«
»

Don’t ask, don’t tell coming to an end..?

I personally could care less what people do to entertain themselves so long as that behavior does not affect others, and is done with consenting adults. Others would disagree with me, and that’s fine.

Here, is what some of those that might be most affected are saying. Hopefully wordpress will not “spam” me for bringing all these different “links” to a single post. I believe that this issue is of such importance though that it needs to have more than one or two players in the games ideas floated.

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=339

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=337

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=332

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=326

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_military_gays/2009/01/08/169333.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/basic.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/factsheets/msm.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090107/ts_alt_afp/usmilitarygays_newsmlmmd

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/em359.cfm

http://www.health.mil/dhb/meetings/2007-12/


04_Walker_Emergency%20Blood%20Transfusions.pdf

http://www.health.mil/dhb/recommendations/2008/


EmergencyBloodTransfusionCombatTheaters.pdf

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and
_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JrcYGJ1CQdx8wxjl923nnkQhwy6bbT4BYTZk0dCrG4rwn
L19qGk6!1746175250?docId=5001267771

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on January 13, 2009 at 08:03 and is filed under Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Politics, Uncategorized, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Don’t ask, don’t tell coming to an end..?”

  1. TexasFred's avatar TexasFred Says:
    January 14, 2009 at 13:30

    We’re gonna end up with those *Queen Berets* yet… 😕

    Like

  2. GrumpyOldFart's avatar GrumpyOldFart Says:
    January 14, 2009 at 23:22

    “I personally could care less what people do to entertain themselves so long as that behavior does not affect others, and is done with consenting adults.”

    Yeah, that. *However*…

    So far as I know, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” did not change military law regarding homosexuality. All it did was order the entire chain of command of all US military forces to ignore those laws. If that is true, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is, by definition, destructive of good order and discipline.

    To that extent, I can’t help thinking DADT MUST go away.

    On the other hand, regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about gays, once “political correctness” becomes a priority of the command structure, you end up with a military establishment that cannot win wars.
    Why? Because being sudden-death-on-command and being ultra-sensitive-never-hurt-anyone’s-feelings are not compatible concepts, that’s why. It doesn’t matter whether it’s over sexual preference, or gender, or ethnicity, or what. Once the regs say a soldier has to treat another soldier a particular way for ANY REASON OTHER THAN RANK, the chain of command is broken.

    Like

  3. Patrick Sperry's avatar Patrick Sperry Says:
    January 15, 2009 at 06:44

    I would go beyond just coc, I think that the bond, or trust, gets broken, and that, is unacceptable.

    Like

  4. GrumpyOldFart's avatar GrumpyOldFart Says:
    January 15, 2009 at 08:04

    Yeah, that. Not the chain of command in a literal, physical sense. I mean, the officers didn’t suddenly all die or anything. But the concept upon which the command structure is based, the thing that defines the difference between “good order and discipline” and “totalitarian despotism”, is gone away.
    Once the source of privilege and authority becomes anything other than rank, *especially when based on something as shifting as the political ‘group rights’ flavor of the month*, they aren’t soldiers being led anymore. They are serfs being driven.

    Like

  5. Patrick Sperry's avatar Patrick Sperry Says:
    January 15, 2009 at 09:20

    “Leadership” based upon political correctness. Sounds an awful lot like the Soviet Unions Commissars to me.
    The one single most often theme from the links that I posted above was that unit cohesion would suffer if said policy were to be implemented. Without unit cohesion, group loyalty and trust in other words. It is no longer a unit. It is simply a group. Undefined, and without moral compass.

    Like

  6. GrumpyOldFart's avatar GrumpyOldFart Says:
    January 15, 2009 at 09:43

    I have defended the ‘all volunteer force’ any number of times, and always used the same answer: If the people covering my flank aren’t there because they chose to be there, if they won’t stay with me when things get ugly and make sure I get out with em when they go, because my ass is just as important to them as their own….

    …if they don’t have that, I don’t care how many of em there are. I’ll cover my own flank, thanks just the same.

    What happens to that when the prejudices of “flavor of the month” politics, of ANY party, become military law?

    Like

  7. Patrick Sperry's avatar Patrick Sperry Says:
    January 16, 2009 at 04:59

    Then what you see is the disintegration of not only individual units, but of the entire Corps, and that, is the primary concern with this issue.

    Like

  8. tonydowning's avatar tonydowning Says:
    January 16, 2009 at 13:38

    If gays in the military become openly gay, then the military will be at risk for taking on one of the most pathetic and stupid characteristics of university campuses: all the different facilities and policies for the different identity groups.

    Like

  9. Patrick Sperry's avatar Patrick Sperry Says:
    January 17, 2009 at 20:53

    Can you say Multiculturalism on steroids, and CRACK! ..?

    Like

Comments are closed.