US Army Practicing Tolerance

[SemperFiUSMC]

Integration is the key. Big Army doesnt want units seperated, even if it could mean better results overall.

I would support a fully Sikh Company, if the numbers were there, but then again, I might also fully accept "fully" *fill in the blank* Company, too.

Until then, I am surprised Big Army made exception, but I am curious where the line will be drawn in the sand, or if there is hidden agenda behind this.

Are you OK with the Buffalo Soldiers? Or the Tuskeegee Airmen?

Interestingly, in the French and Indiana War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812, blacks and whites fought together, side by side. Starting with the Civil War, for what are probably apparent reasons, integrated units were non-existent. Wilson's racism kept troops from being integrated during WWI, and this trend continued through WWII. It wasn't until the Korean War that units were again integrated.

I don't want separate. I want to make the sum of the parts and make a greater whole. I'll take a good black, hispanic, or martian fox hole buddy over a lazy white one any day. To me everyone is just a different shade of green.

 

[BBSparkle]

I only read the first paragraph and thought you meant they were just letting long haired hippies in without getting their mane's chopped off..

Obviously I got a little confused when we were talking about the Sikhs. Who are awesome, btw.

 

[mrjarrell]

I have seen you use this statement before. Do you have any particular statistics to go along with this statement?

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network the US military has discharged over 13,500 service members under DADT, since its inception in 1994. The majority of them were not caught having sex. It was simply found out that they were gay or lesbian and they were serving honourably (otherwise they'd have been discharged before for bad conduct) until someone decided to go after them. Some recent cases the people didn't even come out, they were outed by others.

Lt Col Victor Fehrenbach is a prime example of what we lose when this stupid reg is followed.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Even Gen. John Shalikashvili is for the repeal of DADT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html

Gays have served with honour and distinction in the military and should be allowed to do so openly. If someone has an issue then they should ask for a discharge. Thankfully, a judge has recently ruled that DADT is unConstitutional, so the politicians better get their act together or the judge will implement his ruling and the point will be moot.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Are you OK with the Buffalo Soldiers? Or the Tuskeegee Airmen?

My answer is: I do NOT HAVE an ISSUE with either; What would I be "OK" with? The existance thereof? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Interestingly, in the French and Indiana War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812, blacks and whites fought together, side by side. Starting with the Civil War, for what are probably apparent reasons, integrated units were non-existent. Wilson's racism kept troops from being integrated during WWI, and this trend continued through WWII. It wasn't until the Korean War that units were again integrated.

It, IMO, doesnt have much to do with "racism" so much as the "differences". I hear you naming tuskeegee, buffalo race this, but never mind how Euro ethnicities were also seperated. The most famous of this were of the Irish.

I say, anything that can form better units, DO IT. Anything that can lessen the chances of joes having distrust/infighting do it.

I don't want separate. I want to make the sum of the parts and make a greater whole. I'll take a good black, hispanic, or martian fox hole buddy over a lazy white one any day. To me everyone is just a different shade of green.

No arguement.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network the US military has discharged over 13,500 service members under DADT, since its inception in 1994. The majority of them were not caught having sex. It was simply found out that they we gay or lesbian and they were serving honourably (otherwise they'd have been discharged before for bad conduct) until someone decided to go after them. Some recent cases the people didn't even come out, they were outed by others.

Lt Col Victor Fehrenbach is a prime example of what we lose when this stupid reg is followed.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Even Gen. John Shalikashvili is for the repeal of DADT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html

Gays have served with honour and distinction in the military and should be allowed to do so openly. If someone has an issue then they should ask for a discharge. Thankfully, a judge has recently ruled that DADT is unConstitutional, so the politicians better get their act together or the judge will implement his ruling and the point will be moot.

OK, so out of the 3 or so million military inductees over the past 16 years, 13.5K were removed for being gay. On top of being statistically insignificant, how many of these people ratted themselves out so they could get out of the military voluntarily?

The current and incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps are against it. Good enough for me.

 

[mrjarrell]

OK, so out of the 3 or so million military inductees over the past 16 years, 13.5K were removed for being gay. On top of being statistically insignificant, how many of these people ratted themselves out so they could get out of the military voluntarily?

The current and incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps are against it. Good enough for me.

Yeah, discharging the equivalent of a division is insignificant. I bet it was significant to the people booted out for no good reason. As for the Commandant of the Marine Corps...he'll follow whatever whatever orders are given him and keep his mouth shut, when the time comes.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yeah, discharging the equivalent of a division is insignificant. I bet it was significant to the people booted out for no good reason. As for the Commandant of the Marine Corps...he'll follow whatever whatever orders are given him and keep his mouth shut, when the time comes.

(3 million / 13,500 discharged homosexuals that couldn't follow the rules) / 16 years = statistically insignificant. Tell the whole truth Skippy..

Follow the rules, you get to stay. Pretty simple plan.

 

[mrjarrell]

(3 million / 13,500 discharged homosexuals that couldn't follow the rules) / 16 years = statistically insignificant. Tell the whole truth Skippy..

Follow the rules, you get to stay. Pretty simple plan.

How do YOU know that they weren't following the rules, Spanky? Oh, that's right, you don't know how they were handled, do you? The decorated fighter pilot I mentioned above didn't break any of the rules and found himself facing off against DADT. Thankfully, it's going to go away, no matter what some people might wish. If any have issues with it, which apparently a large number don't, then they are welcome to resign and go home or shut up and soldier.
In the meantime:

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% favor of gays serving in the military, 37% opposed, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of the respondents who had experience with gays in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 3% said positive impact, 64% no impact, and 27% negative impact. As for respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay personnel, 2% thought gays would have a positive effect on personal morale, while 29% thought that they would have no impact and 48% thought that they would have a negative effect. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 2% thought that gays would have a positive effect on overall unit morale, 26% thought they would have no effect, and 58% thought they would have a negative effect. More generally, 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[35]
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[36] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[37] spoke against the policy publicly in January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[38]
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[38][39] On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.[39]

Seems like a lot of senior officers are in favour of getting rid of it. That speaks volumes.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

How do YOU know that they weren't following the rules, Spanky?

Umm, because it's called don't ask don't tell?

Oh, that's right, you don't know how they were handled, do you? The decorated fighter pilot I mentioned above didn't break any of the rules and found himself facing off against DADT. Thankfully, it's going to go away, no matter what some people might wish.

Yeah, there's no reason whatsoever that anyone should follow orders in the military, especially military officers.

If any have issues with it, which apparently a large number don't, then they are welcome to resign and go home or shut up and soldier.

Actually, they aren't welcome to resign and go home. You might want to look and see what military obligation means.

In the meantime:

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% favor of gays serving in the military, 37% opposed, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of the respondents who had experience with gays in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 3% said positive impact, 64% no impact, and 27% negative impact. As for respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay personnel, 2% thought gays would have a positive effect on personal morale, while 29% thought that they would have no impact and 48% thought that they would have a negative effect. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 2% thought that gays would have a positive effect on overall unit morale, 26% thought they would have no effect, and 58% thought they would have a negative effect. More generally, 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[35]

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[36] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[37] spoke against the policy publicly in January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[38]

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[38][39] On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.[39]

Seems like a lot of FORMER senior officers are in favour of getting rid of it. That speaks volumes.

FIFY. It's easy to sit at home in your little chair and badmouth the troops that protect you and say they can just shut up and go home. It's another to BE one of those troops that can't just go home. Think about that for a while.

 

[Compatriot G]

Senior officers are in favor of getting rid of it because they have to be in favor of it. To get a star pinned on your collar requires the approval of Congress. To get additional stars, requires additional approval of Congress. Generals and Admirals have to suck up to politicians if they want to advance. After you do this for so long, it becomes second nature. About the only senior officers speaking against this seem to be in the Marine Corps. Marine officers are a different breed than their counterparts in the other military branches.

 

[HICKMAN]

Seems like a lot of senior officers are in favour of getting rid of it. That speaks volumes.

yeah, nothing like having a bunch of bench warming desk jockeys making these kinds of decisions.

It'd be nice if they broke down those statistics a little better, showing us the MOS of each of those. I'm betting those who approve are in support roles and those opposed are combat or combat support.

I personally don't care if this guy is serving, he's an ER doc saving soldiers lives. I also don't care who's sorting the mail, cooking the chow or processing the leave forms.

But I also understand the mindset of the who are putting their arses on the line every single day.

 

[IndyMonkey]

yeah, nothing like having a bunch of bench warming desk jockeys making these kinds of decisions.

It'd be nice if they broke down those statistics a little better, showing us the MOS of each of those. I'm betting those who approve are in support roles and those opposed are combat or combat support.

I personally don't care if this guy is serving, he's an ER doc saving soldiers lives. I also don't care who's sorting the mail, cooking the chow or processing the leave forms.

But I also understand the mindset of the who are putting their arses on the line every single day.

I wonder how many use it just to get discharged.

 

[cyberwild360]

How do YOU know that they weren't following the rules, Spanky?

Wow. Well if someone else knew they were gay and ratted them out then obviously they weren't following the rules becuase they told someone about it. Don't Ask, DON'T TELL. ANYONE. PERIOD.

It doesn't matter if they were serving honorably, they messed up by not following the rules.

13.5k is not alot of people. Just saying.

 

[mrjarrell]

Senior officers are in favor of getting rid of it because they have to be in favor of it. To get a star pinned on your collar requires the approval of Congress. To get additional stars, requires additional approval of Congress. Generals and Admirals have to suck up to politicians if they want to advance. After you do this for so long, it becomes second nature. About the only senior officers speaking against this seem to be in the Marine Corps. Marine officers are a different breed than their counterparts in the other military branches.

Many of these officer, like John Shalikashvili are retired, they have nothing to gain by trying to please anyone. They're speaking their minds without regard to promotion.
As for USMC officers being different, no they're really not. When the orders come down they'll suck it up and follow orders or find themselves cashiered.

 

[mrjarrell]

I wonder how many use it just to get discharged.

No doubt there have been a few, but it's highly likely that that isn't the case in the majority of them.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No doubt there have been a few, but it's highly likely that that isn't the case in the majority of them.

OK look.

Every single sailor, airman, soldier and Marine are told upon enlistment that they can't be asked if they are gay, but if they out themselves, they are gone.

Every single gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine know they need to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation.

Every single discharged gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine failed to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation, the service found out, and they were gone.

If they are outed by a third party, it's a toss up whether the command will investigate or not. Most commands wait until the service member outs themselves.

A statistically insignificant (I know how much you like those two words) number of gay service members have been discharged due to being ratted out by a third party. The only option left is they told on themselves.

There are only a couple reasons you would rat yourself out for being gay in the military:

1. You want out.

2. You have a political agenda.

The whiners fall squarely into camp 2, IMHO.

 

[PatriotPride]

OK look.

Every single sailor, airman, soldier and Marine are told upon enlistment that they can't be asked if they are gay, but if they out themselves, they are gone.

Every single gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine know they need to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation.

Every single discharged gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine failed to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation, the service found out, and they were gone.

If they are outed by a third party, it's a toss up whether the command will investigate or not. Most commands wait until the service member outs themselves.

A statistically insignificant (I know how much you like those two words) number of gay service members have been discharged due to being ratted out by a third party. The only option left is they told on themselves.

There are only a couple reasons you would rat yourself out for being gay in the military:

1. You want out.

2. You have a political agenda.

The whiners fall squarely into camp 2, IMHO.

As a non-military person assessing the situation, I'd have to say that I agree. BFD if you're gay and want to serve. Keep your damn mouth shut and do your job. Don't Facebook, Twitter, INGO, whatever about it. If you can't follow the rules, then you're getting what you supposedly asked for: EQUALITY. Out you go.

Rep'd.

 

[RichardR]

OK look.

Every single sailor, airman, soldier and Marine are told upon enlistment that they can't be asked if they are gay, but if they out themselves, they are gone.

Every single gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine know they need to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation.

Every single discharged gay sailor, airman, soldier and Marine failed to keep their hole shut about their sexual orientation, the service found out, and they were gone.

If they are outed by a third party, it's a toss up whether the command will investigate or not. Most commands wait until the service member outs themselves.

A statistically insignificant (I know how much you like those two words) number of gay service members have been discharged due to being ratted out by a third party. The only option left is they told on themselves.

There are only a couple reasons you would rat yourself out for being gay in the military:

1. You want out.

2. You have a political agenda.

The whiners fall squarely into camp 2, IMHO.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SemperFiUSMC again.

Anyway I agree completely with everything that you just said.

 

[CorvetteTom]

Homosexuality is a bedroom issue, not a military issue! The different branches of the military of the United States, since this country's inception, said you cannot be gay and serve. How the hell did it suddenly become okay to be gay and serve and be open about it??? Why is it even being debated?

Because they have an agenda!!! To be socially accepted by everyone... forcefully if necessary!

I see it this way... our young people's lives are on the line daily in war, why would you EVER experiment with a social agenda when so many lives depend on rules being followed or people die?? Our military became the most powerful on the planet by the rules that we, as a nation, have used for over 200 years. It has stood the test of time, it must be correct. Why would any of you accept an experiment of this magnitude when our kids COULD be killed because of it???

Apathy is a disease! Stand for something or fall for anything! You can't just say, 'why not let them serve?' It's akin to saying 'Why don't we fire weapons in your house to see if you can survive?' Never experiment when someone could die as a result!!

Geeeezzz...

 

[r3126]

The OP was:

Yep. The dreaded "T" word. They've finally taken the decision that people with the will to serve should be allowed to serve, despite not meeting the Armies "stringent" standards. They're allowing guys who have pony tails, beards and carry knives in. Next thing you know they'll even be rescinding other ludicrous rules.

Quietly, US military opens up to Sikhs - Yahoo! News

The real agenda was:

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network the US military has discharged over 13,500 service members under DADT, since its inception in 1994. The majority of them were not caught having sex. It was simply found out that they were gay or lesbian and they were serving honourably (otherwise they'd have been discharged before for bad conduct) until someone decided to go after them. Some recent cases the people didn't even come out, they were outed by others.

Lt Col Victor Fehrenbach is a prime example of what we lose when this stupid reg is followed.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Even Gen. John Shalikashvili is for the repeal of DADT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/op...ikashvili.html

Gays have served with honour and distinction in the military and should be allowed to do so openly. If someone has an issue then they should ask for a discharge. Thankfully, a judge has recently ruled that DADT is unConstitutional, so the politicians better get their act together or the judge will implement his ruling and the point will be moot.

Some people are like a broken record!