Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 16802
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:21 am
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Movin' the goalposts (click to view)
Date: December 7, 2010
Back in the day, when he was still interested in positioning himself as a Republican moderate, Senator John McCain used to say that he was not necessarily opposed per se to repealing America's so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law — which forbids homosexuals from serving openly in the US armed forces — only that he felt it personally inappropriate for a measly politician like him to initiate such a reform. If the army leadership came to him and said, "Senator, repeal it," however, then obviously he'd get cracking right away. Such respect for the military has Senator McCain.

Problem is, the military leadership did come to him and say just that. Earlier this year, during Senate hearings on the future of DADT, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General David Petraeus, commander of the Afghanistan war and former commander of the Iraq war, all testified that the ban on openly gay servicemen had outlived its usefulness, and should be abolished, post-haste.

That's all well and good for you guys to say, said McCain, who was fighting a tough primary battle for reelection, but now I want to hear from the soldiers. Asking the troops on the ground for their opinion on military policy seems to contradict the rigid hierarchy governing military service, but whatever. The Pentagon commissioned a massive survey of how individual soldiers would react to a theoretical DADT repeal, and the results, revealed to the Armed Services Committee — which McCain is head Republican on — were fairly mild.

Obviously some of the manly-men in the US armed forces don't like the idea of showering next to gays, etc, but such views remain a minority. 70% of all servicemen interviewed said they think overturning DADT will have a neutral-to-positive effect on troop morale and cohesion, and 80 to 90% of soldiers who had actually served alongside a fellow officer known to be gay stated that their coworker's sexuality had little effect on anything.

McCain is still not satisfied, however, and will still not support a repeal — and most Senate Republicans seem to be following his lead. Using increasingly tortured logic, the Senator has raised vague concerns about the Pentagon survey's "methodology," and some of the polling data from the Marines (who have emerged as the least gay-accepting faction of the armed forces). But holding up a policy reform on these grounds is obviously a long ways removed from respecting the wishes of the "military leadership."

It'd be nice to believe there is actually some high principle motivating the GOP's constant stonewalling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that goes beyond mere pandering to a voter base that is personally distressful of homosexuality. But the evidence is becoming scarce.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3351
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:14 am
 


I'd be hesistant on reading into this prior to the installation of the new Congress, or at least the New Year. The Republicans refuse to pass anything before getting a continuation bill to fund the government and an extension of all the Bush tax cuts passed. The rest of the lame duck session will also have the START treaty and the DREAM Act, which might cause them to simply run out of time. DADT is simply not a high priority on either party's to-do list.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:18 am
 


The evidence supporting the continued restrictions on gays in the military is politically incorrect and will not be released because the command structure is political and they reflect the will of Obama.

Why do I support continuing the ban?

As I've said before, gays present a disproportionate security risk. Raw stats bear that out so, in advance, let me say I'm not going to respond to any arguments about that. It's been amply covered in other threads.

Gays are more severely impacted by post traumatic stress. I don't know why nor do I care. What I will say is that plenty more gays have been rolled out of the military for PTSD than have been rolled for being gay. By the way, what's the #1 way that gays demonstrate their PTSD?

Enuresis.

Keep pushing on this, kids, and things you don't want to hear will be made public domain and you'll have to deal with them regardless of your precious feelings.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 25
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:40 pm
 


So are you saying that everything needs to be done to keep gays out of the military? What does the way in which they demonstrate PTSD have to do with homosexuals being able to publicly state thier sexuality without fear of repercussion?


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:13 pm
 


I think he's saying that we can't have gays in the military because they're just not as good at being good soldiers who can stay tough and not get PTSD over things, which happens to be a train of logic that I put right up there with "America can never and should never have a female President because PERIODS, man. They go CRAZY and stuff."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44543
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:23 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The evidence supporting the continued restrictions on gays in the military is politically incorrect and will not be released because the command structure is political and they reflect the will of Obama.

Why do I support continuing the ban?

As I've said before, gays present a disproportionate security risk. Raw stats bear that out so, in advance, let me say I'm not going to respond to any arguments about that. It's been amply covered in other threads.

Gays are more severely impacted by post traumatic stress. I don't know why nor do I care. What I will say is that plenty more gays have been rolled out of the military for PTSD than have been rolled for being gay. By the way, what's the #1 way that gays demonstrate their PTSD?

Enuresis.

Keep pushing on this, kids, and things you don't want to hear will be made public domain and you'll have to deal with them regardless of your precious feelings.

I guess (but who am I) it depends on the person, not on their sexual preference. Not everybody is military-material (me being one of them, and I am not "even kinda gay" (to quote Oprah)), so I would say that it is time for stronger psychological selection criteria, regardless of sexual preference. THAT is just a plain stupid excuse that I call bullshit on.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8545
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:45 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The evidence supporting the continued restrictions on gays in the military is politically incorrect and will not be released because the command structure is political and they reflect the will of Obama.

Why do I support continuing the ban?

As I've said before, gays present a disproportionate security risk. Raw stats bear that out so, in advance, let me say I'm not going to respond to any arguments about that. It's been amply covered in other threads.

Gays are more severely impacted by post traumatic stress. I don't know why nor do I care. What I will say is that plenty more gays have been rolled out of the military for PTSD than have been rolled for being gay. By the way, what's the #1 way that gays demonstrate their PTSD?

Enuresis.

Keep pushing on this, kids, and things you don't want to hear will be made public domain and you'll have to deal with them regardless of your precious feelings.



What a load of crap. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:50 pm
 


dodobird wrote:
So are you saying that everything needs to be done to keep gays out of the military?


No. I'm not saying that. There's always individuals who will quietly serve and go about their business without revealing any number of issues that could get them mustered out. Sexual preference, bad credit history, gambling problems, infidelity, drunkeness, and etc. can all get someone thrown out if it comes out.

What I mean is that I'm not proposing to start witch hunts, but I'm merely saying that with the old system there were fewer problems because the people who could cut it under the old rules could generally be counted on to cut it.

dodobird wrote:
What does the way in which they demonstrate PTSD have to do with homosexuals being able to publicly state thier sexuality without fear of repercussion?


The way they demonstrate it is logically irrelevant, but it would make for some pretty embarrassing documentation along with other unpleasant facts.

The military treats sensitive topics like this sensitively...to a point.

But if someone wants to push on the topic then the military will patiently wait for some Senator or Congresscritter to 'demand' that they release statistical data.

And they will.

To everyone.

And then they'll sit back and smile. It's what they do.


Last edited by BartSimpson on Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:51 pm
 


sandorski wrote:
What a load of crap. :roll:


Not crap. Urine. I didn't say they sh*t themselves. :lol:


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:57 pm
 


I heard their menstruation attracts bears. Surely that's a risk to the safety of the unit?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.