Comments on: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue: A Compromise That Works http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: travis22 http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-56047 travis22 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:37:49 +0000 #comment-56047 Dustin- Your performance on OnPoint today was a total embarrassment. Listen to yourself on the podcast and see if you find anything to like or admire in the immature, unwordly inarticulate bigot on display there. Then keep the recording around to listen to 10 years from now when, hopefully, you have grown up. Pathetic. Dustin- Your performance on OnPoint today was a total embarrassment. Listen to yourself on the podcast and see if you find anything to like or admire in the immature, unwordly inarticulate bigot on display there.

Then keep the recording around to listen to 10 years from now when, hopefully, you have grown up.

Pathetic.

]]> By: MikeD http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-46331 MikeD Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:43:50 +0000 #comment-46331 Dustin,<br>If you're objective is to keep gays out of the military, then the policy is working. Yet even by your own scenario, the law as we know it, is useless. If everyone in your unit knew your fellow soldier was gay then that is not any different than if we had no law against gays. <br><br>In fact the military uses DADT when it is convenient for them. And there is much disparity among the services regarding its implementation. <br><br>I am one of the nearly 13,000 men and women discharged under DADT. Not because I was "caught in the act", or because I made a statement. The military searched my private emails in Iraq to find whatever "evidence" they could to throw me out. I was served as an officer, leading nearly 200 men and women in Iraq. Shortly before I was fired I was named one of the top officers in my career fied. Yet despite this I was fired from this job, my clearance was suspended and I was given a police escort off the base on my last day of active duty. After 13 years of service I was thrown out, losing all future pension benefits. Is that what you mean when you say the policy is working? The same fate could just have easily happened to your fellow soldier. <br><br>Why don't we substitute the word gay with black, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Irish, etc, etc or any other group that has faced discrimination in our nation's history?? Discrimination is ugly, expensive, and hurts us all. Even the proverbial dreaded "shower" scenario that straights love to use to drum up homophobia was used to keep blacks racially segregated from whites. One need to look no further than the racially segregated South in the 1950s with their seperate water fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites. <br><br>Learn the full extent and damage of the law before you naively post that it's working. <br><br>An officer who has served his country with distinction Dustin,If you’re objective is to keep gays out of the military, then the policy is working. Yet even by your own scenario, the law as we know it, is useless. If everyone in your unit knew your fellow soldier was gay then that is not any different than if we had no law against gays. In fact the military uses DADT when it is convenient for them. And there is much disparity among the services regarding its implementation. I am one of the nearly 13,000 men and women discharged under DADT. Not because I was “caught in the act”, or because I made a statement. The military searched my private emails in Iraq to find whatever “evidence” they could to throw me out. I was served as an officer, leading nearly 200 men and women in Iraq. Shortly before I was fired I was named one of the top officers in my career fied. Yet despite this I was fired from this job, my clearance was suspended and I was given a police escort off the base on my last day of active duty. After 13 years of service I was thrown out, losing all future pension benefits. Is that what you mean when you say the policy is working? The same fate could just have easily happened to your fellow soldier. Why don’t we substitute the word gay with black, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Irish, etc, etc or any other group that has faced discrimination in our nation’s history?? Discrimination is ugly, expensive, and hurts us all. Even the proverbial dreaded “shower” scenario that straights love to use to drum up homophobia was used to keep blacks racially segregated from whites. One need to look no further than the racially segregated South in the 1950s with their seperate water fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites. Learn the full extent and damage of the law before you naively post that it’s working. An officer who has served his country with distinction

]]> By: Jonas.Stankovich http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-41877 Jonas.Stankovich Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:06:53 +0000 #comment-41877 sinz54: "I'm still concerned that it's going to be a lot harder to get Christians from the Red States to enlist in an army in which they have to sleep in the same close quarters with gays"<br>I hope that you are joking with your comment. That is probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The good Christian soldiers are too good to be in the presence of gays; maybe they'll "catch" the "gay", maybe just being near a gay person will cause God to be so angry that he will strike them dead with a bolt of lightening! Oh my goodness! <br>Our men and women have the courage to fight Al Qaeda, but not be in the same room as a person who happens to live with someone of the same gender back at home? <br>That, my friend, demeans our country's finest. Stop putting words in the mouths of our soldiers, and stop making them look like ignorant bigots, because that is anything but the truth. They are some of the brightest and most understanding people in our great nation.<br><br>"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone." "You shouldn't have to be straight to be in the military; you just should be able to shoot straight." -Barry Goldwater sinz54: “I’m still concerned that it’s going to be a lot harder to get Christians from the Red States to enlist in an army in which they have to sleep in the same close quarters with gays”I hope that you are joking with your comment. That is probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The good Christian soldiers are too good to be in the presence of gays; maybe they’ll “catch” the “gay”, maybe just being near a gay person will cause God to be so angry that he will strike them dead with a bolt of lightening! Oh my goodness! Our men and women have the courage to fight Al Qaeda, but not be in the same room as a person who happens to live with someone of the same gender back at home? That, my friend, demeans our country’s finest. Stop putting words in the mouths of our soldiers, and stop making them look like ignorant bigots, because that is anything but the truth. They are some of the brightest and most understanding people in our great nation.”Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.” “You shouldn’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just should be able to shoot straight.” -Barry Goldwater

]]> By: rand http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-51389 rand Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:01:46 +0000 #comment-51389 We already admit gays. They just can't be open about it. As Dustin notes, not everyone in his unit approved of gays, yet somehow they all got along.<br><br>Your comment, sinz54, could have applied to the army of the 1950s: So many of the enlistees came from the south -- how would they figure in an integrated army? They did, and they do. <br><br>If being anti-gay is more important that serving your country, then you aren't good army material to begin with. We already admit gays. They just can’t be open about it. As Dustin notes, not everyone in his unit approved of gays, yet somehow they all got along.Your comment, sinz54, could have applied to the army of the 1950s: So many of the enlistees came from the south — how would they figure in an integrated army? They did, and they do. If being anti-gay is more important that serving your country, then you aren’t good army material to begin with.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-52530 sinz54 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:00 +0000 #comment-52530 Jonas.Stankovich: I'm still concerned that it's going to be a lot harder to get Christians from the Red States to enlist in an army in which they have to sleep in the same close quarters with gays (or lesbians, if they're female enlistees).<br><br>And yet, traditionally, it's Red State Christians who have provided a lot of our troops. You don't find a lot of Blue State liberals rushing to sign up. And all those Blue State liberals who want the policy changed, want it changed to affect others; I haven't seen one of them yet say that they will enlist themselves because it makes our armed forces more attractive to them.<br><br>So if we admit gays openly, will it be harder to recruit non-gays?<br> Jonas.Stankovich: I’m still concerned that it’s going to be a lot harder to get Christians from the Red States to enlist in an army in which they have to sleep in the same close quarters with gays (or lesbians, if they’re female enlistees).And yet, traditionally, it’s Red State Christians who have provided a lot of our troops. You don’t find a lot of Blue State liberals rushing to sign up. And all those Blue State liberals who want the policy changed, want it changed to affect others; I haven’t seen one of them yet say that they will enlist themselves because it makes our armed forces more attractive to them.So if we admit gays openly, will it be harder to recruit non-gays?

]]> By: rand http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-41704 rand Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:18:25 +0000 #comment-41704 Finally, I would suggest that you contact the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network at www.sldn.org. You will find plenty of case studies there were DADT did NOT work -- where gay servicemen and women received no protections under DADT, where they were pursued, where they did get harassment, and where their careers ended through no fault of their own. I know, because I used to do some volunteer work for them. <br><br>Just because you saw no harassement doesn't mean that it didn't occur. In fact, it happens far too often. Since it's implementation in 1993, over 12,500 people have been discharged. Over 800 of them are mission-critical, meaning they were pilots, intelligence analysts, medics, and linguists. This, at a time when we are having a difficult time with recruitment, and are reduced to giving waivers to criminals.<br><br>It's really unbelievable that an army would prefer to have a wounded soldier go untreated than have him treated by a gay medic. If you were injured, would you really care? <br><br>In this way, it is the DADT policy that detracts from the single minded mission of the military -- instead of focusing on getting the job done, they are focusing on identifying gays in their midst and getting rid of them. I say, focus on the mission and the other issues fade away. Finally, I would suggest that you contact the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network at http://www.sldn.org. You will find plenty of case studies there were DADT did NOT work — where gay servicemen and women received no protections under DADT, where they were pursued, where they did get harassment, and where their careers ended through no fault of their own. I know, because I used to do some volunteer work for them. Just because you saw no harassement doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. In fact, it happens far too often. Since it’s implementation in 1993, over 12,500 people have been discharged. Over 800 of them are mission-critical, meaning they were pilots, intelligence analysts, medics, and linguists. This, at a time when we are having a difficult time with recruitment, and are reduced to giving waivers to criminals.It’s really unbelievable that an army would prefer to have a wounded soldier go untreated than have him treated by a gay medic. If you were injured, would you really care? In this way, it is the DADT policy that detracts from the single minded mission of the military — instead of focusing on getting the job done, they are focusing on identifying gays in their midst and getting rid of them. I say, focus on the mission and the other issues fade away.

]]> By: rand http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-53735 rand Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:10:05 +0000 #comment-53735 I guess what really bothers me is your statement that most of your unit was 'not fans of the gay lifestyle.' <br><br>Please tell me: What IS the gay lifestyle? How is it different from yours? Did you ever discuss that with your gay friend? Perhaps if you actually talked to him like you did your other buddies, you might have realized that being gay isn't a choice. Who would want to be gay and risk getting kicked out of the military if it were? <br><br>Since it doesn't appear that you are currently in the military, I have a suggestion. Call up your buddy and ask him HIS opinion of DADT. Ask him what it's like to be gay and closeted in the military. Ask him his thoughts and experiences. Ask him if he were to serve openly if it would detract from the single mission and single mind of the military. <br><br>You might actually get to know the guy. Who knows? You might actually learn what it's like to be gay in the military. I guess what really bothers me is your statement that most of your unit was ‘not fans of the gay lifestyle.’ Please tell me: What IS the gay lifestyle? How is it different from yours? Did you ever discuss that with your gay friend? Perhaps if you actually talked to him like you did your other buddies, you might have realized that being gay isn’t a choice. Who would want to be gay and risk getting kicked out of the military if it were? Since it doesn’t appear that you are currently in the military, I have a suggestion. Call up your buddy and ask him HIS opinion of DADT. Ask him what it’s like to be gay and closeted in the military. Ask him his thoughts and experiences. Ask him if he were to serve openly if it would detract from the single mission and single mind of the military. You might actually get to know the guy. Who knows? You might actually learn what it’s like to be gay in the military.

]]> By: rand http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-50829 rand Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:46:35 +0000 #comment-50829 By your own admission, you have no problem serving with an openly gay soldier. So what's the point of DADT, then? <br><br>Did you ask your gay friend whether DADT works for him? I can assure you that it doesn't. While you can talk about your girlfriends and screwing women, he has to remain silent about his boyfriend and screwing men. In other words, he has to keep from you a huge part of his life, something that isn't asked of hetero soldiers. <br><br>DADT doesn't 'keep relationship and assaults to a minimum", the military code does that. <br><br>Sure, there are pretections for gay soldiers, but they aren't always followed. There have been many gay soldiers who were kicked out of the miltiary who actually kept quiet -- the problem is that the military DID pursue them. Searching their emails, seeing if they participate in a gay parade, and so on. <br><br>None of the arabic linguists said anything about their sexual orientation, but a dozen or so have been kicked out. Why? I don't see how that harms anything, but it certainly does harm our ability to keep track of our enemies communciations. I guess it's more important to kick out the gays than to translate the next terrorist attack!<br><br>The following countries allow gays to serve openly: Israel, Britian, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and several other NATO allies. How are they harmed, if at all? <br><br>The fact is that the Army Navy College did a report several years ago that reviewed the entire issue and concluded that there were almost no problems in allowing gay soldiers to serve openly in any of these foreign militaries. In Brtiain, for instance, all soldiers were given the option of a full and honorable discharge if they believed that they could not serve next to an openly gay soldier. A total of three servicemen took the option, which hardly crippled the forces.<br><br>A full 70% of Americans believe gays should serve openly in the military. By your own admission, you have no problem serving with an openly gay soldier. So what’s the point of DADT, then? Did you ask your gay friend whether DADT works for him? I can assure you that it doesn’t. While you can talk about your girlfriends and screwing women, he has to remain silent about his boyfriend and screwing men. In other words, he has to keep from you a huge part of his life, something that isn’t asked of hetero soldiers. DADT doesn’t ‘keep relationship and assaults to a minimum”, the military code does that. Sure, there are pretections for gay soldiers, but they aren’t always followed. There have been many gay soldiers who were kicked out of the miltiary who actually kept quiet — the problem is that the military DID pursue them. Searching their emails, seeing if they participate in a gay parade, and so on. None of the arabic linguists said anything about their sexual orientation, but a dozen or so have been kicked out. Why? I don’t see how that harms anything, but it certainly does harm our ability to keep track of our enemies communciations. I guess it’s more important to kick out the gays than to translate the next terrorist attack!The following countries allow gays to serve openly: Israel, Britian, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and several other NATO allies. How are they harmed, if at all? The fact is that the Army Navy College did a report several years ago that reviewed the entire issue and concluded that there were almost no problems in allowing gay soldiers to serve openly in any of these foreign militaries. In Brtiain, for instance, all soldiers were given the option of a full and honorable discharge if they believed that they could not serve next to an openly gay soldier. A total of three servicemen took the option, which hardly crippled the forces.A full 70% of Americans believe gays should serve openly in the military.

]]> By: Jonas.Stankovich http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-49682 Jonas.Stankovich Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:33:42 +0000 #comment-49682 Fox News Channel's Colonel Hunt strongly disagrees with don't ask don't tell:<br><br>"Col. Hunt: I want the best we have to serve, I do not care how they have sex, or go to the bathroom. The British and French (good military and spies, terrible governments) allow gays to serve, as does Israel...we need talented and dedicated men and women, and I think excluding people because they make some of us nervous is crazy. We once prevented blacks from serving in wars or with whites, which was wrong, and it is my opinion that preventing gays to serve is just as wrong. The "dont ask, dont tell" policy is a cop out. In this war on terror we must be willing to accept or at least tolerate things in others that make us nervous or that we do not agree with in order to kill bad people who want to kill us."<br><br>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279480,00.html Fox News Channel’s Colonel Hunt strongly disagrees with don’t ask don’t tell:”Col. Hunt: I want the best we have to serve, I do not care how they have sex, or go to the bathroom. The British and French (good military and spies, terrible governments) allow gays to serve, as does Israel…we need talented and dedicated men and women, and I think excluding people because they make some of us nervous is crazy. We once prevented blacks from serving in wars or with whites, which was wrong, and it is my opinion that preventing gays to serve is just as wrong. The “dont ask, dont tell” policy is a cop out. In this war on terror we must be willing to accept or at least tolerate things in others that make us nervous or that we do not agree with in order to kill bad people who want to kill us.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279480,00.html

]]> By: gopwriterguy http://www.frumforum.com/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-pursue-a-compromise-that-works/comment-page-1#comment-42908 gopwriterguy Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:40:31 +0000 #comment-42908 you should pick up Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank. I think it will give you a little more realistic view of what this policy has done than the fuzzy good feelings you might have seen<br><br>http://www.amazon.com/Unfriendly-Fire-Undermines-Military-Weakens/dp/0312373481/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240331938&sr=8-1 you should pick up Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank. I think it will give you a little more realistic view of what this policy has done than the fuzzy good feelings you might have seenhttp://www.amazon.com/Unfriendly-Fire-Undermines-Military-Weakens/dp/0312373481/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240331938&sr=8-1

]]>