Sensitive Issue-Not by Paulette this time (DADT)

[Sailariel]

I was very pleased that our senator from Maine led the charge to repeal the assinine "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regulation. The majority of people in this country have never seen combat and experienced one of the more positive things that come out of that experience. In the theater of war, the combatants are a-sexual. A person's sexual orientation has no meaning. We become a Band of Brothers and Sisters that is stronger than any family ties. People don't realize that we are willing to risk our lives to save one of our brothers and sisters. When one does not make it, it is a death in the family. The strength of this bond can not be expressed--it has to be experienced. I served with a lot of soldiers. We were professionals whether one was gay or not, never found its way into the equation. When I was in the military this policy did not exist. If you were found out, you were given an Administrative Discharge--a sort of blah discharge. I served with several gays and could not imagine that these patriotic, corageous and brave individuals could be discarded by a bunch of homophobes who are totally removed from reality.

A gay soldier saved my and several other's lives. He was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for his valor. Gay means nothing. He will always remain my brother and we would do anything for each other. Relationships like this don't come easy and we are all the richer for it.

[noche_caliente]

[Blackwidow]

A-Men to that! very well said. i'm just getting so tired of hearing hill billy idiots throw in their opinions about how things should be while they sit on their fat ass in front of the TV. Its easy to judge, but its harder to go out there and educate yourself to see the bigger picture. I truely hope that one day people realize to start minding their own business and understand that we are all people, we are all humans, and just because a person wants to fall in love with the same sex doesn't make them less of a person.

[Blackwidow]

oh and Alex, this thread is going to cause a hardcore debate...you have been warned. hahahaha



i love it!

[Sailariel]

Paulette, Everybody loves someone of the same sex--It,s all in how you describe love. Does "Getting together with the guys" make you gay? What about my wife having a "Pink" day with her friends. We are all people complete with our strengths and weakneses.Hopefully we love humanity. I hate labels. They should stay on soup cans.

[Blackwidow]

loving someone of the same sex is different then wanting to have sex with them.

[Flow]

Originally Posted by Blackwidow

this thread is going to cause a hardcore debate

I don't think so. These days homophobia isn't exactly welcomed. I'd be surprised if someone who supports "don't ask, don't tell" posted.

[Sailariel]

Originally Posted by Flow

I don't think so. These days homophobia isn't exactly welcomed. I'd be surprised if someone who supports "don't ask, don't tell" posted.

Justin, Thankfully we have come a long way

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by Flow

I don't think so. These days homophobia isn't exactly welcomed. I'd be surprised if someone who supports "don't ask, don't tell" posted.

You could have debate without homophobia. I can think that being gay is wrong and not be homophobic. Homophobia is thrown around a lot nowadays.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

You could have debate without homophobia. I can think that being gay is wrong and not be homophobic. Homophobia is thrown around a lot nowadays.

This I agree with, the one thing about gay rights (not just them but it is what we are discussing here) that annoys me is when someone speaks against it they are a homophobe and hate gay people and boycott them and blah blah blah. For a group that likes to raise hell about having there freedoms they sure cause a stir and try to take away that same right when spoken against.

As far as DADT it was retarded and most people in the military don't have an issue with it. It has been and will be more of a political issue then an actual military one.

Persoanly I have 0 issues with homosexuality, my best friend in college was gay (he has since passed away) and there is nothing I could care less about a person then who they have sex with. I do want to point out that gay clubs are pretty much the best out there, gay guys have hot ass friends they drag out with them and with so few straight guys you can get the pick of the litter and they play great music lol.

[Blackwidow]

Originally Posted by Havok

I do want to point out that gay clubs are pretty much the best out there, .

HECK YA!!!


I don't club anymore, but if i do, i'm going to the gay clubs.

[Flow]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

You could have debate without homophobia. I can think that being gay is wrong and not be homophobic. Homophobia is thrown around a lot nowadays.

Alright, then I welcome a decent argument for keeping gays "under wraps" in the military that isn't based in homophobia.

I never said you couldn't think being gay is wrong and not be homophobic. That just makes you religious.

[GeneJunkie]

Kinda a silly comment, but if don't ask don't tell says repealed, does it mean the military can start having unisex showers, etc?

[gfloyd2002]

Seems cut and dried to me.

Most countries in the world allow gays in the military, including almost all of the developed world. Seems to work fine there. (Including in pretty hard-core Isreal.) By disallowing it, the U.S. was in the distinguished company of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malawi and others of similar ilk. By allowing it, we join the rest of NATO (except Turkey) and almost the entire developed world.

Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality personally, I would think that not many would deny someone a career or the chance to defend our country because of it. Which is why I think it important to distinguish how one feels about the social question of homosexuality and the question of the military. It seems that lots of people who are against DADT repeal are really making a point about the morality of homosexuality, which is fine and valuable, but it just is a different issue. Whatever you may feel about the social issue, such social debates don't belong in discussions of service to our country. All Americans owe their country a debt of service, regardless of race or sex or sexual orientation.

And, regardless of the previous U.S. policy, some served anyway, including with incredible careers. A good friend of mine (who is gay) was a very successful military intellegence officer and is now a US diplomat, continuing to do great things for the US. So, that means, we've already had gays in the military, and it has been working just fine. To think that someone being gay or not impacts the job they do denies the past service of so many people. If we look at the arguments against, like we don't want a social experiment in these difficult times, there will be sex in the barracks, etc. Many of those were all raised in the time of women and the desegration of the military. It all worked out just fine. The military is good at discipline, it won't be an issue. Look at Isreal, it works there. Or in our NATO operations, it works there, too.

[Sailariel]

Very good point, Floyd. I served in the Army in Vietnam--one tour with an Airborne unit and one tour with a Ranger Regiment. In both tours I had gay soldiers in my squad (I was an NCO) Gay was never an issue. What was important was, were they a good soldier or not. I can attest that they were damn good soldiers and that it was a priviledge to have served with them.

[KURT]

Now, if we could just get the Boy Scouts to get their head out of their a$$ !

[Cab305]

In my local sportbike forum this post raised ruckus.

It doesn't surprise me that on this forum the tone is so much more civil. I guess we had the common sense to buy a Ninjette, we are a civilized bunch. lol

[KURT]

Originally Posted by Cab305

In my local sportbike forum this post raised ruckus.

It doesn't surprise me that on this forum the tone is so much more civil. I guess we had the common sense to buy a Ninjette, we are a civilized bunch. lol

This forum is less about egos, and more about reason.

This issue, like gay marriage, is less about human rights as it is about politics. There are those in Congress, who were not personally opposed to gays participating in the military, but are simply afraid of loosing votes in the next election. My thanks to all those, who stood up for what is right.

[onetruevibe]

All people are equal in my eyes.

I would never ask someone about their sexual orientation just like I wouldn't ask them the size of their underwear. Nor would I expect someone to volunteer the nature of their sexual orientation with me. I simply don't care.

Should the military boot someone from service as a result of their sexual orientation - no. How can you refuse the service of anyone willing to put their life on the line to protect what this country has fought so hard to accomplish?

Hats-off.

[revstriker]

I'll take the other side. I think this is a mistake. Not in the political correctness sense, but in the fact that there is still question on how this new policy will be implemented, and how it will be received by those serving, particularly in combat arms positions. The pentagon report was very telling on this, with a majority of service men in combat roles saying that this repeal would have a negative effect. And while some will point to other nations which do allow open homosexuals to serve, most restrict positions to noncombat roles, and all have had to deal with harassment issues.

In a perfect world, this would have no impact on unit cohesion and teamwork. It would seem like the right thing to do; to treat everyone equally. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. As a veteran, I can see this causing problems. I agree with people like General Amos, the top ranking officer of the Marines who believes that this will be a dangerous distraction.

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I'll take the other side. I think this is a mistake. Not in the political correctness sense, but in the fact that there is still question on how this new policy will be implemented, and how it will be received by those serving, particularly in combat arms positions. The pentagon report was very telling on this, with a majority of service men in combat roles saying that this repeal would have a negative effect. And while some will point to other nations which do allow open homosexuals to serve, most restrict positions to noncombat roles, and all have had to deal with harassment issues.

In a perfect world, this would have no impact on unit cohesion and teamwork. It would seem like the right thing to do; to treat everyone equally. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. As a veteran, I can see this causing problems. I agree with people like General Amos, the top ranking officer of the Marines who believes that this will be a dangerous distraction.

Points well made. Civilized discussion on highly emotional point? This forum rocks!

You are almost certainly right about harassment, as it already exists against gays in the military today, and in society at large. (Just as there was and still is harassment related to women serving in the military.) And it will become more of an issue as more people choose to serve openly.

I would simply reply that in response to asshatted behavior, like harassment, there are two ways to stop it. One is to ban/punish the asshatted behavior and the other is to ban/punish the victim of the asshatted behavior. I vote for the former. Regardless of how one feels about homosexuality, I think most people would agree that abuse is not the right way to express one's opinion. Civil debate and respectful treatment is more representative, I think, of our national values. And in our military, with its proud tradition of discipline and modeling our nations values, I'd especially like to see that be our approach.

Will additional attention need to be paid to harassment? I think so. But we've got mechanisms to deal with it in place already and, as I've said, the military is very good at maintaining discipline. There will be some high profile abuse cases that come to light in the coming years, but I'm confident our military - like so many others around the world - will not only be fine, it will be better off by allowing all of our nation to serve our nation.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by Flow

I never said you couldn't think being gay is wrong and not be homophobic. That just makes you religious.

How does it make me religious?

[Sailariel]

Originally Posted by KURT

This forum is less about egos, and more about reason.

Good observation. I would be willing to bet that the majority of participants on this forum are professionals, skilled fields like computer tech,mechanics, college grads, or people in college. It is a young group--as per a previous poll. Also, a lot of credit has to go to Alex and Kelly along with the participants who self police.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

I would simply reply that in response to asshatted behavior, like harassment, there are two ways to stop it. One is to ban/punish the asshatted behavior and the other is to ban/punish the victim of the asshatted behavior. I vote for the former. Regardless of how one feels about homosexuality, I think most people would agree that abuse is not the right way to express one's opinion. Civil debate and respectful treatment is more representative, I think, of our national values. And in our military, with its proud tradition of discipline and modeling our nations values, I'd especially like to see that be our approach.

I completely agree, but I will add one caviat. When such harrassment can very easily lead to distraction and death in a combat zone, I think the leadership of the military needs to be extremely careful on how they roll this out.

I'm confident our military - like so many others around the world - will not only be fine, it will be better off by allowing all of our nation to serve our nation.

As am I. However, we should really review the integration of open homosexuality in the military by other countries, and not only understand the positives, but also the negatives.

[Alex]

Scott - it's my understanding that in fact was done quite extensively, over a large number of years. There are a variety of internal government task forces, over a number of decades, as well as academic research, studying all of the impacts to the minutest detail. One of the researchers was on the radio last week and it was a pretty interesting interview. Here's a link to the compilation of his research, along with the PDF version which includes all of the endnotes.

[bluepoof]

So happy DADT was repealed.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

Scott - it's my understanding that in fact was done quite extensively, over a large number of years. There are a variety of internal government task forces, over a number of decades, as well as academic research, studying all of the impacts to the minutest detail. One of the researchers was on the radio last week and it was a pretty interesting interview. Here's a link to the compilation of his research, along with the PDF version which includes all of the endnotes.

Thanks. Interesting read. But also very biased. But then again, that is the intention of Palm Center. My concern remains that the majority of those serving in combat roles in the military are opposed to the forced intimacy that comes with sharing housing, showers, etc. These are the same concerns of 1,167 retired generals and flag officers who also believe this repeal is a mistake.

Whether these feelings and attitudes by those in uniform is politically correct or not is really a separate discussion. But I think it is misguided for anyone to believe that soldiers won't feel this way just because Congress passed a law.

[Alex]

Right, but one of the interesting findings (to me at least), was that the very same arguments were made in Britain and Australia, coupled with surveys of the military that showed even more expected discord, an expectation of soldiers leaving before their service was up, more opposition in general than is being shown by the surveys published re: the US this time around. But there turned out to be a huge difference between how people said they'd react, and how they actually reacted after the policies changed. Nothing happened. No shorter terms by choice, no effect on combat readiness, no recruiting issues up or down. It was, by virtually all accounts, a non-event.

We'll see how it pans out here, but I'd be surprised if it was particularly different in the US.

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by Sailariel

I was very pleased that our senator from Maine led the charge to repeal the assinine "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regulation. The majority of people in this country have never seen combat and experienced one of the more positive things that come out of that experience. In the theater of war, the combatants are a-sexual. A person's sexual orientation has no meaning. We become a Band of Brothers and Sisters that is stronger than any family ties. People don't realize that we are willing to risk our lives to save one of our brothers and sisters. When one does not make it, it is a death in the family. The strength of this bond can not be expressed--it has to be experienced. I served with a lot of soldiers. We were professionals whether one was gay or not, never found its way into the equation. When I was in the military this policy did not exist. If you were found out, you were given an Administrative Discharge--a sort of blah discharge. I served with several gays and could not imagine that these patriotic, corageous and brave individuals could be discarded by a bunch of homophobes who are totally removed from reality.

A gay soldier saved my and several other's lives. He was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for his valor. Gay means nothing. He will always remain my brother and we would do anything for each other. Relationships like this don't come easy and we are all the richer for it.

Alex,

With all due respect to your past as a combat infantryman, I disagree. I too served in combat as an infantryman, and I agree, that in a fight, it doesn't matter how much you despise, hate, or are disgusted by the guy next you, as long as he's wearing the same uniform and is on the same side, you are going to look out for him. But here's the thing, no one spends all their time in combat. Especially when not deployed, infantry units sit around alot in garrison. And for the folks on this board, who have no clue what life is like in a combat arms unit in the Marine Corps, it will blow your mind to smithereens. There is no such thing as political correctness, sensitivity, and all the other feel good **** that is forced down the throats of most of America. In a rifle platoon, you have 40 guys, ranging from 18-21 who ooze the antithesis of everything that the adherents of political correctness preach. If the average liberal could spend an hour amongst a USMC rifle platoon, his head would explode.

So my point is, whereas in the rest of the .mil, in the pogue units, where you already have females and open homosexuals, the repeal of DADT will not make a difference at all. You may have some more flaunting of homosexuality, but its not going to be a combat detriment, because those folks are mostly sitting around a cubicle as part of their mission.

In the combat arms units, there are going to be a couple of well publicized instances of a kid getting thrown off a 3rd floor balcony or some such other abuse and over time, the environment will shift to the pre-repeal status quo: where homosexuals certainly exist, but they don't make an issue of their sexuality.

My point is that in an infantry unit, the presence of open homosexuals is most certainly a detriment to morale and effectiveness. However, I think this current state with the repeal of DADT is a self correcting situation. Very few homosexuals in combat units will openly admit their orientation and as such, it will pretty much be how it is pre-repeal: you keep what you do on your own time to yourself and dont talk about your boyfriend in front of the platoon.

My main opposition to the DADT repeal effort was based in the belief that the strongest proponents of repeal werent concerned about the military, but wanted to use DADT repeal as a way to strike a blow for liberalism and against the military, which more than any American institution stands for traditional American values. As evidenced by the Vice President's words today, the DADT repeal is going to be used as a bludgeon to advance other homosexual causes in the United States as well.

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

Seems cut and dried to me.

Most countries in the world allow gays in the military, including almost all of the developed world. Seems to work fine there. (Including in pretty hard-core Isreal.) By disallowing it, the U.S. was in the distinguished company of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malawi and others of similar ilk. By allowing it, we join the rest of NATO (except Turkey) and almost the entire developed world.

Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality personally, I would think that not many would deny someone a career or the chance to defend our country because of it. Which is why I think it important to distinguish how one feels about the social question of homosexuality and the question of the military. It seems that lots of people who are against DADT repeal are really making a point about the morality of homosexuality, which is fine and valuable, but it just is a different issue. Whatever you may feel about the social issue, such social debates don't belong in discussions of service to our country. All Americans owe their country a debt of service, regardless of race or sex or sexual orientation.

And, regardless of the previous U.S. policy, some served anyway, including with incredible careers. A good friend of mine (who is gay) was a very successful military intellegence officer and is now a US diplomat, continuing to do great things for the US. So, that means, we've already had gays in the military, and it has been working just fine. To think that someone being gay or not impacts the job they do denies the past service of so many people. If we look at the arguments against, like we don't want a social experiment in these difficult times, there will be sex in the barracks, etc. Many of those were all raised in the time of women and the desegration of the military. It all worked out just fine. The military is good at discipline, it won't be an issue. Look at Isreal, it works there. Or in our NATO operations, it works there, too.

So you want to degrade the status of our .mil to those of most countries in the world? Do you want us to have the same combat effectiveness of the Germans, French, or Swedes? Here's a hint: the Germans don't fight in Afghanistan and not because of the shortcomings of the individual soldier, but because their government is too concerned with politics and appeasing their domestic left than fighting in A-stan.

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by Blackwidow

A-Men to that! very well said. i'm just getting so tired of hearing hill billy idiots throw in their opinions about how things should be while they sit on their fat ass in front of the TV. Its easy to judge, but its harder to go out there and educate yourself to see the bigger picture. I truely hope that one day people realize to start minding their own business and understand that we are all people, we are all humans, and just because a person wants to fall in love with the same sex doesn't make them less of a person.

So if folks disagree with you, they're 'hillbilly idiots' huh? Well, let me clue you in on a little fact - the majority of guys carrying weapons into a fight overseas are much more like the 'hillbilly idiots' you malign than the Starbucks sipping, Prius driving, limp wristed, man purse wearing, CA metrosexuals you must interact with on a daily basis.

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by Sailariel

A gay soldier saved my and several other's lives. He was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for his valor. Gay means nothing. He will always remain my brother and we would do anything for each other. Relationships like this don't come easy and we are all the richer for it.

Well... i think the very fact that Alex knew the sexual orientation of his fellow comrade at arms, proves how ineffectual DADT really is/was... Honestly, I think the repeal was more a publicity stunt than an effort to give gay men and women the opportunity to serve in the military equally and without prejudice. Not to say the repeal did no good... but the timing of it just seems to be a way for Obama to boost his sagging numbers...

(didnt get a chance to read every post, so i apologize if I'm just reiterating a point made by somebody already... )

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by Too40gawlf

So you want to degrade the status of our .mil to those of most countries in the world? Do you want us to have the same combat effectiveness of the Germans, French, or Swedes? Here's a hint: the Germans don't fight in Afghanistan and not because of the shortcomings of the individual soldier, but because their government is too concerned with politics and appeasing their domestic left than fighting in A-stan.

Nope, but the evidence is that there won't be any lowering of combat effectiveness. We may not compare well to the Swedish military, but a more direct analogy to the US military is the Israeli military, which allows service of gay soldiers, has regular combat work and I'll think you will agree is a pretty effective organization. And there, gay soldiers can serve even in special and combat units. How did change in policy work out for them? Just fine, with no reduction of efficiency. See University of California Study of Impact of Gay Ban on Isreali Performance. That said, the study supports your argument that gay soldiers in harder core units don't generally reveal their sexuality.

Which means, as you mentioned in your other post, the main motivator behind opposition to DADT repeal is the broader political issues of liberalization and gay rights in general. I just don't think that should have much place in the discussion. Instead we should look at our larger values - even conservative values - that are bolstered by the repeal: desire for service to country, respectful treatment of people, individual choice, etc. These are things that I - even as a conservative Christian - can get behind. (Um, memo to self: do not use phrase "get behind" in discussion of gays in military.)

I do respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. I just don't think this will be a big deal in reality.

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

Nope, but the evidence is that there won't be any lowering of combat effectiveness. We may not compare well to the Swedish military, but a more direct analogy to the US military is the Israeli military, which allows service of gay soldiers, has regular combat work and I'll think you will agree is a pretty effective organization. And there, gay soldiers can serve even in special and combat units. How did change in policy work out for them? Just fine, with no reduction of efficiency. See University of California Study of Impact of Gay Ban on Isreali Performance. That said, the study supports your argument that gay soldiers in harder core units don't generally reveal their sexuality.

Which means, as you mentioned in your other post, the main motivator behind opposition to DADT repeal is the broader political issues of liberalization and gay rights in general. I just don't think that should have much place in the discussion. Instead we should look at our larger values - even conservative values - that are bolstered by the repeal: desire for service to country, respectful treatment of people, individual choice, etc. These are things that I - even as a conservative Christian - can get behind. (Um, memo to self: do not use phrase "get behind" in discussion of gays in military.)

I do respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. I just don't think this will be a big deal in reality.

Thank you for an insightful post, I respect your opinion as well. At the end of the day, the .mil will carry out what the President and Congress direct it to do, so the gnashing of our teeth is moot. However, the haughty lecturing of our self appointed moral superiors on a subject many of them have no clue or comprehension of is grating. Ultimately, when the moral crusaders have moved on to other subjects, the .mil will be left to deal with the unintended consequences of this repeal and will hurdle the obstacles without any help from those who carried the banner for repeal so boisterously.

All the tut tutting and finger wagging in the world will not change the basic facts of human nature - in the eyes of young (and many not so young) infantrymen, an openly gay squad leader or platoon commander will be derided and ridiculed (if only privately) and will never hold the same esteem that an otherwise equal small unit Leader would and this dynamic will surely lead to a loss of combat effectiveness over the course of time for what ever unit that individual is in charge of. Sure, an intel unit may be fine with a gay company commander or an admin unit, but you will not see openly gay Leaders in infantry units.

Anyway, I hope those that are on their moral high horse championing this crusade realize that there is a valid reason for the resistance on the other side of the issue and its not merely bigotry as many would have us believe.

[Sailariel]

Eric, I was just relating what my experience was in the military from 1967 to 1970. I was in Vietnam in the 68-70 period as a Medical Specialist. There was no garrison per se. We were at a firebase, which was a bunch of tents surrounded by a berm of sandbags. When I was not out in the field, I flew as a medic on Dust Off. Our firebase also got rocketed almost daily. I know nothing about the Marine Corps. I have several Marine friends--Korea Vets, and I have frequently (12 times going down and 12 times going back north) sailed and motored through Camp Le Jejeune at which point we flew the Marine Corps Flag on our right spreader (sailboat) as a courtesy and out of respect. As a rule we flew the state flag of the state we were in on the right spreader. There may be a problem in the Marine Corps--certainly the Commanding General of the USMC expressed his concern. I guess we will see. My friend, the Korea USMC Vet (Chosin Few), Silver Star and Purple Heart, does not think that gay people would be attracted to the Marine Corps. I don't know--I don't have a clue.

[ungluck]

RLTW...one of my CO's was in the closet and all of 2bn knew....one of the most trustworthy officers i knew and a stand up guy. our media and liberals and conservatives alike..make this situation bigger than it needs to be or is....should have been done in the 90's

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

We may not compare well to the Swedish military, but a more direct analogy to the US military is the Israeli military, which allows service of gay soldiers, has regular combat work and I'll think you will agree is a pretty effective organization.

Yes, they are a very effective military organization. But I do not believe they make a good comparison to the US military. For one thing, the Israeli army doesn't spend any extended time deployed. They are mostly a defense force. The majority of soldiers in the IDF don't even live in barracks.

[ungluck]

marines are breed to be grunts..let's break this down.

they ,along with our airborne,rangers,green berets, and SEALs are the tip of the spear. typically Atype guys who are competitive, focused and relentless in what they are set on achieving. with that, these guys live out of firebases and drop posts,etc in foxholes, dig bags,and cardboard boxes if their lucky.


99% of the people who are willing, in my opinion, to really get heated over this..have never served, were def not a working infantryman, or did OCS and went up and out.

as Too40gawlf said, people other than grunts just don't know..but again...some people in the community can get over it with ease, they probably have a working relationship with these people, a brotherhood of moments people cannot comprehend. and that!! will be one thing to help this along, but for certain higher-ups, nubs,fng's,rolo's, and what not... it may be difficult.

funny thing, the US is one of the most racist,bigot filled, highly opinionated and judgmental societies on our earth.


maybe i'm too intoxicated and have lost too much of my sanity to clearly get my thoughts through and make sense.

but the timing for this is gonna be hard to get right, and it ALWAYS will be. better now than later..maybe..but it has def been put off for too long. so many armchair generals.


i think it's good but implementing will be intense.

sorry this was scatter brained and long lol.

RLTW

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by ungluck

marines are breed to be grunts..let's break this down.

they ,along with our airborne,rangers,green berets, and SEALs are the tip of the spear. typically Atype guys who are competitive, focused and relentless in what they are set on achieving. with that, these guys live out of firebases and drop posts,etc in foxholes, dig bags,and cardboard boxes if their lucky.


99% of the people who are willing, in my opinion, to really get heated over this..have never served, were def not a working infantryman, or did OCS and went up and out.

as Too40gawlf said, people other than grunts just don't know..but again...some people in the community can get over it with ease, they probably have a working relationship with these people, a brotherhood of moments people cannot comprehend. and that!! will be one thing to help this along, but for certain higher-ups, nubs,fng's,rolo's, and what not... it may be difficult.

funny thing, the US is one of the most racist,bigot filled, highly opinionated and judgmental societies on our earth.


maybe i'm too intoxicated and have lost too much of my sanity to clearly get my thoughts through and make sense.

but the timing for this is gonna be hard to get right, and it ALWAYS will be. better now than later..maybe..but it has def been put off for too long. so many armchair generals.


i think it's good but implementing will be intense.

sorry this was scatter brained and long lol.

RLTW

Sorry dude, if you actually, sincerely, believe the above quote I really cant make an argument to convince you otherwise. But let me assure you that that isn't true, even REMOTELY true. The United States, for whatever faults it may have, is the most open, tolerant, and egalitarian society in the history of mankind. In my opinion, there are three reasons you would say that:
I.) you feel it makes you sound cool and gives you a cosmopolitan 'edge'
II.) you perhaps have not experienced the attitudes and prejudices of citizens of many of the nations in the world, especially those of some nations considered to be more 'tolerant' of us (i.e. European nations).
III.) you have an irrational dislike of the United States

Seriously THINK about what you said. Do you really think that the U.S. is less tolerant than Russia (racist mobs recently roving Moscow, beating ethnic minorities), France (very anti-semitic), EVERY country in the continent of Africa (Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Uganda), EVERY country in the Middle East (some notables: Egypt, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Iraq), How about South Asia? (Pakistan), How about Korea (both N and S), Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos?

Do you still think the U.S. is one of the MOST 'racist, bigot filled' countries in the world?

[Too40gawlf]

Originally Posted by Sailariel

Eric, I was just relating what my experience was in the military from 1967 to 1970. I was in Vietnam in the 68-70 period as a Medical Specialist. There was no garrison per se. We were at a firebase, which was a bunch of tents surrounded by a berm of sandbags. When I was not out in the field, I flew as a medic on Dust Off. Our firebase also got rocketed almost daily. I know nothing about the Marine Corps. I have several Marine friends--Korea Vets, and I have frequently (12 times going down and 12 times going back north) sailed and motored through Camp Le Jejeune at which point we flew the Marine Corps Flag on our right spreader (sailboat) as a courtesy and out of respect. As a rule we flew the state flag of the state we were in on the right spreader. There may be a problem in the Marine Corps--certainly the Commanding General of the USMC expressed his concern. I guess we will see. My friend, the Korea USMC Vet (Chosin Few), Silver Star and Purple Heart, does not think that gay people would be attracted to the Marine Corps. I don't know--I don't have a clue.

Alex, you've certainly been in the **** and are more than entitled to your beliefs. I'm sure the folks serving with you were privileged to have you looking out for them. You've eloquently made your views known.