Skip to comments.
Former generals, admirals question military gay policy
Stars and Stripes ^
| December 1, 2007
| staff reporter
Posted on 12/02/2007 4:35:26 AM PST by Daffynition
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: Daffynition
Only one sea Admiral signed. Homos often end up missing morning muster.
2
posted on
12/02/2007 4:41:00 AM PST
by
Jacquerie
"none is of the stature of Gen. John Shalikashvili"
A legend in his own mind.
To: Daffynition
1. 28 retired flags is a drop in the bucket. I’d wager its about 1% of all those retired.
2. About 1/3 of these appear to be medical officers—not combat rated.
3. About 1/2 of these are Brigadier Generals. While that sounds impressive, BGs are often bitter ‘cause they never got that 2nd star. In some ways, that looks worse than a Colonel who never got selected for BG.
4. I don’t see any 4-stars on that list.
4
posted on
12/02/2007 4:45:38 AM PST
by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
To: Daffynition
Shouldn’t General Bendover be on that list?
5
posted on
12/02/2007 4:47:46 AM PST
by
Nextrush
(Proudly uncommitted in the 2008 race for president for now,, but McCain and Paul never)
To: Daffynition
And I say keep it the same.
There is a difference between “don’t ask, don’t tell” and serving openly.
Those who have served in the lower ranks understand that difference.
To those wishing to change it, it’s just an agenda.
6
posted on
12/02/2007 4:51:18 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(So why did the EO NCO have to be black? It's EO Right?)
To: rbg81
About 1/3 of these appear to be medical officersnot combat rated.How does that matter and why?
7
posted on
12/02/2007 4:52:35 AM PST
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: Nextrush
wonder if Hitlary wrote that letter for them to sign
8
posted on
12/02/2007 4:52:55 AM PST
by
sure_fine
(• " not one to over kill the thought process " •)
To: Daffynition
Gannett owned, shills for the bitch. It will happen if she becomes queen bee.
9
posted on
12/02/2007 4:54:01 AM PST
by
boomop1
(there you go again)
To: Jacquerie
I have no doubt that many gays have served honorably.
The big question in my mind is how to maintain good order and discipline if openly gay sailors are on board Navy ships. Open berthing, very tight quarters, shared heads and showers. Or do we create ANOTHER separate setup like we had to do for women?? Just how much room do these people think there is on a Destroyer anyway?
Can also see many lost at sea incidents. Awful dark out there.
Jack
10
posted on
12/02/2007 4:56:47 AM PST
by
btcusn
(Giving up the right to arms is a mistake a free people get to make only once.)
To: Daffynition
How many Marines were on that list?......er. Oh none. Nevermind.
We're just to backwards and want to kill things.
11
posted on
12/02/2007 4:56:56 AM PST
by
Dick Vomer
(liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
To: Daffynition
scholarly data show that 65,000... Respectfully, scholarly data advanced by whom?
It says right here that "don't ask, don't tell" has been the de facto policy since at least the French and Indian War. I suspect that homosexuals were enlisting or being commissioned when Joshua fought the Battle of Jericho. The thing of it is is I don't see data from these "scholars" regarding the improvement of the military that will ensue when we put a question on the application requesting a designation.
12
posted on
12/02/2007 4:59:16 AM PST
by
stevem
To: Jacquerie
I see a lot of "NGs" here.
Are we talking about more phony ranks?
They are probably as phony as the figure for the number of "gays" currently serving, and my guess is that most of them are weekend warriors as well.
Why do I get this feeling that the National Guard has certain geographical areas where the commander is a gay recruiter and follows Jesuit homosexual indoctrination and "training" practices?
:-(
13
posted on
12/02/2007 4:59:17 AM PST
by
cgbg
(Nada non nyet--nanny amnesty Huckabee.)
To: Racehorse
How does that matter and why?cause they've never served in a FAO that make you have to trust someone with your life. Where little lover's spats could get a unit killed. It just adds another layer of complexity to a combat situation. Do you press charges for calling someone a "f#g" as sexual harassment? So now you add PC speech to ROE in a combat zone.
14
posted on
12/02/2007 5:01:32 AM PST
by
Dick Vomer
(liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
To: Jacquerie
Homos often end up missing morning muster. And how would you know that?
15
posted on
12/02/2007 5:04:23 AM PST
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: rocksblues
16
posted on
12/02/2007 5:04:35 AM PST
by
rocksblues
(Just enforce the law!)
To: rbg81
About 1/3 of these appear to be medical officersnot combat rated.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Medical officers are more knowledgeable of the medical consequences not only for the gays but for the heterosexual soldier as well.
Gays live a life that puts them in very close physical contact with a very large number of other gays who are often sick with highly communicable diseases that non-gay soldiers can a DO get: tuberculosis, body lice, staff and strep skin infections, flu, pneumonia, meningitis, are merely a few of likely several hundred examples.
To make matters worse, once a gay becomes HIV positive ( which might not be known for quite a long time) his immune system gradually deteriorates. This makes him even more likely to contract one of the above diseases and then carry it back to infect the heterosexual soldiers in his unit.
Remember: HIV people living a highly active homosexual live style are walking petri dishes of diseases that the rest of us can and DO get!
17
posted on
12/02/2007 5:05:24 AM PST
by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
To: btcusn; cgbg
Senior officers are highly skilled executive leaders. They are also to a large extent politicians.
I would place far more value on a survey conducted at the deckplate level, E-4 and below.
18
posted on
12/02/2007 5:05:47 AM PST
by
Jacquerie
(Navy 38 Army 3)
To: sure_fine
It certainly is linked to the political season in some way and I think would reflect some change Hillary would make if she is elected.
This is probably the “gay movement” and or Hillary response to the their flunkie (”General” Whatshisname) being outed as a plant in the CNN “debate.”
19
posted on
12/02/2007 5:07:22 AM PST
by
Nextrush
(Proudly uncommitted in the 2008 race for president for now,, but McCain and Paul never)
To: Racehorse; rbg81
How does that matter and why?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It matters a **lot**!
Please read post #17.
20
posted on
12/02/2007 5:08:02 AM PST
by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson