serve?

Advocating against civil rights IS bigotry.

[sampsonblk]

119. I have no explanation-nt

[LostinVA]

162. Then, why do you think it would cause massive problems in the US military?

[mckeown1128]

115. You seem to have an agenda here...

The questions you keep asking have already been answered. Allowing homosexuals into the military IMPROVES military prepardness by letting more patriotic capable American's serve their county. You know.. MORE volunteers.

This argument that allowing gays to serve in the military will hurt are readiness is an argument that BIGOTS use now... and that bigots used to try to keep woman and blacks out of the military.

[sampsonblk]

122. These policies don't change in a vacuum (edited)

All things being equal (which they never are) I agree with you that we'd have more volunteers. But the reality is that having more volunteers is going to affect other things. Its not unfair or bigoted to mention this. I think your analysis is very simplistic.


Anyway, here look at this and tell me what you think:

Poll: Vast Majority Of Officers Support Military Gay Ban - 365Gay.com
http://365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022508ask.htm

And this:

Poll: Majority Of Troops Would Welcome Gay Soldiers
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/121906military.htm

[mckeown1128]

125. Having more volunteers is going to have an effect...

and considering that our military is desperately in need for volunteers most people agree that the effect of more volunteers is a good effect.

[sampsonblk]

128. If it happens while we are still in Iraq, then I hope and pray you are right-nt

[mckeown1128]

137. My understanding is that most of the company grade officers

overlook the gay servicemen because we are at war... Once the war is over the brass will pick up on their purging.

[PVnRT]

145. Well, then don't make bigoted arguments

[mckeown1128]

109. As a military spouse and someone who was briefly in the Air Force..

I must say that you are full of shit. Repealing don't ask, don't tell will only help the military. Do you know how many arabic linguists have been booted because they came out or were outed(which is common)? I studied to be a linguist while I was in the military. do you know that there is a HUGE shortage of linguists?


Ohh and guess what Hillary is also on the right side of this issue with Obama. They are both correct. You ask a lot of questions about what the consequences are... go out and read about them. You seem to be the only one here making a judgment without having done your own research.

[sampsonblk]

116. Is the number of linguists your only measure?

How on earth can you be so sure that repealing DADT will be beneficial? Are you talking long term or short term here?

Everyone knows about the linguists. Did you know that approx 11,000 people have been discharged because they volunteered that they were gay?

While you were in/around the Air Force, did you talk to people about the issue? If so, what did you gather from that? What do you think those people's reaction would be to a repeal?

I would be glad to talk about this with you, but I think that we all need more information.

FYI: I have done my own research, thank you.

[mckeown1128]

123. Repealing DADT will be beneficial because our country

would no longer kick out valuable linguists of all languages. It will help in both the short and long term. Short term because we would stop losing linguists and long term because more gays would be able to join the military thus giving us more linguists.

Stop with this "volunteered that they were gay" stuff. Many people are outed as "telling".. for example... a linguist sent an email on a military computer at the library(which is allowed) and apparently the military was reading their emails. The email was to the linguists partner, to the military took that as the linguist "volunteering the information that he was gay." And boom... he was out.

Gays shouldn't be forced to hide their significant other's. You tell me how it is fair that a straight man can live with his wife on a military base and a gay man can't live with his partner? How is that fair to someone who is gay can't bring their partner to the Army Ball or the Navy picnic, but all the straight military members can? Tell me why it is fair that when a straight soldier dies in battle they tell his partner... but when a gay soldier dies they skip his partner because they don't know about him?

What an insult to brave soldier, sailors, marines, and airmen who fight and die for their country.

And about the reaction in the military... It's a republican myth that everyone will quit or stop signing up. Sure there are bigots... but they'll have to deal with it. Just like how the bigots have to deal with working with woman or black men or illegal aliens(who are allowed).

A military time poll (sorry can' find a link) did a poll of military members... 50% said they knew someone they were working with who was gay. Most try their best to not "out" people, because when your serving your country your not concerned with whether people are gay or not.

[sampsonblk]

127. I just posted the poll you are talking about. You are right about that.

The poll of enlisteds... Well I will let you read it.

[mckeown1128]

135. So you have no answers to the questions I posed to you?

No opinion about the other things I said?

[Bluebear]

121. Seperate white and black drinking fountains 'worked' too, Are you nostalgic for them?

[lojasmo]

136. What a load of crap.

Plenty of nations allow gays to serve openly, with no adverse consequences.

What a load of homophobic pablum.

[mckeown1128]

140. Read this:

28 Retired Generals and Admirals Call For End to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

http://www.gayrightswatch.com/labels/DADT.html

[sampsonblk]

142. Yes, I read that earlier

That's one of the reasons I posted the poll. I am a numbers person.

[mckeown1128]

147. You haven't posted any evidence to support your

notion that repealing DADT is bad policy. What do you think about these retired Generals who want it repealed? Are you saying they are wrong?

[BlooInBloo]

144. Why is this bigot still here?

[closeupready]

150. I don't know but 100+ posts later, not a single recommendation.

I think that shows clearly how DU members do not appreciate reading this kind of crap.

[Maven]

158. Seriously, this is not the first time this poster has gotten away with pushing antigay hate

I can't believe this post has stayed up so long.

[rinsd]

151. I could be wrong but I think every Dem candidate who ran was in favor of repealing DADT?

[Maven]

153. You're a fucking BIGOT.

Enough said.

[JoFerret]

178. Without a doubt.

.

[Solon]

154. Aren't you the idiot who claimed all Christians HAVE to be homophobic, its part of their beliefs...

or some shit? Damn, that explains a lot about you.

[LostinVA]

164. If my racist, Republican, thinks Hillary Clinton is Satan, head of the Knights of Columbus

Grandfather-in-law can come to my gay wedding, and make statements like, "I like the gays," then ANY Christian should be able to not be homophobic. We even had a Catholic priest (a family friend) do a reading at our wedding.

Homophobia is not a Christian belief. Some of the biggest supporters of gay rights on this board are faithful Catholics.

[Solon]

165. I know, I actually had to defend Christians against this poster...

way back in October when he claimed that the initial thread about McClurkin was about "shunning Christians". Then again, this poster has some, how shall we say, odd beliefs when it comes to Christians. Hell, I thought it was odd as hell that I had to defend Christians when I'm a Wiccan, for crying out loud!

Here's the original exchange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3628257#3629007

Wait for it to load, then scroll down to see the beginning of my rebuttal of this idiot.

[Bluebear]

155. All these recommendations must be very encouraging to you

[last1standing]

159. You want a response to these comments? OK.

The policy works, first of all. Repealing it at this time is foolish from a political standpoint, as well as a military one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/
<snip...>
More than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the policy, including 726 last year — an 11 percent jump from 2004 and the first increase since 2001.
<snip>

Politically, the cost goes without saying. Is a big loser for us in this election cycle, especially when the Republicans are desperate to find something to use against us so they can get back in this game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#Public_opinion
<snip...>
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in March 2006 showed that 60% favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, with 31% opposed. <2> However, the military remains largely opposed. An Army Times poll of military members only found 25% in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. <3>
<snip>

From a military standpoint, repealing don't ask, don't tell is the same as openly allowing gays to serve in the military. Regardless of how one feels about the prospect, it will certainly harm readiness in the short term. If done, it should be done in peacetime. Not when we have active military operations already taking place.

See my first point to read how extremely wrong you are.

Laslty, folks who advocate a repeal never seem to be able to explain the consequences. What will be the problems associated with this change? How will we overcome them? How long will it take? What will be the long term consequences?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/24/50.yrs.of.integration/index.html
<snip>
It took decades to fully integrate the U.S. military, but there is general agreement that what President Harry Truman did 50 years ago this weekend helped ignite the country's civil rights movement and put its largest armed service, the Army, in the forefront of race relations.

On July 26, 1948, Truman issued a then-controversial executive order that called for "equality of treatment for all persons in the armed services, without regard to race, color, religion or national origin."

Though African Americans in uniform had fought and bled for the United States throughout its history, rarely had they been treated as equals to whites. For that reason, 1948 was a milestone.
<snip>

To be more succinct:

No, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not work.

Large public majorities support allowing gays in the military.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has actually caused MORE gays to be discharged than before its enactment.

The parallels to the decision to racially integrate the military in 1948 are uncanny. The same bigoted arguments were used by the same bigoted idiots.

So now that every single one of your arguments has been completely refuted and dismissed are you ready to give up your bigoted belief that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is good policy and work toward allowing gays to serve honorable and openly? Or will you just slink off and repost this again in a few weeks hoping that no one will remember this thread?

[sampsonblk]

168. The bigot thing is getting old.

I don't even think you read your 1st point. Why the increase last year? It has nothing to do with DADT. Its the first increase in 7 years. Why?

I suggest you go out on a limb and use your brain before you start calling me names.

[last1standing]

170. And if you're tired of being called a bigot, try to make your comments less bigoted.

I didn't call you names, I made a response to your incredibly bigoted post. Learn the difference or people will think you are an idiot as well as a bigot. (If you look, you will see that I did not call you names there, either.)

I backed up everything I said with links and facts. You spewed hateful, bigoted opinion. When you couldn't refute anything I posted, you relied on a strawman tangent. Not very bright or effective of you. If you wanted to move the debate forward you would find articles that refute what I posted. You obviously can't so you resort to smears.

In other words, you just seem to want to hate someone and "the gays" are the easiest people to throw under the bus.

[galledgoblin]

160. I'm George Takei... and I will...

HAVE SEX WITH YOU!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hgg_qsU-8E
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[JoFerret]

166. "it will certainly harm readiness in the short term."

How?
Why?

[matcom]

169. you obviously are NOT a Veteran - *I* am

your post is shit. you have NO idea what you are saying.

now, shut up

[Bluebear]

171. And THAT settles THAT. Thanks, matcom.

:toast:

[terrya]

175. Ah, a voice of wisdom. Thanks, matcom.

:thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

176. Thanks, Matcom

I have quite a few veterans in my family, and none of them think repealing DADT would cause problems. Same for Haruka's family and friends. She actually has a gay friend currently serving in the army.

[Maven]

177. THANK YOU

:hi:

[PeaceNikki]

172. I am another waiting for you to explain how "it will certainly harm readiness in the short term".

Do tell.

[kdpeters]

173. History tells us that benefits much greater than consequences

Every other advanced western military did just fine. We can expect that the mightiest military in the world should be up to the task.

[TheDonkey]

181. WTF? This isn't sarcasm??? You think there will be deadly grabass going on in the frontlines

Most Americans realize that the Clinton pushed DADT policy is ridiculous, hateful, and ignorant.