Don't Ask, Don't TELL

[WinterBorn]

I just explained it, are you too ignorant to read? Because there was no need for it, this didn't serve any purpose, other than to appease a special interest group. Your idiotic points about blackmail are on par with my exaggerations of the slippery slope, you know damn well that was not ever a problem or an issue, and you can't cite one single case where such a thing has happened.

Yes, I read your nonsense about "all they had to do was keep quiet and do their job". I also recall your dire warnings about gay soldiers being murdered by their comrades by not providing unit support.

Both of which I consider bullshit.


Have you ever had a high security clearance or been around situations involving them? The people who do the security clearances and those involved in them all agree that the enemy will exploit any chance to blackmail a service member in the right place.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, I know you wouldn't, but look at the libs, they already are! Even in the wake of their 'victory' on this, they will call me these names because I dared to give an opposing opinion. You can either adopt the lunatic liberal mantra, or you are all of those things and more, it's how they emotionally pressure people into going along with them. What's amazing is, how many people fall for this load of crap, because they don't like being called names or thought of as something derogatory.

You know its funny, Dixie. You make it sound as though you are so tolerant of other people's differing opinions, or that you simply said you disagreed with the repeal.

When, in fact, you are as quick as anyone to call names when people disagree with you. You present your views as facts and anyone who opposes it is out to destroy this nation. So please don't try to portray yourself as some victim in this debate. Yes, we won this repeal. Butthe fight is not over. And you did not surrender anything. You posted nonsense about it not doing any good for the military, and then dire warning of the horrible things that will be done to the poor gay soldiers.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, I read your nonsense about "all they had to do was keep quiet and do their job". I also recall your dire warnings about gay soldiers being murdered by their comrades by not providing unit support.

Both of which I consider bullshit.


Have you ever had a high security clearance or been around situations involving them? The people who do the security clearances and those involved in them all agree that the enemy will exploit any chance to blackmail a service member in the right place.

Yes, I have had high security clearance, as a matter of fact. Like I said, you can't cite an example of this happening.... if it were an issue, you would be able to. This is one of those 'non-issues' some gay liberal turd stayed up all night thinking about, and you all have yammered it repeatedly since then. it hasn't happened, it doesn't happen, it wouldn't have happened. The enemy is not likely to even know what someone's sexuality is, especially if they are keeping it to themselves, like they should be... like they were under DADT!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You know its funny, Dixie. You make it sound as though you are so tolerant of other people's differing opinions, or that you simply said you disagreed with the repeal.

When, in fact, you are as quick as anyone to call names when people disagree with you. You present your views as facts and anyone who opposes it is out to destroy this nation. So please don't try to portray yourself as some victim in this debate. Yes, we won this repeal. Butthe fight is not over. And you did not surrender anything. You posted nonsense about it not doing any good for the military, and then dire warning of the horrible things that will be done to the poor gay soldiers.

Oh, I am very tolerant of other people's opinions. And all I said was, I disagree with the repeal. I didn't post nonsense, and that wasn't a 'dire warning' of anything, just a recognition of reality. I never claimed to be a victim in this debate, and it's really not even a 'debate' because the issue has been settled already, there is nothing left to debate. You believe this is a wonderful and great thing, and apparently now, homosexuals can turn the military services into the "Gay Cabaret" and nothing can be said about it... I just think the typical 'alpha male' macho service member, might not be so 'cordial' to his gay comrades. Maybe I am wrong? I said that before, didn't I? If I am, and this all goes smooth sailing without any problems, I will be the first to come back here and admit I was wrong about it. Can't be much more conciliatory than that, can I? Can't be much more tolerant and open minded, can I? I am not standing on my ear demanding we light the torches and grab the pitchforks and head to Washington, to get them to reverse the repeal of DADT, am I? Nope... I am accepting that this is now the law, and we'll see what happens. I predict there will be problems, but I could be wrong. That's my opinion, and I really don't give two dog shits if you like it or agree with it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I have had high security clearance, as a matter of fact. Like I said, you can't cite an example of this happening.... if it were an issue, you would be able to. This is one of those 'non-issues' some gay liberal turd stayed up all night thinking about, and you all have yammered it repeatedly since then. it hasn't happened, it doesn't happen, it wouldn't have happened. The enemy is not likely to even know what someone's sexuality is, especially if they are keeping it to themselves, like they should be... like they were under DADT!

The only way the example would be available is if it had happened and they had been caught, and the news media got wind of it.


From: http://www.gaymilitarysignal.com/0805Zohar.html

"According to Capt. Even-Zohar, gay service members were considered a security risk during the 1980s due to the concern that they could be blackmailed; so the policy at that time limited them to lower rank and security clearances during their mandatory service."


From: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1133232

"He adds that homosexuals have been a target for recruitment as foreign agents in the past."




"The main reason that the Pentagon does not want homosexuals in the military is because they have historically been a security risk. Homosexuals are viewed by the Pentagon as easily compromised and emotionally unstable. The Pentagon’s hyper-sensitivity towards homosexuals developed during the cold war because large numbers of Soviet spies caught in the US and Britain were homosexual."




Ok Dixie, there you have plenty of examples of why I said what I said.


More?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/so-whats-new-about-gay-spies-1253692.html

There are plenty of examples of gays being blackmailed into spying. The Soviet Union used to look specifically for gays in the closet for recruiting spies.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, I am very tolerant of other people's opinions. And all I said was, I disagree with the repeal. I didn't post nonsense, and that wasn't a 'dire warning' of anything, just a recognition of reality. I never claimed to be a victim in this debate, and it's really not even a 'debate' because the issue has been settled already, there is nothing left to debate. You believe this is a wonderful and great thing, and apparently now, homosexuals can turn the military services into the "Gay Cabaret" and nothing can be said about it... I just think the typical 'alpha male' macho service member, might not be so 'cordial' to his gay comrades. Maybe I am wrong? I said that before, didn't I? If I am, and this all goes smooth sailing without any problems, I will be the first to come back here and admit I was wrong about it. Can't be much more conciliatory than that, can I? Can't be much more tolerant and open minded, can I? I am not standing on my ear demanding we light the torches and grab the pitchforks and head to Washington, to get them to reverse the repeal of DADT, am I? Nope... I am accepting that this is now the law, and we'll see what happens. I predict there will be problems, but I could be wrong. That's my opinion, and I really don't give two dog shits if you like it or agree with it.

You are still spouting bullshit. This idea that this will turn the military into a "Gay Cabaret" shows your ignorance of reality and your willingness to use stereotypes in your arguments.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The only way the example would be available is if it had happened and they had been caught, and the news media got wind of it.


From: http://www.gaymilitarysignal.com/0805Zohar.html

"According to Capt. Even-Zohar, gay service members were considered a security risk during the 1980s due to the concern that they could be blackmailed; so the policy at that time limited them to lower rank and security clearances during their mandatory service."


From: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1133232

"He adds that homosexuals have been a target for recruitment as foreign agents in the past."




"The main reason that the Pentagon does not want homosexuals in the military is because they have historically been a security risk. Homosexuals are viewed by the Pentagon as easily compromised and emotionally unstable. The Pentagon’s hyper-sensitivity towards homosexuals developed during the cold war because large numbers of Soviet spies caught in the US and Britain were homosexual."




Ok Dixie, there you have plenty of examples of why I said what I said.


More?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/so-whats-new-about-gay-spies-1253692.html

There are plenty of examples of gays being blackmailed into spying. The Soviet Union used to look specifically for gays in the closet for recruiting spies.

Wow, all of that research and you still didn't come up with one single example of this ever happening! Oh, I see where this General and that General CLAIM it is a 'security risk' ...but I don't see the examples! I also note that in one instance, the military views homosexuals as a security risk because they tend to be emotionally unstable... did repealing DADT change their emotional stability?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are still spouting bullshit. This idea that this will turn the military into a "Gay Cabaret" shows your ignorance of reality and your willingness to use stereotypes in your arguments.

No stereotypes or bullshit, that's practically what some pinhead said yesterday... now that DADT has been repealed, gay service members can kiss on their partners at social functions and junk... sounds like the Gay Cabaret to me!

 

[Socrtease]

In opening, you must be blind, because I am not an idiot. Nor will I throw away my arguments by stooping to your petty name calling. Oh and one more thing, if you are going to call someone an idiot online it would make sense to check your spelling.

Obviously you've never been in the service; because otherwise you would now some of the "pressures" that service members place on each other.

I was in the Coast Guard Reserves. Have you served? I felt no such pressure from the people I served with.

So if they were seen in public holding the hand, of someone of the same sex, they weren't in any danger of any reprecussions?

And that would not be "flaunting it"? Why is it that you believe it is appropriate to flaunt it?

Also, if two unmarried military personnel of different sex are seen in sexual contact they too can be in danger of repercussions (which is as it should be), especially if they are of differing ranks.

Why aren't you campaigning for hetrosexual service members, to not "flaunt" their sexuality?

Show me one case where a heterosexual was flaunting it. I am certain it happens that husband and wife probably hold hands in public. They should not be feeling each other up nor even french kissing in public. That simply is not appropriate in any situation regardless of sexual orientation. You show me an instance where this is happening and I will be right there beside you.

Nor would I have an issue if a homosexual couple was holding hands in public. Is that even necessary? I mean really, grown ups holding hands... ain't that cute? Really, holding hands is what teenagers do, please get serious. We are not talking about holding hands here.

Immie

You are right, you are not an idiot. You would have to study long and hard just to work your way up to idiot. I was in the Army for 4 years. The last 3, in Germany, I lived in the barracks with all the other single soldiers. Males on the first floor, females on the second floor. There was LOTS of dating between the male and female soldiers. The bulk of us were E-1's through E-5's. The senior NCO's that were single lived in a different set of barracks. There was no proscription against any of us dating in the lower enlisted barracks. E-1's could date E-4's and even E-5's so long as they were not in the same chain of command. On the weekends those soldiers that dated each other hung out in the Barracks, went to the PX or hung out in the E club on went out to the local clubs. They held hands, they kissed, they slept in each others rooms and had sex in the barracks. It was not secret, the senior NCO's new about it. Even under DADT had two guys did the same things they would have been out. In your crooked mind, they would be flaunting it, even though the straight couple would not be. A person should not be required to not be who they are just because they chose to serve their country. I was not required to. I only dated 2 women that were also in the army, all the other women I dated were locals, but I did not have to hide the fact that I was dating the women that lived in the barracks with me, nor did I get in trouble on the occasions when someone in my chain of command saw me come out of their room in the morning heading off to PT or formation. Now gay soldiers don't have to hide any more or less than straight soldiers. That is the way it should be.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are right, you are not an idiot. You would have to study long and hard just to work your way up to idiot. I was in the Army for 4 years. The last 3, in Germany, I lived in the barracks with all the other single soldiers. Males on the first floor, females on the second floor. There was LOTS of dating between the male and female soldiers. The bulk of us were E-1's through E-5's. The senior NCO's that were single lived in a different set of barracks. There was no proscription against any of us dating in the lower enlisted barracks. E-1's could date E-4's and even E-5's so long as they were not in the same chain of command. On the weekends those soldiers that dated each other hung out in the Barracks, went to the PX or hung out in the E club on went out to the local clubs. They held hands, they kissed, they slept in each others rooms and had sex in the barracks. It was not secret, the senior NCO's new about it. Even under DADT had two guys did the same things they would have been out. In your crooked mind, they would be flaunting it, even though the straight couple would not be. A person should not be required to not be who they are just because they chose to serve their country. I was not required to. I only dated 2 women that were also in the army, all the other women I dated were locals, but I did not have to hide the fact that I was dating the women that lived in the barracks with me, nor did I get in trouble on the occasions when someone in my chain of command saw me come out of their room in the morning heading off to PT or formation. Now gay soldiers don't have to hide any more or less than straight soldiers. That is the way it should be.

Excellent post, Soc.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are right, you are not an idiot. You would have to study long and hard just to work your way up to idiot. I was in the Army for 4 years. The last 3, in Germany, I lived in the barracks with all the other single soldiers. Males on the first floor, females on the second floor. There was LOTS of dating between the male and female soldiers. The bulk of us were E-1's through E-5's. The senior NCO's that were single lived in a different set of barracks. There was no proscription against any of us dating in the lower enlisted barracks. E-1's could date E-4's and even E-5's so long as they were not in the same chain of command. On the weekends those soldiers that dated each other hung out in the Barracks, went to the PX or hung out in the E club on went out to the local clubs. They held hands, they kissed, they slept in each others rooms and had sex in the barracks. It was not secret, the senior NCO's new about it. Even under DADT had two guys did the same things they would have been out. In your crooked mind, they would be flaunting it, even though the straight couple would not be. A person should not be required to not be who they are just because they chose to serve their country. I was not required to. I only dated 2 women that were also in the army, all the other women I dated were locals, but I did not have to hide the fact that I was dating the women that lived in the barracks with me, nor did I get in trouble on the occasions when someone in my chain of command saw me come out of their room in the morning heading off to PT or formation. Now gay soldiers don't have to hide any more or less than straight soldiers. That is the way it should be.

Sorry you had to endure being bisexual during your tour, I know it must've been hard giving up the man meat while you served. I salute your sacrifice!

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, I am very tolerant of other people's opinions. And all I said was, I disagree with the repeal. I didn't post nonsense, and that wasn't a 'dire warning' of anything, just a recognition of reality. I never claimed to be a victim in this debate, and it's really not even a 'debate' because the issue has been settled already, there is nothing left to debate. You believe this is a wonderful and great thing, and apparently now, homosexuals can turn the military services into the "Gay Cabaret" and nothing can be said about it... I just think the typical 'alpha male' macho service member, might not be so 'cordial' to his gay comrades. Maybe I am wrong? I said that before, didn't I? If I am, and this all goes smooth sailing without any problems, I will be the first to come back here and admit I was wrong about it. Can't be much more conciliatory than that, can I? Can't be much more tolerant and open minded, can I? I am not standing on my ear demanding we light the torches and grab the pitchforks and head to Washington, to get them to reverse the repeal of DADT, am I? Nope... I am accepting that this is now the law, and we'll see what happens. I predict there will be problems, but I could be wrong. That's my opinion, and I really don't give two dog shits if you like it or agree with it.

Maybe if we can weed out some of those 'typical 'alpha male' macho service members' we will eliminate atrocities like this:

Friday, July 14, 2006

We Have Unleashed Hell in Iraq.....

Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, born 1992;
At age 14, forced to watch her mother, father and six-year-old sister slaughtered before being gang-raped, butchered and barbecued by occupying American soldiers, 2006.

The irony of millions of fat Americans munching popcorn, fantasizing with slack-faced adoration that Superman epitomizes America, while in reality the gang rape of children and butchery and roasting of six-year-old babies is being conducted in their name and paid for by their taxes is maddening and heartwrenching. The truth is, to the vast majority of the world, the "American hero" has come to much more closely resemble Charles Manson.

And Bush, the latter-day caesar, has become Lord Death, leaving a great swath of blood and rotting corpses in his wake. This "champion of freedom" has singlehandedly re-raised the Berlin Wall by his mere vile, insufferable presence.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings"]Mahmudiyah killings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg" class="image" title="The rape and murder scene (2006)"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg/250px-Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/b/b9/Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg/250px-Mahmoudiya_rape_murder_scene_2006.jpg[/ame]

Hey Dixie, you never answered my post the other day...

They didn't have to fear losing anything with DADT... it's self explanatory. They continued to serve honorably, so this repeal doesn't change or alter any of that. C'mon, you made the claim, now back it up! What benefit or advantage has been gained by repealing DADT? I see NONE!

How about vastly increasing our national security and saving wasted taxpayer's dollars?

August, 2008

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2008/0805/p01s01-usmi.html

After firing over 300 gay translators under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prevents gay and lesbian personnel from serving openly, the military is now preparing to offer retention bonuses of up to $150,000 to those who remain. The moronic policy that put the military in such a position, which costs to replace the translators, in bonuses alone, could reach $45 million.

George Bush, has told us for seven years that Iraq is the front line in the 'War on Terror.' John McCain has screamed it at us for seven months and talked about needing to keep an American presence there from anywhere from a month to a millennium. But we're kicking out Arabic translators who want to stay, while we're offering $150,000 to the ones who want to leave.

The U.S. military, the presidential administration, and our nation as a whole are officially more afraid of American gays than of Middle East terrorists.

That is insane.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe if we can weed out some of those 'typical 'alpha male' macho service members'...

Yeah, that's a real good idea, Bfoon... let's just have the Girl Scouts provide our national security!

Why don't you take your anti-American spewing ass to one of those third-world socialist dictatorships you are always cheerleading for? I'm sure you'd be much happier there!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are right, you are not an idiot. You would have to study long and hard just to work your way up to idiot.

Immie has more intelligence in his big toenail than you will ever possess in your entire brain.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, that's a real good idea, Bfoon... let's just have the Girl Scouts provide our national security!

Why don't you take your anti-American spewing ass to one of those third-world socialist dictatorships you are always cheerleading for? I'm sure you'd be much happier there!

Yea Dixie, who better to carry out crimes against humanity than murderers in fatigues. But, hey, it does save the nation money, it costs a lot less to pay a soldier than $50,000 per year to incarcerate a murderer. Let them rape and kill human beings in Iraq. They sure LOOK LIKE the people that attacked us on 9/11. I mean that 14 year old girl was just an Iraqi, not some real human being. That little bitch got what she deserved, how dare she allow herself to live under Saddam Husein!

Take your devout 'Statism' and shove it up your slimy ass Dixie.

The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded.
Leo Tolstoy

 

[Cancel8]

I'm still looking for a valid argument against the repeal of DADT.

 

[christiefan915]

There is no rule that says they have to now expose they are gay, they can continue to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, most will want to do this. It is no one's business, it is private, but now they do not have to live in fear if their sexual preference is exposed by someone else or if they do tell another that they are gay, they don't have to worry about it!

The military will handle their discipline problems as they have in the past, be it racism or sexism, they will deal with it!

One guy they interviewed said he was bullied more for being Asian than being gay!

Sounds like Lt. Daniel Choi. The Army couldn't hope for a better soldier yet he was kicked out because of the stupid law. How could the Army afford to lose any Arab linguist, given that the ME is where they're at right now.

 

[christiefan915]

You are living in dream land if you think it is going to be that easy. While being gay is no longer a cause for OTH discharge, you can bet there are going to be a LOT of "unofficial" repercussions for military gays.

It is not right that such should happen. But anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of reality on this issue.

Then this doesn't speak well for the Armed Forces. Most people in the country have enough common sense not to follow up their various prejudices with physical violence so why can't we expect the same from the military?

 

[christiefan915]

Yep... When that openly gay soldier goes in to search a building expecting cover from his fellow comrades, they might just get smoke in their eye and fail to see the targets... When the openly gay soldier calls in for air support, there might just be static interference on the radio, and the call for assistance might not be heard... What pinhead liberals seem to not comprehend is, this didn't end prejudice. It does make it considerably easier for a bigot to know who to target with their bigotry, and you can expect that to happen more now.

As I said to another poster, this doesn't speak well for the military.

 

[Immanuel]

You are right, you are not an idiot. You would have to study long and hard just to work your way up to idiot. I was in the Army for 4 years. The last 3, in Germany, I lived in the barracks with all the other single soldiers. Males on the first floor, females on the second floor. There was LOTS of dating between the male and female soldiers. The bulk of us were E-1's through E-5's. The senior NCO's that were single lived in a different set of barracks. There was no proscription against any of us dating in the lower enlisted barracks. E-1's could date E-4's and even E-5's so long as they were not in the same chain of command. On the weekends those soldiers that dated each other hung out in the Barracks, went to the PX or hung out in the E club on went out to the local clubs. They held hands, they kissed, they slept in each others rooms and had sex in the barracks. It was not secret, the senior NCO's new about it. Even under DADT had two guys did the same things they would have been out. In your crooked mind, they would be flaunting it, even though the straight couple would not be. A person should not be required to not be who they are just because they chose to serve their country. I was not required to. I only dated 2 women that were also in the army, all the other women I dated were locals, but I did not have to hide the fact that I was dating the women that lived in the barracks with me, nor did I get in trouble on the occasions when someone in my chain of command saw me come out of their room in the morning heading off to PT or formation. Now gay soldiers don't have to hide any more or less than straight soldiers. That is the way it should be.

Funny, in this entire conversation, I do not believe that I said that is not the way that it should be.

Maybe you need to read the entire conversation, start to finish?

When I entered this discussion, I asked a question. I asked why are the extremists so thrilled about this? To be totally honest with you, I asked because I was not completely sure how I felt about the issue. I tend to like to ask questions and then form my own opinion on a subject. Which is what I did here.

I do not think this will bring about much change in the long run. After all the hoopla is over; all the "Obama has destroyed the military" or "Now homosexuals can be all they want to be" is over nothing will change all that much. I happen to agree with much of what was brought up here. Neither the flamboyant gays nor the activists will be joining the military now that DADT is repealed, so as I think about it, my objection regarding flaunting is probably not going to be a problem. I also think that the fact that now those homosexuals who are in the military now or will be in the future will not have to be concerned that one slip up will cost them their career is a very good thing.

I wasn't sure how I felt about this at first which is why I asked questions when I came into the thread. I did not come out and say that I was opposed to the repeal, nor did I say that I was for it. I simply started with some questions and then went on with the discussion until I had decided how I felt about the issue.

I still think the outside activists are scum and don't really care about what happens to the US. All they care about is winning and forcing the rest of us to submit to their will. However, I do not believe that this particular issue is going to amount to very much in the long run. Which still leaves me with one unanswered question: why are the activists cumming in their shorts over this?

As for the experiences you relayed regarding your time in Germany. Thanks, I appreciate the fact that you see things differently than I do and I must say, if those experiences are truthful (and I have no reason to doubt you) then you seem to have more knowledge of that than I do so I will accept your point of view in that regard.

Immie