Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

[Caine]

You're right. We deserve a professional military that is above homophobia and racism and doesn't come away from their service with a sense of smug superiority or entitlement.

Racism?
Seriously?

Can you show me where our military is full of racism???

This should almost be taken as a personal attack.

 

[Caine]

Are you a reader of Heinlein by any chance Sgt? In one of his futuristic societies, one can only become a citizen by serving. Being a citizen gives you nothing extra over regular people in the country but the right to vote. One must have done service before one is allowed to vote. However, in this society, one becomes a citizen AFTER they have finished their term. In other words, you must have served in the past to make those decisions, but you have no say WHILE you are serving. The rationale behind this, being that if one is alreayd serving, one is too close to the action to make calls on it. I honestly always liked the idea.

Thats called Starship Troopers.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

Thats called Starship Troopers.

It is Caine..but as a good portion of people would know it from the movie, which contains none of Heinleins philosophical stuff, I did not wish to give the title to avoid clouding the issue.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

Racism?
Seriously?

Can you show me where our military is full of racism???

This should almost be taken as a personal attack.

to be fair, caine, our military is no more immune to racism than the civilian world. It does exist in the military as it does in the civilian world. I do believe that the military works very very hard, however, punish those whoare guilty of, and to do all they can to minimize it.

 

[Deuce]

Racism?
Seriously?

Can you show me where our military is full of racism???

This should almost be taken as a personal attack.

I read his post several times and never found the words "full of racism." Can you help me out here?

 

[MSgt]

The word you are looking for is "rights".

Which is what others don't have simply based on birth location. Change the word up all you want, in the end, you are just lucky.

 

[MSgt]

Are you a reader of Heinlein by any chance Sgt? In one of his futuristic societies, one can only become a citizen by serving. Being a citizen gives you nothing extra over regular people in the country but the right to vote. One must have done service before one is allowed to vote. However, in this society, one becomes a citizen AFTER they have finished their term. In other words, you must have served in the past to make those decisions, but you have no say WHILE you are serving. The rationale behind this, being that if one is alreayd serving, one is too close to the action to make calls on it. I honestly always liked the idea.

I don't think everyone should have to serve. But everyone should understand the subjects before spewing nonesense opinions.

 

[BCR]

to those who support DADT, what are the drawbacks to repealing it. In what way would are military suffer because of openly gay people serving?

 

[MSgt]

"Sophomore" opinions, huh? :lamo

I would ask you for proof, but I doubt you would deign to comply, as ever.

You state this as if I have a history of not being able to back up what I write or make a good argument. Are you new too?

Women have served in the Army since the 18th century. Over time they were being promoted to officer ranks and charged with entire units at a time when civilian bosses were still seeking to pinch them n the ass for their pretty dresses. It wasn't until well into the late Cold War era the first females saw "rank" in the corporate world.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

You state this as if I have a history of not being able to back up what I write or make a good argument. Are you new too?

Women have served in the Army since the 18th century. Over time they were being promoted to officer ranks and charged with entire units at a time when civilian bosses were still seeking to pinch them n the ass for their pretty dresses. It wasn't until well into the late Cold War era the first females saw "rank" in the corporate world.

Psstt..Sarge? I was a female in the military in the 80s, and knew many who were there in the 60s and 70s. It wasnt the social paradise you seem to think. Oh yes..we were allowed in..and it had improved leaps and bounds by the time I enlisted. But well..lets say you might need to take your rose colored glasses off about that one.

 

[braindrain]

You might have had a point...if this was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Today, your point fails miserably, since the rest of society handles gays with no trouble. It's not social engineering, it's being a part of society.

But the military (and for sure combat arms units) is not and should not be part of society. 75% of the stuff that goes on in combat units would never under any circumstances be allowd anywhere but in the military. The only purpose for the military, as you know, is to kill our enemys. The military needs to be able to decide what is going to help us defeat our enemys not some court that know nothing about what the military is like. While I agree that DADT should go away how it is done and when should be left up to the big bosses at the pentagon.

 

[MSgt]

1) You can't fight terrorism with guns.

2) For every terrorist you kill, you breed 10 more. They multiply exponentially.

These are myths touted too often by people far removed from the subject. Our history suggests something else.

 

[braindrain]

Did you miss the part where a soldier whom acts completely professional on base can be discharged for their lawful actions off base, even if it's someone looking through their window and seeing a marriage certificate.

It has nothing to do with being PC and everything to do with allowing soldiers to soldier without having to worry about someone seeing their private life.

The only problem with you argument is that a soldier is never off duty and in many ways dosent have a true private life the same way a civilian does.

 

[OscarB63]

These are myths touted too often by people far removed from the subject. Our history suggests something else.

true, I have found that with guns and bombs is about the only effective way to fight terrorists. as for them breeding more...if you kill enough they eventually run out of breeding stock.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

These are myths touted too often by people far removed from the subject. Our history suggests something else.

It does? so why do we still have terrorists?

 

[MSgt]

Psstt..Sarge? I was a female in the military in the 80s, and knew many who were there in the 60s and 70s. It wasnt the social paradise you seem to think. Oh yes..we were allowed in..and it had improved leaps and bounds by the time I enlisted. But well..lets say you might need to take your rose colored glasses off about that one.

I didn't say one word about paradise. I merely made a true statement. When you were a female in the 80's women had already been Colonels and even Generals. Must you be argumentative?

And by the way...it's not "sarge." I was a Seargent 3 pay grades ago in the late 90s.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

These are myths touted too often by people far removed from the subject. Our history suggests something else.

Okay, I should elaborate. I do not deny that there are those who cannot be reasoned with, who cannot be cajoled, appeased, or in any other way, removed from their course of action. For these people, a bullet to the forehead is quite possibly the best solution. However, not all are like this..and if through a bombing run to get one of these bullet worthy ones, we kill several who are not....you get my drift, I am sure. Even if you disagree with my general attitude. Terrorism has always existed. Terrorism will always exist. There will always be radicals and idiots who get it into their head that they need to kill others simply because they do not agree with them. The only thing we can do is our best to minimize any damage they might cause, and stop them as quickly as possible, but we need to do this in such a way as to not foment these same ideals in the heads of those who have not yet crossed the line from slightly annoyed and not sure what they think of us into living bombs full of rage and hate. How do we do this? I don't know. If I did, or if anyone did, we wouldnt have this problem anymore.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

I didn't say one word about paradise. I merely made a true statement. When you were a female in the 80's women had already been Colonels and even Generals. Must you be argumentative?

And by the way...it's not "sarge." I was a Seargent 3 pay grades ago in the late 90s.

OH please..you will always be sarge to me. And oh yes..I must be argumentative. It's in my nature.

 

[MSgt]

It does? so why do we still have terrorists?

For the same reason even a McVeigh can rise out of the American landscape. Don't confuse "terrorist" with "terrorism." See this is what I'm talking about when it comes to baseless opinions. The military will do their part. It's the civilians who fail at diplomacy and then send in the military to clean up their messes who cling to the idea that they still have a chance to bring peace while cuffing the military. And they always convince the rest of the country that only they can talk us into a victory or at least a way to escape what they began. This is not to suggest that social problems throughout the Middle East doesn't demand a more diplomatic fix, but we are passed the idea that terrorist may one day organize enough to attack us. Our diplomats failed. We will not fail unless civilians demand it which is what they were doing in regards to Iraq. In the mean time, our diplomats continue to fail by not identifying what needs to happen throughout the region that does not need a military hand. Education, fresh water deliverance, social freedoms, are examplesof what our diplomats should be working towards. In the meantime, the military will focus on the gun toting terrorists. Our goal is not to stamp out terrorism. It is, however, to reduce it to a more manageble beast than it was allowed to be.

First people have to understand this enemy, which they don't. And second they have to recognize history's lessons, which they don't.


Myth 1: "You can't fight terrorism with guns." Fortunately our military isn't expressly focused on terrorism. It is focused on specific terrorists and their home bases. It's like declaring that we can;t defeat crime therefore we should leave the criminal alone. People, especially those who have never even seen the Middle East up close, have come to this ridiculous idea that there's no military solution and that only negotiation can solve our problem. When dealing with bullies the opposite is true. If you don't fight back with equal or greater force, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously. The Tali-Ban proved this as did Al-Queda throughout the 90s when we pretended that they would just grow tired. Passive resistance only works when directed againt rule-of-law states. If people are unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that is "evil," armed, organized, and determined to subjugate the rest, people will face even grimmer conflicts in the end. If people gravitated towards the terrorists in an immediate setting a few years back it was simply because Radicals merely crossed a line they had no problem crossing. An extreme few insurgencies have ever prevailed in history and most of those were against a self defeating military. We have a history of fighting insurgencies (which use terrorist tactics) and winning. From the Barbary Pirates to the Phillipines and on to Iraq.


Myth 2: "For every terrorist you kill, you breed 10 more. They multiply exponentially." Al-Queda has been wrecked throughout the world. The military was told by plenty of couch potatos that killing Osama Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein or Omar and everyone else that they will become martyrs or that "10 more" will rise. Nobody fights to avenge Hussein and few in this fight are any of the terrorists we started out killing. The truth is that killing religious fanatics is the only way to end their influence. Killing them is the only way to prove they lack divine protection. The vast majority of everyone we have fought since 9/11 have been local fighters confused about who their enemy was. After enough Muslim slaughter the Sunni in Iraq (and those that traveled to slaughter) recognized Al-Queda for what they were. Afghani recognize what Al-Queda. And as Pakistanis suffer in the North with no Al-Queda support given, they too will recognize truth.

Another myth is that we create terrorists by fighting back. This is the heaviest load of crap coming out of Washington. The vast majority of all fighting inside Iraq and Afghanistan are local. They aren't terrorists and have no designs to deal with issues outside of their borders. In fact, most of their conflicts are about each other. With Iraq behind us and Afghanistan on the way towards a mend, there will little to no terrorists looking across the ocean. They have been bludgeoned. Even the vast majority of Islam knows who their enemy is.

You can't convince a religious fanatic that all he believes in is wrong. You can't force him to compromise his core religious beliefs by saying please. And you can't convince him that what he considers an afront against his god is now OK. The vast majority of all people touting these myths (and many more) have no idea what they are talking about. They are just repeating what they heard from others who have never seen the region or even understands the region's history, much less our own military's history.

 

[MSgt]

OH please..you will always be sarge to me. And oh yes..I must be argumentative. It's in my nature.

Which means you were Army or Air Force. Marines and Sailors believe in promotions.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

I covered most of those points in my other post..However, I do know a hell of a lot about the region's history, so that certainly does not apply to me. Fighting back is not the issue..it is fighting when we do not know WHO TO AIM AT that is the major issue here. I look at it this way..perhaps we are dealing with a semantic issue here, and not a total difference in idealogy. We need to combat terrorism.

I think I really need to raise an eyebrow at afghanistan being on the way towards a mend..well..I suppose you can say that, rather like you can say that a newborn baby is on the way towards his eventual death. I cant say that I think there is much hope of much progress in afghanistan. Not because we are incapable, but as I stated before, I DO know the history of that part of the world. I cant see us ending several hundred years of infighting, and aside from the fact that we really need to stop that opium, I can't say we should even try.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

Which means you were Army or Air Force. Marines and Sailors believe in promotions.

I, Sir, am offended in the extreme. But yes, I was Air force. I was (had to look it up, I do not know marine MOS's at all) a 2791. Don't know if there is another designator that would need to be added. Army MOS was 98C..the Air force one was 208, but they changed their AFSC numbers after I got out, so no idea what the new one is.

NO wait..missed the exact title in the list. I would be a 267x Russian.

 

[texmaster]

I covered most of those points in my other post..However, I do know a hell of a lot about the region's history, so that certainly does not apply to me. Fighting back is not the issue..it is fighting when we do not know WHO TO AIM AT that is the major issue here. I look at it this way..perhaps we are dealing with a semantic issue here, and not a total difference in idealogy. We need to combat terrorism.

I think I really need to raise an eyebrow at afghanistan being on the way towards a mend..well..I suppose you can say that, rather like you can say that a newborn baby is on the way towards his eventual death. I cant say that I think there is much hope of much progress in afghanistan. Not because we are incapable, but as I stated before, I DO know the history of that part of the world. I cant see us ending several hundred years of infighting, and aside from the fact that we really need to stop that opium, I can't say we should even try.

Now thats an interesting answer. Were you for invading Afganistan at all?

 

[MSgt]

I covered most of those points in my other post..However, I do know a hell of a lot about the region's history, so that certainly does not apply to me. Fighting back is not the issue..it is fighting when we do not know WHO TO AIM AT that is the major issue here. I look at it this way..perhaps we are dealing with a semantic issue here, and not a total difference in idealogy. We need to combat terrorism.

I think I really need to raise an eyebrow at afghanistan being on the way towards a mend..well..I suppose you can say that, rather like you can say that a newborn baby is on the way towards his eventual death. I cant say that I think there is much hope of much progress in afghanistan. Not because we are incapable, but as I stated before, I DO know the history of that part of the world. I cant see us ending several hundred years of infighting, and aside from the fact that we really need to stop that opium, I can't say we should even try.

Well, consider how sure pundits were of the great "Iraqi Civil War." Or the pundits who declared that Iraqis voting will never happen. Or that Iraq is unwinnable. The military has been blasted by our own pathetic leaders yearly about impending failure and doom. In the mean time, Americans tuned in and repeated. Well, here we are without an Iraqi Civil War, voting Iraqis (even the Sunni), and a win. But the same voices will declare that all will eventually fail because they have not perfected Vermont in the desert after 7 whole years. Of course, they will dismiss the fact that even the French had to take almost a century to get past their internal slaughters and troubles of developing democracy and even voted in Napoleon along the way.

People just don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't understand the issues they make stupid statements. They imagine a bad guy coming to a table of surrender so we can throw ourselves a parade (or at least letting the bad guy go after a show of force as we did the Gulf War). And when that day doesn't come, it means failure. They fail to recognize the world they live in. They fail to understand how long Muslims in this region have struggled for democracy and social equality through European colonialism and Cold War. A couple hundred years of infighting has come about because of European nation designs. Without those unnatural borders, there would not be so much infighting. This is why I believe we may have screwed up by insisting that Iraq stay whole. Cramming tribes together and insisting that a handy dandy dictator or elite class control them has come to an end. But we are not the ones to end it. If they have to slaughter each other out as they did in Iraq to get to a point where they are sick of blood, then so be it. Culture is fate. Even Europe's Yugoslavia had to rip itself apart to correct the past. Of course, anti-Western venom didn't school the oppressed and impoverished in "Yugoslavia" like it has throughout the ME. And as long as we invest our civilization upon oil, we will have to focus on correcting issues that will eventually harm us. This means managing the corruption in the Afghani government by replacing the poppy fields with wheat fields. This means demanding that the Shia and others get a fair shake in Saudi Arabia. This means closely watching the thousands of Mosques and schools the "House of Saud" fund outside the ME. This means insisting that modernist voices in Egypt are protected. And so on. Oh and a nuclear Cold War in the Middle East? Can't happen.

But when our enemy strikes they have to be met with greater military power. These military soft attacks with diplomatic assurance that they will rush in to save the day after the fighting begins does nothing. Our enemies must feel defeated, which means our attacks must be devistating.

 

[opinion8tdwench]

Now thats an interesting answer. Were you for invading Afganistan at all?

I was against the original invasion of Afghanistan, but only on a deep principle I hold. I do believe that it was necessary, and would have fully accepted it except for one thing. When it became known that OBL was in Afghanistan, our govt ( and rightly so) demanded that he be turned over to us. The response back from them was that they wished to see our evidence against him before they would do anything. The Taliban were absolute religious fanatics, and not known for their fairness, their even mindedness, nor even their sanity, so it is doubtful, that had we given them absolute definitive proof of him planning the attack on America, plus a picture of him dancing naked with a naked man wearing a mohammed mask, they still probably would not have turned him over to us. HOWEVER, I was apalled at President Bush's flat out refusal to give them ANYTHING at all in an attempt to maybe get by without having to go to war with them. He cited security, and revealing intelligence sources, etc etc. As I just told Sgt, I was IN military intelligence, and I know how it works. It is NOT static. Intelligence is very fluid, and for the most part, as soon as you use one source, it is no longer viable. I can think of very few situations in which giving them a little bit of information would have done any kind of irrevocable harm to our intelligence, so I can only conclude, that Bush wasnt interested in a peaceful solution to the problem. He was simply being stubborn and obstinate and he WANTED to invade. As I said before, I do believe the outcome would ahve been the same, but his blatant refusal to even TRY for a solution that would not put our troops in harms way, rankled.