Combat troops reject DADT repeal

[SemperFiUSMC]

U.S. Combat Troops Resist 'Don't Ask' Repeal - FoxNews.com

So they've broken it out. The guys actually doing the fighting don't want homosexuals in the military. The government should stop this social experiment today. We're in a friggin war. Let the combat troops do their thing without distraction.

 

[geronimojoe85]

The fact of the matter is that the troops are going to do what they are told to do. If that means serving with homosexuals (which they already are) they will.
I agree though that the military has many other things to focus on like I don't know the GWOT.
Stop letting congress make decisions for (Eff with) the military just for the sake of the purple ballot. Which is really what this is about.

 

[Andre46996]

I personally don't care if you like swapping bodily fluids with the same sex...Unless your two hot females. Then I want to watch.

If you are fighting in the same battle as me and I can trust you with my back I don't care if your purple and have a thing for horses.

 

[pearlman1966]

So glad I'm retired.

 

[geronimojoe85]

If you are fighting in the same battle as me and I can trust you with my back I don't care if your purple and have a thing for horses.

And that's how most soldiers are, as long as you do your job NOBODY CARES!

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

This same argument was used over 50 years ago regarding, at that time, "negro" soldiers. The fallacy of the premise was proven incorrect over time and experience.

Sure, you will always have some small percentage of people who don't want to work with anyone but "their own kind", but the reality is that most people of all nations really want someone to do the job who is competent to do the job.

If you read the article to the end the 2nd to last paragraph shows that even amongst Marines 84% who believed they had served w/ a gay said that unit morale had not been affected.

The Soviets and Israeli's have used women in combat situations but we can't because it will undermine morale and unit cohesion. When I toured the Imperial Marine Museum in England they had a whole section on a woman who served in combat duty as a Royal Marine. As long as the minority can do their duty with the professionalism of the majority there is no significant harm done.

By the way, I didn't know we were at war with anyone. From what I can see the last time the United States declared war on anyone was June, 1942. Did I miss something?

Regards,

Doug

 

[machete]

U.S. Combat Troops Resist 'Don't Ask' Repeal - FoxNews.com

So they've broken it out. The guys actually doing the fighting don't want homosexuals in the military. The government should stop this social experiment today. We're in a friggin war. Let the combat troops do their thing without distraction.

When I was in we had some.... Some were a problem,,,Most werent... Chance are,,,we had no idea who really was and wasnt... LOts of young kids probably dont have a lot of those sexuality issues settled out yet,,,and they may not for a few years... No need to go around hurting anyone or their reputation because hormones are running wild and emotional states arent fully matured...

Live,,,and let live... Worry about the mission,,,and not who they cuddle up with...

and ps,,,were really not at war... THis is a military occupation,,,it could take forever,,,we arent at war,,,FOREVER!!!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

To All,

This same argument was used over 50 years ago regarding, at that time, "negro" soldiers. The fallacy of the premise was proven incorrect over time and experience.

The premise that the two situations is false. The objection to blacks and whites serving together came from the politicians, not the troops. The objections to gays is from the troops. Morale was not hurt when the military was integrated, because the troops didn't care. In htis instance they do.

Sure, you will always have some small percentage of people who don't want to work with anyone but "their own kind", but the reality is that most people of all nations really want someone to do the job who is competent to do the job.

I think it interesting that the vast majority of those supporting this policy have never served a single day in the military, let alone in combat. Have you served in the military Doug? In combat? If not how are you more qualified to tell people executing the mission what is and isn't good for them? If so thank you for your service and tell me why we would screw up our combat effectiveness over a policy troops don't want?

If you read the article to the end the 2nd to last paragraph shows that even amongst Marines 84% who believed they had served w/ a gay said that unit morale had not been affected.

DADT. There's a difference between suspecting and knowing. It's a meaningless statistic supporting a position.

The Soviets and Israeli's have used women in combat situations but we can't because it will undermine morale and unit cohesion. When I toured the Imperial Marine Museum in England they had a whole section on a woman who served in combat duty as a Royal Marine. As long as the minority can do their duty with the professionalism of the majority there is no significant harm done.

So you are saying we should aspire to be just like everyone else? I guess I'm old fashioned. Or chivalrous. Regardless of whether I think women should be in combat or not, I would serve on the front line if it kept women from having to because it's the right thing to do.

By the way, I didn't know we were at war with anyone. From what I can see the last time the United States declared war on anyone was June, 1942. Did I miss something?

Reality

Regards,

Doug

So let me get this straight. We don't our junk touched by the government, but it's OK to put junk touchers into foxholes with our troops? No one cares about whether gays will make the military stronger. The point of the debate is to normalize behavior. The guys on the ground don't want it. We should listen to them instead of the debate club.

 

[machete]

So let me get this straight. We don't our junk touched by the government, but it's OK to put junk touchers into foxholes with our troops?

Booooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Ever been around anyone whos gay???? They dont force you to do it with them... Yes,,,even gay people like to enjoy sex,,,so they dont go around looking for forced sexual encounters.....

Just because youre in a foxhole with a gay doesnt mean theyre going to be touching your junk...

But,,,hey,,,you only live once... Maybe give it a try,,,,who knows????

 

[Andre46996]

I smell HOMOPHOBIA!!!

Oh no I was in a foxhole with a gay guy and we were in there 12 hours... He never touched me...I wonder am I not his type or do they just not go around trying to get everyone to bat for their team??

I'm pissed what wasn't I good enough for him?? Didn't he like my behind?? Do I have BO??

 

[mrjarrell]

A non Fox source has a slightly different take on things. Looks like 70% of the military doesn't care, as they shouldn't.
Voices of the troops from the 'don't ask, don't tell' report

 

[BigMatt]

I just wonder about the logistics this repeal will entail. How much will this cost?

 

[geronimojoe85]

The point of the debate is to normalize behavior.

The point of the debate is to solidify the gay vote for the Dems.
And that is it in it's entirety, Nothing more.

Personal feelings about this being an attempt at "normalization" of homosexual behavior are (I think) incorrect in this case. Reading "Sally has Two Daddys" in Kindergarden is.

And calling homosexual soldiers "Junk Touchers" just makes you sound ignorant. (just calling it like I see it) I totally agree with you that there is no good that can cone out of this right now. And that putting this through because it is perceived to be the "right thing to do" and "because everyone else is doing it" is just as ignorant. It isn't about the people in the least.

 

[dross]

This is such a silly issue to me, on both sides.

First, I agree that the military shouldn't be used as a social experiment, and that much of the energy behind the attempt to allow gay soldiers to serve openly comes from people who in general dislike the military. I also think that most opposition to gay soldiers, though cloaked in concern for readiness is really more about opposition to homosexuality.

Second, I don't think it'll make one lick of difference (no pun intended) if gay soldiers serve openly.

Gay soldiers serve anyway, I knew some everywhere I was stationed in my eleven years of service. Most were open enough that pretty much everyone knew. Nobody cared except the very occasional commander with a bug up his BDUs who tried to ferret them out, which was frankly much more disruptive than leaving them alone.

Yes, openly serving would cause some problems here and there. So does the sexes serving in the same units.

Other than the principle that the government shouldn't discriminate in matters of freedom, this issue makes me yawn.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Booooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Ever been around anyone whos gay???? They dont force you to do it with them... Yes,,,even gay people like to enjoy sex,,,so they dont go around looking for forced sexual encounters.....

Just because youre in a foxhole with a gay doesnt mean theyre going to be touching your junk...

But,,,hey,,,you only live once... Maybe give it a try,,,,who knows????

In point of fact, some of them do forcibly have sex with other males; I've seen the news articles in the past. This happens in both the civilian and the military community, with both sexes. What is more likely to happen is that a gay will come on to the wrong guy and get pounded or killed - bad for morale; bad for the Service.

As others have said, this is a political issue outside the military. Enshrining gays in the military means another set of restrictions, special treatment, and whining by folks who feel insulted, hurt, or "discriminated against" and others will be forced into compliance with behavior that they feel is morally reprehensive and even genetically counterproductive. The military will probably get through it; we managed to get through integrating women into some Combat Arms (although they still can't generally pull their weight in jobs demanding certain type of physical exertion), but we really don't have the spare resources, as Military Services or the Nation, to inject this issue into a time when we're at war.

And we are at war. It started when Congress gave President Bush permission to initiate the Global War on Terror, which, despite a name change, is still underway throughout the world.

 

[rambone]

So let me get this straight. We don't our junk touched by the government, but it's OK to put junk touchers into foxholes with our troops?

Haven't you said repeatedly that if you don't want your junk touched, don't fly?? Its interesting that you picked that analogy given your stance on it last time around.

 

[machete]

In point of fact, some of them do forcibly have sex with other males; I've seen the news articles in the past. This happens in both the civilian and the military community, with both sexes. What is more likely to happen is that a gay will come on to the wrong guy and get pounded or killed - bad for morale; bad for the Service.

As others have said, this is a political issue outside the military.

And we are at war. It started when Congress gave President Bush permission to initiate the Global War on Terror, which, despite a name change, is still underway throughout the world.

Yeah,,,I remember the Hallibirton crew raping the he!! out of their employee and then trying to keep her from getting any money,,,so heteros aint angels...

Im more loyal to civilian gun ownership and civil rights than I am to military procedures... When it comes voting time for gun issues,,,dont be too surprised when the gays remember all the crap we talked about them...

And,,,were not at war... Weve now been in Afghanistan longer than the Russians...with no end in sight... I dont believe in this perpetual war tyrannical bullcrap...

This aint a war,,,its an occupation...huge difference...

 

[MilitaryArms]

Survey: Marines Most Resistant to Gay Troops

The Marines are the most vocal and the most opposed to allowing gays in their ranks.

I can't say I blame them.

 

[jwdecour]

What it all comes down to is the question: Does homosexuals have anything wrong with them to keep them from serving in the military to protect this country? This same question has been asked about African Americans and females. People had issues with both of these groups joining the military do to long held beliefs or predjudices. Clearly they can and have served their country with honor throughout the years. Sure you will upset a few people, but in the grand timeline of history we will correct this problem and allow men and women in the GLBT community to serve openly where they don't have to hide in their own skin.

 

[Garb]

I find it weird how some of you are lumping gays who want to serve in the military in with the TSA junk touchers. Yes, because if I'm gay, and I want to get some, I'm going to join the military, go through bootcamp with a drill sergeant screaming down my throat, go over seas to an unpleasant environment, and try to rape some guy while we're getting shot at. And special treatment? How about equal treatment? Give me a break people. I understand the sentiment that the military is it's own entity and each branch should dictate it's own rules, but the arguments against gays serving in the military are just as bogus as the war we're currently in.