• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted


When did I say that? I'm all for an objective analysis of how to repeal DADT and what the effects would be. They already had the RAND study, and if it takes a year for the data to prove what we already know, then so be it. It was unlikely to pass before midterm elections in November anyways.

All I was indicating was that for those who were still struggling with the idea that the policy needs to be repealed that this isn't a matter of "if" but "when".

You seem to jump back and forth from outright rejecting the idea of repealing DADT to compromising on repealing it for most units. Pick a position and stick with it. Are you against or for the repeal of DADT?
 
zimmer said:
Yeah, it means a minority of two believe it. Not that numbers mean anything, as a minority of two can be correct, but I don't believe these guys are.
Click to expand...

First off, I would like you to provide your stats that only two people in the whole damn military support the repeal of DADT. If not, then I want you to rescind your comment of "a minority of two believe it."


Oh no! Doomsday is coming! Just like it came when they desegregated the military! Just like it came when they allowed women in the military!

Oh wait! Doomsday didn't come. It was just a bunch of idiots speculating about **** they didn't know anything about and trying to use their fear mongering tactics to keep change from happening!

The current policy could very well be costing American lives. They dismissed 300 qualified Arab translators just because they were gay during a war when we had a shortage of translators. Essential intelligence could have been missed. Intelligence which could have prevented needless deaths.

I'm a lot more inclined to believe that our military isn't as weak as you seem to think it is. I think it can do what 24 other countries have done with their militarys.
 
ptif219 said:
So Powell agrees there should be a one year review of the policy. That does not mean it will change it depends on what the review reveals.
Click to expand...

How do you think the review will differ from the nonpartisan RAND report?
 
CriticalThought said:
How do you think the review will differ from the nonpartisan RAND report?
Click to expand...

I don't know. It will take a year, then the congress will have to review it. I would say it is at least 2 years away. That means the GOP could be the majority. There is no guarantee it will be changed. You seem to think it is a done deal. I doubt it will happen during the Obama presidency.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You don't have what it takes to clean the boots of those sticking their necks out to defend and protect pathetic ********* like you.

.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Posts like this and others are not acceptable. Zimmer will not longer be participating in this thread.
 

Hey, I'm not claiming it has to happen soon but it is going to happen. Even if it takes another 17 years, it is inevitable. I would hope that the country didn't embrace a nonsense policy for that long, but I've found that politics are usually not guided by reason or evidence. Frankly, the problem with Conservative minded people is that they think stalling something will make it go away. If anything I can't wait to hear a decade from now how all these GOPers are going to justify their arguments in support of this policy.
 
Again, I don't have a strong opinion because I was disallowed service. However, most of my friends who are vets think the policy should be left as-is...and it would appear that most of the vets in this thread feel the same.

#1 priority is maintaining a high degree of military readiness and effectiveness and not damaging morale. I could not personally support removing the requirement unless we were reasonably sure it would not have significant negative effects on morale.

I know there was a poll someone posted somewhere, saying 75% of military officers responded that they had no problem with gays serving. That would mean that 25% do have a problem with it... and "officers" and "enlisted" are two different things. I'd bet there are more enlisted who would not like it.

What's the percentage of gays in the military? 1%? 3%?

Should we create a situation where 25% or more of military personnel have a morale/discipline issue for the sake of the 1 to 3% who are gay?

I don't have the answer, I'm just expressing some concerns.
 

If that HIV positive member is allowed to serve in combat and gets wounded, that presents problems to the medics who must care for him, not to mention his comrades who come in contact with his blood.
 
Will they have separate quarters for gay soldiers?
 
danarhea said:
I don't know how many times I have heard the expression "Let's let the generals decide this issue". Well, the top general (actually, an admiral - same thing), has spoken. He is not only an Admiral, but is CHAIRMAN of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's a General if he wants to continue to be a General with the Joint Chiefs of Staff better be in league with anything Obama wants, otherwise, he's out of a job. How objective can he be if he is constantly worrying about that job?
 

How would you know? Like I said, those Generals have been down there with the troops. If those top Generals see a need for change they have very good reasons for it. The cave men below them will just have to follow their new orders and man up... or be disciplined or then kicked out themselves. We don't need any kind of phobes in the military or anywhere.
 
bicycleman said:
If that HIV positive member is allowed to serve in combat and gets wounded, that presents problems to the medics who must care for him, not to mention his comrades who come in contact with his blood.
Click to expand...

HIV postive servicemembers are non-deployable.
 

I want to hear the justification for Obama taking so long to change it.
 
Last edited:

So sitting in the pentagon is being with the troops?
 
ptif219 said:
So sitting in the pentagon is being with the troops?
Click to expand...

You mean they never came up the ranks, they just started as generals and admirals?
 
Redress said:
You mean they never came up the ranks, they just started as generals and admirals?
Click to expand...

You act like they are in tune now. How many years since they were on the battle field carrying a gun?
 
ptif219 said:
I want to hear the justification for Obama taking so long to change it.
Click to expand...

A whole year in office? It may have something to do with him having to deal with so many domestic and economic issues.
 
samsmart said:
A whole year in office? It may have something to do with him having to deal with so many domestic and economic issues.
Click to expand...

It might have to do with blaming Bush as an excuse to do nothing.
 
Bush did leave an unparalleled pile of tidying up to be urgently dealt with. The collapse of the world economic system and stuff. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…