IOW, to the people for whom this decision will most directly impact, and who are most critical to America's national defense, this is a HORRIBLE decision.
Wow, that's shocking /s
Right - and in a few years; promotions and choice assignments will be based on preferences rather than merit.
It happens in the private sector - but there are other employers - choosing a military career limits your senior officers and your options.
They say "garbage in garbage out." Too bad we will never see the junk behind the study. Too bad that there are no real journalists dedicated to meaningful facts and the truth. It is too bad that those in charge of the study did not read or understand the position of the Marines and Army. I am disappointed and disgusted.
The Pentagon said only 28% of troops surveyed responded to the questionnaire, or 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses.
Wasn’t the wikileaks soldier who took all the data a homosexual? Would that suggest there could be a problem?
Talked with a couple of guys who took the “study”. Both said it was very leading and took you to where they wanted you to go if you were not paying attention.
My Representative presents an argument in favor of repeal, which betrays a basic misunderstanding of the character of military service. He says, “The private, legal sexual conduct of military personnel off duty and off base, whether homosexual or heterosexual, should not be of interest to the Pentagon leadership. The bottom line is that an individual’s performance in uniform is what should count. Sexual contact on base is already governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) - the judicial code that all military personnel are subject to”.
Yet military operations are not conducted in garrison, and offer no opportunities for off duty or private time. The current law recognizes maintaining high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion requires extraordinary restrictions. All military organizations exist to serve operating military personnel, locked in small task oriented units, forward deploy, and continuously face extraordinary stress if not actual combat. At the pointy end of the spear, they face environments characterized by sacrificial, primitive and intimate relations. Such environments are inherently chaotic and brittle, and can only be overcome by a totalitarian leadership unimaginable in pacific situations faced by the REMFS.
Now OldDeckHand can probably translate REMFS for you, but the private discussion option should be used.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
The leftist scum is pushing hard. Conservatives need to PUSH BACK. I hope that this does not pass any vote before January; but if it does, that the R controlled House can bring it back and defeat it. This is ruination.
And here is what Sola Veritas who took the survey had to say about it:
It was poorly worded. As a reservist, I was randomly picked to answer it, as was my wife. It was worded so poorly that one could not clearly articulate their opposition to the proposed policy change.
It wasn’t exactly a “push poll”, but it seemed like one when I took the survey. I was thoroughly disgusted that it was not possible to say what I trully thought because of the wording of questions. About the only way you could show disdain for the proposal was to say you would leave military service or not recommend it to another if homosexuals could serve openly. You could indicate it would hurt unit cohesion, but it was very hard to do so by the wording.
Also, until recently when the army started to downsize again, they had really lowered standards for recruitment. While we still have abd had many fine young American men and women joining and serving, many subpar types were let in...so I wouldn’t be surprised if they said “no problem.”
I’ve read Senator McCain’s latest statement on DADT and his objections to the “survey” mirror what I’m saying and others that have taken the survey say. So, he must be listenting to military folks. So, on this, he seems to have his head on straight. This issue needs to be left alone by the Lame Duck congress. IF, and I don’t think there is, any real merit to repealing DADT, then it should be addressed by the new congress.
I sure hope all these new homosexual recruits make good combat soldiers.
In a few years, we will know because they will be the only ones left to “hold down the fort”.
Everyone is railing against the wiki leaks...when you consider what Obama, Pelosi, Hillary, Gates and the rest of the minion in control of this government has done to the USA and the Military...it is a pretty lame event in comparison.
IIRC, I remember reading something that said this survey was done AFTER it had been announced that DADT would be repealed, as if it was a sure thing to be done - maybe after the CA court decision? Anyway, seems like if they surveyed the troops in the context of the troops thinking it was already decided, it would not be the same result as if they were surveyed while it was anticipated DADT would be in effect indefinitely.
funny how fags will be MIA.
I doubt it was a valid survey - probably run by gays
“The study found 70 percent of troops surveyed believed repealing the law would have mixed, positive, or no effect, while 30 percent predicted problems”
As usual, the press is spinning the stats. Here is what a DoD release said:
“U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, said the study found that 50 to 55 percent of people surveyed said there would be no major effect if the repeal passed, while 15 to 20 percent said they’d expect a positive change. Only 30 percent said repeal would have a negative impact.”
http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/2010/11/dod-releases-report-on-the-impact-of-repealing-dadt/
Notice how they try to make it sound like 70% are for the change. In reality only 15-20% could be considered “for” the change. Whereas, 30% were against it. The biggest group 50-55% were essentially neutral....they were NOT for it per se. So, you have 15-20% for and 30% against and a big mushy middle. That is NOT 70% for it as reported.