Posted on 12/21/2010 7:21:56 AM PST by Evil Slayer
The headlines said that the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy had been repealed. “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is repealed by Senate; bill awaits Obama’s signing,” was the headline over the front page article in The Washington Post by Ed O’Keefe. But the article went on to note, in the 22nd paragraph, that top military leaders must find or certify that changes to the current policy “must not affect troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention.” How is this possible when Marine Commandant General Jim Amos has already said that the changes would cost lives?
Calling repeal a major distraction, Amos said, “I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”
The Post went on, “Even after the finding, lawmakers will be able to hold hearings for two months to review the Pentagon’s policies and procedures for accepting openly gay troops, according to congressional aides familiar with the matter.”
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Now that really rattles my cage! Dadgumit.
Some thoughts:
1) Since the military is voluntary I doubt that many gays will join. Those who do seriously want to serve.
2) Gays who are in the military have been living by military rules and tend to be descrete, thereby avoiding issues.
3) By removing DADT the major excuse for no ROTC at Ivy schools has been removed, forcing them to allow ROTC.
4) UCMJ is very strict about sexual harassment so both gay and hetero military personel must comply with rules.
While it is true that Gays tend to exaggerate their numbers most people have a friend or relative who is gay and have learned to get along. Surely there will be incidents and issues but I think the impact will not be as great as many fear.
Now that is change I can deal with.
Thanks.
Thank you for the ping. This may not be everything I hoped for, but it is better than the decimated military I was imagining.
You’re welcome.
"IIRC, they lost, unlike Gideon’s 300."
Thank you for reminding me how much more we can do when we are on the Lord's side.
I have heard the gays are being told to wait to ‘act up’ or come out for a while.
yea, maybe but they are all dead...
I’m confused.
The ‘gays’ will have you put in jail for calling them faggots.
Now, they want to ANNOUNCE they are faggots.
????????
Being told by 'who', I wonder?
I remember reading an article warning the gays to lay low for a while, but I can’t find it now. I was searching.
All people that ate carrots 2,500 years ago are dead too. LOL
:o) those carrots are poison, that is why I don’t eat them, good chuckles to you...:O)
Hello? A "loophole" is a lay term for a specific LEGAL part of a gargantuan code, like, uh, THE LAW, or the TAX CODE, or the UCMJ, etc.
If it's part of the LAW it's part of the LAW. It's not a "loophole."
So let me understand this logic further.
You're saying that a General in the military understandably cannot be expected to simply follow the law and come to the just conclusion that changes to the current policy will adversely "affect troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention" because it would adversely affect his career.
However, while that's understandable, the thinking is that it is OUTRAGEOUS that a couple of politicians in liberal states would not fight the uphill lame-duck battle tooth and nail when in fear of their career as politicians.
LOL. I don't get it.
Generals are understandably spineless, but politicians should have spines of titanium? Huh?
Wow. Even "career desk jockeys" in the military deserve more respect than the greatest politician.
If there is a "loophole" teed up by the "spineless pols" and the military doesn't avail themselves of it, then you can't really fault the pols, either at that point.
Hey Sam, yeah, “loophole” my a**! Good grief, we are dumbing down the real meanings of words so fast my head swims. T’ain’t no loophole folks, it’s the LAW and those are some pretty formidable “stumbling blocks” but shoot, nothing’s swayed them yet...
And without the Generals saying that it won't work, the congressmen are supposed to fight the leftists with what? "SPITBALLS?" (to borrow a phrase from Zell.)
Because JAG is a parallel chain of command which continuously is used to attack and second guess decisions.
They are full of homosexuals.
There is no parallel chain of command. JAGs, although we are allowed to have “non-conversations” within our JAG chain of authority, are line officers who are rated by the commander at the level of command at which we serve. We aren’t attack dogs, and except for the occasional whiskey delta who thinks he’s the commander’s personal counsel, we don’t “look for a way to do what the commander wants to do”. Our client is the Air Force (in my case), and we take the core competencies - Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do - very seriously.
And I only know two JAGs who I think are probably homosexual. But I’m not allowed to ask.
If you have actual proof of your allegations, I’d love to hear it.
Colonel, USAFR
The proof is in the news. I’m about to give up here.
JAG is maybe useful to get a DUI or a civilian off of a soldier’s back, but, beyond that, it’s sue for the Guantanamo prisoners, be a garrison punk but pull rank and feathers to intimidate veterans, and always be there for the politics, not for force protection, treating us as “they”, being completely off to the side, as if not part of the army at all, but much more reverential to the colleges where they got the degrees and eventualy get the real rewards.
JAG has a “multiple personalities” risk problem.
The law, the safety, the security, the security clearancing, it’s not just a responsability for the various office holders, but for all of us. As to why others cling to their ranks and JAG attributes like this, shows me something is wrong and suspicious.
With all due respect, why complicate ourselves with such aloofness confronting all respect? Let’s get on with the day instead of lecturing people around.
THe Chaplaincy has the same problem, not just JAG. I mean, I am only singling those who like to single themselves out. I am a religious man, but I cannot stand chaplains. I love law, but I cannot stand JAG lawyers.
They always say, “You should not drink, you this, you that”, as if they have this immunity and right we do not have. It’s ridiculous. How about a “WE should not drink, or WE that and WE THIS” once in a while?
I know, processing other people’s crap tends to exasperate things, but force protection is a concern for all. Ignore or condemn a situation today, you get away with it, but one day JAG, Chaplains et. al. will have to realize that when under fire, guess what, it’s back to basic training baby, and JAG et al will need us more than we need them around, Haditha trials and what not will not matter.
KILL THE FREEPIN THEM ALL! will be THEIR panicky call, but it will be too late...
The homosexualness lays in this very homosexual seed of crying about being “offended”, without worry about the combat situation. The “Danger hysterium” relation will rise quick. All are energized strangely in gangsta ways, and, once respectable people, putting themselves on pedestal easily even, will be “offended” and die with an enemy bullet in their heads with a “I’m offended by this and that” look on their faces.
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.