Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Troops Will Vote With Their Feet

[FrankRep]

Troops Will Vote With Their Feet (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39473)


Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/)
Oct 19, 2010


The last word regarding the proposed repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military homosexual exclusion law won’t come from the President, Congress, or the courts. The all-volunteer military will have the last word if the homosexual law is repealed; that is, many will vote with their feet to the nation’s peril.

The three branches of government are so wrapped up in the political and legal debate over the gay ban that they have ignored our all-volunteer service members who have an opinion about open homosexuality in their ranks. This oversight could lead to a tragic miscalculation.

Consider evidence the three branches of government ignored our troops’ views when making their decision to move against the homosexual exclusion law and why this may threaten our all-volunteer force.

President Obama cares more about appeasing his homosexual supporters than protecting our armed forces. The new commander in chief failed to ask the troops their view before he used his 2010 State of the Union address to set in motion the fulfillment of his campaign promise to repeal the military’s 17-year-old homosexual exclusion law.

A week later Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.” Apparently Gates doesn’t care what the troops think or he would have been far more cautious about his quick endorsement of Obama’s “orders.”

On March 2, the secretary assembled a working group to draft a plan to implement repeal and mitigate the consequences. Although the working group engaged the force it failed to ask the only question that matters—“Should the homosexual law be repealed?”

The working group used six instruments to engage the force: town hall-like meetings, focus groups, two websites for anonymous comments, and two surveys. The $4.5 million surveys fail to ask key questions such as whether the law should be repealed and they skew questions and answers to accommodate homosexual service without defining terms.

The town hall-like meetings known as information exchange forums (IEF) which took place on 51 military facilities alienated many service members. Last month, for example, the working group hosted an IEF for 500 people in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Stuttgart session focused exclusively on “when the policy changes.” Session participants said questions and opinions in opposition to repeal were ignored. Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, the session leader, said—according to a participant who wrote to the Washington Times—Christians who disagree with repeal “were bigots and racists and those who felt homosexuality was immoral should start looking for a new line of work.” Bostick allegedly said once the homosexual policy is repealed, chaplains who preach against homosexuality would be treated as criminals.

Secretary Gates will package service member views and the working group’s analysis into a report due to Congress December 1. That report will outline a plan to implement and mitigate the consequences of repeal but it will not consider arguments that support the military’s exclusion policy.

Those arguments and 12 hearings persuaded the 1993 Democrat majority Congress to overwhelmingly pass 10 U.S.C. § 654, the “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.” The law concludes, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

The current Democratic-controlled House of Representatives ignored the exclusion arguments, failed to seek the troops’ views, and hosted no hearings before repealing the law. On May 27, the House voted mostly along party lines to repeal the law while ignoring the protests from the four military chiefs.

The day prior to the House’s vote, the service chiefs sent letters to Congress asking the chamber to stop repeal action. Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, warned “This is not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberation.” Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stressed, “I believe it important to [first] assess [our] force, the opinions of that force, and also the families.” Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, wrote “I’ve got serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force that’s fully involved in two wars.” Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway was blunt, “I think that the current policy works.”

Fortunately the Senate has so far failed to deliver Obama a “gay-rights” victory. Last month, Senate Democrat leaders tried to ram through a provision similar to the one passed by the House but it failed on a procedural move. Last week, an aide for Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) told the Washington Post it is unclear when the Senate might reconsider the proposed repeal.

Some members of the federal judiciary share President Obama’s desire to lift the homosexual ban. Last month, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., swept aside well-established principle of judicial deference to Congress after eight days of one-sided testimony from discharged homosexuals—but no mention of soldier views—and a tepid defense by Obama Justice Department lawyers to declare the law unconstitutional. Then last week Judge Phillips issued an injunction requiring the military to stop enforcing it immediately.

The Department of Justice said it is “likely” to appeal Phillips’ decision and Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, argued for an emergency stay of Phillips’ injunction.

The confluence of efforts by the three branches of government to lift the homosexual ban is unprecedented but so is their failure to consider unfettered service member voices. Ignoring their views potentially places the nation at risk if our volunteers who are already overstretched by nine years of war decide that lifting the homosexual ban is the last straw and then leave. And lifting the ban could also keep qualified candidates with a proclivity to serve from enlisting but no one knows just how many are in either category.

What we do know is the pool of potential volunteers is shrinking with only 25% of the nation’s 17- to 24-year-olds eligible for military service and a fraction of that group demonstrate a proclivity to volunteer. That shrinking pool is drawn from a small segment of the population mostly opposed to open homosexuality in the military such as conservative and religious families with histories of military service.

This pool of eligible volunteers won’t be easily replaced by “eligible” homosexuals who as a category make up only a few percentage points of the total population and, in general, steer clear of military service. Yet gay activists and liberal apologists with no military service would have the American public believe homosexuals are anxious to fill the military’s ranks.

The President, Congress, and the courts disregard the unfettered opinions of our all-volunteer military at great risk, and if Obama and his allies succeed in lifting the ban they have no back-up pool of eligible recruits. That is why Congress had better listen to our troops and their chiefs or get ready to justify conscription for everyone’s sons and daughters.


SOURCE:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39473

[Daamien]

Actually I know a lot of members of the military who have received and returned questionnaires regarding DADT and if the policy should be modified.

[Dr.3D]

snip~

Bostick allegedly said once the homosexual policy is repealed, chaplains who preach against homosexuality would be treated as criminals.

~snip
[url]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39473 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39473)

If they are going to prohibit the chaplains from doing their job, then perhaps they should just get rid of them entirely. I have little doubt many chaplains would rather quit than to be subject to censorship.

[FrankRep]

If they are going to prohibit the chaplains from doing their job, then perhaps they should just get rid of them entirely. I have little doubt many chaplains would rather quit than to be subject to censorship.
That will start a firestorm. Kicking God out of the Military.

[Dr.3D]

That will start a firestorm. Kicking God out of the Military.

Well, if God disagrees with homosexuality, it appears they don't want Him in the Military. And God doesn't change.

[Vessol]

So less people will serve in the military? Doesn't sound half bad to me. Our current military is an imperialistic force anyways, the less young men that are put in harm the better.

Maybe if the military actually does lose a significant amount of men from this then they'll have to reconsider their approach to our current foreign policy. Sounds like a win/win situation to me.

[Dr.3D]

So less people will serve in the military? Doesn't sound half bad to me. Our current military is an imperialistic force anyways, the less young men that are put in harm the better.

Maybe if the military actually does lose a significant amount of men from this then they'll have to reconsider their approach to our current foreign policy. Sounds like a win/win situation to me.

More likely they will just impose a draft to fill the empty slots.

[FrankRep]

Maybe if the military actually does lose a significant amount of men from this then they'll have to reconsider their approach to our current foreign policy. Sounds like a win/win situation to me.

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

[Vessol]

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

Our military is not for national defense, it is entirely for imperial purposes.

Perhaps if there was a massive drop then the military would be forced to downgrade and go back to its defensive role. Doubtful as it is.

Does our defense honestly require such a large military as we do now? I don't know why we should be shedding tears if people leave the military, just means less lads that are in danger by our imperialistic foreign policy. The only ones who should be worried about this are neocon imperialists.

And honestly would a few ***** openly serving really cause complete chaos in the military? People will bitch for sure, but I don't think that it's going to cause such chaos in which the Chinese and Russians will launch a joint invasion into the American homeland..Actually that would be sweet if that did happen, imagine reading that in the history books. "Due to a disagreement with ***** serving in the military, soldiers were too distracted by bitching about it that the Chinese and Russians launched an attack into the homeland! Gayverines!"

Sorry, as long as our soldiers are being put in harms way in order to kill innocent civilians in order for our empire to gain influence and resources..gays in the military is the last thing I care about. Besides perhaps Theocrat, I don't think you'll find much sympathy for this issue here.

[Agorism]

Less government employees!

[Philhelm]

If they are going to prohibit the chaplains from doing their job, then perhaps they should just get rid of them entirely. I have little doubt many chaplains would rather quit than to be subject to censorship.

Chaplains perform an important role, outside of strictly religious duties. Sometimes they offer counsel, which can certainly be helpful to some soldiers.

[emazur]

Troops Will Vote With Their Feet (http://www.somebiggotedbullshit.com/article.php?id=39473)


Human Events (http://www.somebiggotedbullshit.com/)
Oct 19, 1810


The last word regarding the proposed repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask about Skin Color, Don’t Tell Your Skin Color” military negro exclusion law won’t come from the President, Congress, or the courts. The all-volunteer military will have the last word if the negro law is repealed; that is, many will vote with their feet to the nation’s peril.

The three branches of government are so wrapped up in the political and legal debate over the negro ban that they have ignored our all-volunteer service members who have an opinion about open negros in their ranks. This oversight could lead to a tragic miscalculation.

Consider evidence the three branches of government ignored our troops’ views when making their decision to move against the negro exclusion law and why this may threaten our all-volunteer force.

President Madison cares more about appeasing his negro supporters than protecting our armed forces. The new commander in chief failed to ask the troops their view before he used his 1810 State of the Union address to set in motion the fulfillment of his campaign promise to repeal the military’s 17-year-old negro exclusion law.

A week later Secretary of War William Eustis testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.” Apparently Eustis doesn’t care what the troops think or he would have been far more cautious about his quick endorsement of Madison’s “orders.”

On March 2, the secretary assembled a working group to draft a plan to implement repeal and mitigate the consequences. Although the working group engaged the force it failed to ask the only question that matters—“Should the negro law be repealed?”

SOURCE:
http://www.somebiggotedbullshit.com/article.php?id=39473

[johngr]

Ned would have a field day on this topic.

YouTube - Ned calls the hotel about the **** Convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0ax9oFgJ8)

[Baptist]

It does not matter what Gates or the troops think. We are not a South American military dictatorship. In this republic, the military is under civilian control.

I hope troops vote with their feet. Maybe then we'll be forced to scale back the empire.

Just like X-mas, God is not in the military. If God were in the military, the other side would have been wiped out a long time ago. Does God help the Arabs who serve a false god? Or does he help the Americans who abort humans, sell porn, gamble, drink, and let homosexuals dance in the street? God is probably sitting this one out.

[pcosmar]

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

The army is not and has not been about defense in my lifetime.
Ron Paul also supports the Militia and the 2nd amendment. That IS national Defense.

[pcosmar]

Chaplains perform an important role, outside of strictly religious duties. Sometimes they offer counsel, which can certainly be helpful to some soldiers.

YouTube - Sky Pilot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gL3HTlfW0A)

:(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Chaplains perform an important role, outside of strictly religious duties. Sometimes they offer counsel, which can certainly be helpful to some soldiers.

Hey man... where is that long winded message of tolerance about tolerating the Ten Commandments?

Can't we tolerate all members of society serving in the military?

[cindy25]

I don't understand the big deal with this. there are gay firemen, they work/live under conditions not that much different than the military, and no city would think of banning gay firemen.

[specsaregood]

The troops aren't gonna quit. Where are they gonna go to get a job? The Military is the only industry hiring, they'll stay and deal with it.

[erowe1]

So less people will serve in the military? Doesn't sound half bad to me.

I agree. The ruling is clearly wrong and unconstitutional. But it appears this might be a silver lining.

[specsaregood]

Do any of the private contractor firms we work with hire gays?

[johngr]

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

He also supports the Constitution, which does not provide for a standing army but rather to raise an army when needed.

[Icymudpuppy]

It will not have as big an effect as you think. Most people already know who the gays are in the military. Most of them are Lesbians, actually. Dyke types who are more male than female and like the masculine role they can play in the military that is hard to come by in the civilian world. Gay men are actually pretty rare in the military. It is a man's man world, and girly men just can't cut the mustard and usually drop out in Basic Training. My own Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training class of Military Police recruits had 5 gay men, only one passed the 4 months course. We had about 15 lesbians. All passed. There were about 12 girly girls who also dropped out. This was in the last year of Clinton's administration.

[erowe1]

//

[sratiug]

That will start a firestorm. Kicking God out of the Military.

God's not in the military. Not on our side, anyway.

[virgil47]

It does not matter what Gates or the troops think. We are not a South American military dictatorship. In this republic, the military is under civilian control.

I hope troops vote with their feet. Maybe then we'll be forced to scale back the empire.

Just like X-mas, God is not in the military. If God were in the military, the other side would have been wiped out a long time ago. Does God help the Arabs who serve a false god? Or does he help the Americans who abort humans, sell porn, gamble, drink, and let homosexuals dance in the street? God is probably sitting this one out.

No. Then the draft will be reinstituted or we will have a long haired gay military that is as effective as the Dutch military. If we wish to invite conquest then destroying the U.S. military is the quickest route to that end.

[virgil47]

More likely they will just impose a draft to fill the empty slots.

I would be surprised if that does not happen anyway in the near future. If they do reinstitute the draft I hope that they concentrate in the gay communities as they so obviouly are just foaming at the mouth with desire to be in the military. That might be interesting. Just think an all gay military. Doesn't that bring some interesting mental pictures to mind. LOL.

[specsaregood]

I would be surprised if that does not happen anyway in the near future. If they do reinstitute the draft I hope that they concentrate in the gay communities as they so obviouly are just foaming at the mouth with desire to be in the military. That might be interesting. Just think an all gay military. Doesn't that bring some interesting mental pictures to mind. LOL.

There won't be any need as long as the economy stays in the toilet. They could just cut off extending unemployment and get a huge influx of new recruits.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

That will start a firestorm. Kicking God out of the Military.

LOL, I found this quote funny.

[Meatwasp]

I would be surprised if that does not happen anyway in the near future. If they do reinstitute the draft I hope that they concentrate in the gay communities as they so obviouly are just foaming at the mouth with desire to be in the military. That might be interesting. Just think an all gay military. Doesn't that bring some interesting mental pictures to mind. LOL.
Weren't the Spartans all gay men and they were fierce fighters in Greek mythology

[starless]

As a miliary member, I have to say that I very much doubt that this will have a big effect on retention.

[Cowlesy]

The troops aren't gonna quit. Where are they gonna go to get a job? The Military is the only industry hiring, they'll stay and deal with it.

^^This

[Philhelm]

Hey man... where is that long winded message of tolerance about tolerating the Ten Commandments?

Can't we tolerate all members of society serving in the military?

What are you referring to?

[Philhelm]

The issue isn't all that big in my opinion, and I doubt that those who would be inclined to serve in the military would not do so over this issue. The bottom line is that homosexuals were already allowed in the military, technically speaking. It was "homosexual conduct", as according to UCMJ, that was discriminated against under DADT. So I suppose it was more of a de facto banning of homosexual servicemen, but DADT served as a transition stage.

I was in the military, and personally, I couldn't care less about gays being in the military. It's not like they're going to rape other men in the showers. On the other hand, my one concern is the political correctness that will continue to infect the military culture. When I was in Iraq, for instance, we had a surprise inspection from outside of our company to see if we had pornographic magazines, which were confiscated if found. Holy shit! If they are concerned about young, horny men having magazines with nake ladies in them, then they must have too much time on their hands. Another instance of PC bullshit was caused when a soldier in my company had painted "Fat Bottom Girl" (like the Queen song) on his vehicle. One day, some busy-body major saw it and demanded it be painted over, as it was offensive. PC nonsense.

[TonySutton]

This is not an issue for the majority of the military. I imagine the impact on retention will be negligible.

With regards to Chaplains, they are already accustomed to tailoring their message to be acceptable to a broad and diverse audience. During my 20 years in the Marines I do not recall ever hearing a Chaplain discuss homosexuality.

[johngr]

I would be surprised if that does not happen anyway in the near future. If they do reinstitute the draft I hope that they concentrate in the gay communities as they so obviouly are just foaming at the mouth with desire to be in the military. That might be interesting. Just think an all gay military. Doesn't that bring some interesting mental pictures to mind. LOL.

The 69th Rump Rangers. Strap-ons issued as part of the seabag to all female sailors (silver-coloured for enlisted, gold for officers). A medic unit specialising in STDs called the Crank Mechanics. Dress Pinks. The ***** Eye for the Straight Guy updating and making fashionalbe the uniforms. A combination WWIII documentary/gay porno film called Shaving Ryan's Privates.

[Dystopia]

Great. The more the quit the better, it's not like we actually need a standing military. Who's going to invade us, Canada?

Please, someone give me a plausible scenario in which the United States gets invaded and occupied by another country. We're more likely to get invaded by martians than by Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or North Koreans. We don't need a military, they don't serve any purpose this day and age. To the people that argue that we need a "strong national defense", please tell me what are we defending ourselves from?

[Vessol]

It will not have as big an effect as you think. Most people already know who the gays are in the military. Most of them are Lesbians, actually. Dyke types who are more male than female and like the masculine role they can play in the military that is hard to come by in the civilian world. Gay men are actually pretty rare in the military. It is a man's man world, and girly men just can't cut the mustard and usually drop out in Basic Training. My own Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training class of Military Police recruits had 5 gay men, only one passed the 4 months course. We had about 15 lesbians. All passed. There were about 12 girly girls who also dropped out. This was in the last year of Clinton's administration.

Lol @ thinking that most gays are "girly men",


Weren't the Spartans all gay men and they were fierce fighters in Greek mythology

It could be argued that the entire basis of Hellenistic/Phalanx warfare was based in homosexual relationships. This is primarily due to the cooperation required in order to form a strong phalanx, requiring you to depend on the man next to you fully.

[johngr]

I would be surprised if that does not happen anyway in the near future. If they do reinstitute the draft I hope that they concentrate in the gay communities as they so obviouly are just foaming at the mouth with desire to be in the military. That might be interesting. Just think an all gay military. Doesn't that bring some interesting mental pictures to mind. LOL.

New US army motto: "Leave no man's behind".

[RedStripe]

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

lol

Ohhh, I'm sooo scared. What a joke.

[RedStripe]

Many of the arguments in favor of DADT are ones that could have been used to argue against the desegregation of the military.

Also, the way that social conservatives are obsessed with issues of homosexuality is hilarious.

[johngr]

Many of the arguments in favor of DADT are ones that could have been used to argue against the desegregation of the military.

Many of the arguments in favour of DADT could be used to argue against letting in people who have sex with animals.

[oyarde]

There is another side to this . One could argue that you are violating the rights of heterosexuals by placing them in positions where they are showering , etc . with homosexuals . I guess nobody ever defends the majority .

[specsaregood]

There is another side to this . One could argue that you are violating the rights of heterosexuals by placing them in positions where they are showering , etc . with homosexuals . I guess nobody ever defends the majority .

And what "right" would that be?

[oyarde]

And what "right" would that be?

That is a good question. I figure they should let the men shower with the women. :)

[specsaregood]

That is a good question. I figure they should let the men shower with the women. :)

Sure, I suppose. A lot of colleges have co-ed bathrooms nowadays. If college kids can handle it, I don't see why soldiers couldn't.

[TonySutton]

There is another side to this . One could argue that you are violating the rights of heterosexuals by placing them in positions where they are showering , etc . with homosexuals . I guess nobody ever defends the majority .

You realize that under DADT heterosexuals and gays are showering together and have been all along. Why would it suddenly become an issue with full disclosure?

[oyarde]

You realize that under DADT heterosexuals and gays are showering together and have been all along. Why would it suddenly become an issue with full disclosure?

Yes I realize that . I do think disclosure would change things .

[TonySutton]

Yes I realize that . I do think disclosure would change things .

Please elaborate?

[specsaregood]

Please elaborate?

All of a sudden spontaneous orgies will break out in the showers, barracks and foxholes. What have you never seen any ghey porn ever?!

[Vessol]

Yes I realize that . I do think disclosure would change things .

lolwut?

[oyarde]

Looks like a stay was granted today at the Circuit Court of Appeals .

[Rael]

The troops aren't gonna quit. Where are they gonna go to get a job? The Military is the only industry hiring, they'll stay and deal with it.

This

[oyarde]

This

Normally , I would say correct . Circumstances now are worse than ever in history from the following standpoint : If you have been in the past ten years , every other year would have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are still active in Afghan , if you re enlist you are likely going back for more . Not much incentive there . One tour is OK , others can become something to dread .

[Philhelm]

Normally , I would say correct . Circumstances now are worse than ever in history from the following standpoint : If you have been in the past ten years , every other year would have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are still active in Afghan , if you re enlist you are likely going back for more . Not much incentive there . One tour is OK , others can become something to dread .

Exactly. That's no life for (what is a majority of) young men to live, especially considering the cause. It's not like they are out fighting for the defense of the U.S., so I really don't see the motivation to want to be deployed every other year, unless someone really gets off on it. Overall, it's pretty fucking boring over there. Mind numbingly so.

[libertarian4321]

Troops Will Vote With Their Feet (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39473)



It's not going to happen.

As an Army officer, both active and reserve, for almost 30 years, I don't think many will leave.

Maybe a few of the lower ranking enlisted troops, but that's about it. The professional soldiers aren't going to leave because "gays" will have little or no effect on them- it just wouldn't be an issue or a concern for most soldiers most of the time.

[libertarian4321]

There is another side to this . One could argue that you are violating the rights of heterosexuals by placing them in positions where they are showering , etc . with homosexuals . I guess nobody ever defends the majority .

How are their "rights being violated?"

They've been showering with gays all along. This would only end the nonsense about pretending to be straight.

It's not like they are going to be having sex in the showers.

BTW, MOST soldiers do NOT use group showers anymore. I know, in the movies all you see are old WW2 style open bay barracks, but most soldiers don't live like that now. They have their own houses or apartments, or dorm style rooms, usually with private or semi-private bathrooms. Even those that do have group bathrooms often have dividers.

Even in the worst case scenario, soldiers will have no worse a situation than your average college boy. If some college kid can handle it, I would think a disciplined soldier should be able to handle it.

I showered with gay guys (open and closeted) in high school. I managed to survive.
I showered with gay guys (open and closeted) in college. I managed to survive.
I showered with gay guys (closeted) in the Army. I managed to survive.

All this showering with gay guys. Yet I never had a mental breakdown. I didn't get "converted". Geez, folks, it isn't a big deal.

So now the gay guys in the Army can choose to be open about it- so what? You think soldiers will fall to pieces if put in a situation that HS and college kids handle every day? That's laughable. Soldiers aren't a bunch of tender, sensitive young things who will fall to pieces over some chicken shit issue like showering with a gay guy.

[oyarde]

It's not going to happen.

As an Army officer, both active and reserve, for almost 30 years, I don't think many will leave.

Maybe a few of the lower ranking enlisted troops, but that's about it. The professional soldiers aren't going to leave because "gays" will have little or no effect on them- it just wouldn't be an issue or a concern for most soldiers most of the time.

I would agree that the lower ranking enlisted is where the losses would occur. These will also be difficult to replace if the economy improves .

[Monarchist]

BTW, MOST soldiers do NOT use group showers anymore .... Even those that do have group bathrooms often have dividers.


Not in my (National Guard) unit. WOOT helping wash each others' backs!!

[oyarde]

Not in my (National Guard) unit. WOOT helping wash each others' backs!!

Yeah , I was thinking mostly like basic training , summer training for Guard , Reserve , things of that nature .

[Fredom101]

Lets not forget that Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Chaos in the military will weaken our National Defense and leave the country open to attack.

The US already has the largest military in the world ten times over.
If RP were president, the wars would all end and there would be no need to have anywhere near the number of paid killers that there are now.

And if RP wants to follow the constitution, he cannot impose a standing army.

[oyarde]

The US already has the largest military in the world ten times over.
If RP were president, the wars would all end and there would be no need to have anywhere near the number of paid killers that there are now.

And if RP wants to follow the constitution, he cannot impose a standing army.

Meh , you could get around standing Army . Marines are Dept. of Navy . You could take active non airborne Army units and make them reserve , give the Guard back to the states ( states have to pay for them to keep them or replace with militia , tax monies ) . If you want to keep your special ops , assign them to Coast Guard or Navy . Coast Guard goes from Homeland Security to Navy .

[phill4paul]

Meh , you could get around standing Army . Marines are Dept. of Navy . You could take active non airborne Army units and make them reserve , give the Guard back to the states ( states have to pay for them to keep them or replace with militia , tax monies ) . If you want to keep your special ops , assign them to Coast Guard or Navy . Coast Guard goes from Homeland Security to Navy .


This is exactly how it should be structured.

[oyarde]

This is exactly how it should be structured.

It would work . It would save some money on personel .

[phill4paul]

It would work . It would save some money on personel .

And it would abide by the Constitution. The Marine Corps. being relegated to its traditional role as an expeditionary fighting force of course.

[oyarde]

And it would abide by the Constitution. The Marine Corps. being relegated to its traditional role as an expeditionary fighting force of course.

Yes I could restructure everything existing to fit into the framework of the Constitution.There would be no savings on equipment , but there would be savings on payroll and benefits.Still having almost the same capability.Eventually your Army Reserve will not be as proffessional or effecient as current standing Army , but that is negligible if we are not invading countries . The states could decide individually if they want to open up militia or Guard to gays and everybody would be happy ?

[libertarian4321]

I would agree that the lower ranking enlisted is where the losses would occur. These will also be difficult to replace if the economy improves .

Not to worry- Obama will make sure that doesn't happen :)

[oyarde]

Not to worry- Obama will make sure that doesn't happen :)

Point taken .

[Anti Federalist]

The troops aren't gonna quit. Where are they gonna go to get a job? The Military is the only industry hiring, they'll stay and deal with it.

That ^^^

[oyarde]

That ^^^

I dunno , if I was a single 22 year old at the end of a four year enlistment and had spent two years in Afghanistan , I probably would move in with mom & dad , job or no job before I would re enlist for some more roadside bombs . Then while I was sitting around drinking beer , if I heard a gay person crying about not getting to serve , I would not know if I should laugh at them or feel sorry for them because they were insane .

[Todd]

If they are going to prohibit the chaplains from doing their job, then perhaps they should just get rid of them entirely. I have little doubt many chaplains would rather quit than to be subject to censorship.

You aren't probably aware of Chaplains in the military these days. It's the most watered down Gospel there is. I'm sure there's more than a handful who won't make it an issue.

[Anti Federalist]

I dunno , if I was a single 22 year old at the end of a four year enlistment and had spent two years in Afghanistan , I probably would move in with mom & dad , job or no job before I would re enlist for some more roadside bombs . Then while I was sitting around drinking beer , if I heard a gay person crying about not getting to serve , I would not know if I should laugh at them or feel sorry for them because they were insane .

Well let's just say that statement was true for any well developed functioning person who wishes to be productive and earn their way.

[oyarde]

Well let's just say that statement was true for any well developed functioning person who wishes to be productive and earn their way.

As a young fella , after a couple of years in lovely Kandahar , doubtful I would have been too worried about others opinions of me .

[Dr.3D]

I dunno , if I was a single 22 year old at the end of a four year enlistment and had spent two years in Afghanistan , I probably would move in with mom & dad , job or no job before I would re enlist for some more roadside bombs . Then while I was sitting around drinking beer , if I heard a gay person crying about not getting to serve , I would not know if I should laugh at them or feel sorry for them because they were insane .

That's what I did when my enlistment ran out. I got away from the war in Vietnam and used my V.A. benefits to go home and go to college, so I could get a decent job. It worked too. :)

Needless to say, my last few weeks in the military were not the best, they did all kinds of evil things to me, trying to get me to reenlist. All that did of course is make me all the more determined to keep marking off the days on my short timers calendar.

[oyarde]

That's what I did when my enlistment ran out. I got away from the war in Vietnam and used my V.A. benefits to go home and go to college, so I could get a decent job. It worked too. :)

Needless to say, my last few weeks in the military were not the best, they did all kinds of evil things to me, trying to get me to reenlist. All that did of course is make me all the more determined to keep marking off the days on my short timers calendar.

Glad you made it back . When I got out the first time I worked as an assistant manager at a gas station and worked for cash for a moving company while I looked for a job. I did some farm work side jobs too . I saved up about a month and a half leave also so that helped as I got paid the first 6 weeks back .

[oyarde]

At that time I would not have cared about anything . Pride was never a problem for me .

[johngr]

How about a new navy rating: Cabin Boy (CB)? The First Class and Chief Petty Officers might be too old for that occupation but they can always teach at the "CS" schools.

[rprprs]

There is another side to this . One could argue that you are violating the rights of heterosexuals by placing them in positions where they are showering , etc . with homosexuals . I guess nobody ever defends the majority .


As a young fella , after a couple of years in lovely Kandahar , doubtful I would have been too worried about others opinions of me .

You should expand that last sentiment and apply it to your earlier post. Why would you worry if the dude next to you in the showers has a positive "opinion" of your naked body?

Imagine having your six-pack or bulging biceps admired. I can't possibly think of anything more degrading or traumatizing. Oh, the horror!

For the reasons outlined by others, the troops aren't going anywhere. A non-issue.

[oyarde]

You should expand that last sentiment and apply it to your earlier post. Why would you worry if the dude next to you in the showers has a positive "opinion" of your naked body?

Imagine having your six-pack or bulging biceps admired. I can't possibly think of anything more degrading or traumatizing. Oh, the horror!

For the reasons outlined by others, the troops aren't going anywhere. A non-issue.

Non issue is not what the Army Times poll said .