the face of the new military.
Posted on 07/21/2011 3:40:38 PM PDT by markomalley
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to certify that gays can serve openly in the armed services
(Excerpt) Read more at buffalonews.com ...
No, are you? I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t support gays in the military and I served during a period when they were expressly prohibited, i.e., before DADT. You are an idiot.
the face of the new military.
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.
Stop messing with our awesome military! I hate those leftist pukes in Washington. It’s getting close to torches and pitchforks time in this country.
I personally think that there will be more disruption from adding women to subs, not open gays. Submariners are a special brand of crazy anyway, and we police our own quite well. On my boat, we had two sailors who were known or suspected to be gay. One of them was a good sailor, and not flouncy; he was part of the crew. The other was annoying, acted queer, and not a good sailor. He didn't last long.
Well, let’s put it this way. The president talks about how he is such a righteous person by throwing bones to a political agenda, while he, by not vetoing, runs the equivalent of Bush deficits on steroids. Yeah, that’s pretty smart, and that really helps the American people.
Europe, their economies aren’t doing all that well, and they could have higher unemployment rates, economies in the red, etc. Fiscally speaking, going in Europe’s direction is not a good idea.
Well, let’s put it this way. The president talks about how he is such a righteous person by throwing bones to a political agenda, while he, by not vetoing, runs the equivalent of Bush deficits on steroids. Yeah, that’s pretty smart, and that really helps the American people.
Europe, their economies aren’t doing all that well, and they could have higher unemployment rates, economies in the red, etc. Fiscally speaking, going in Europe’s direction is not a good idea.
Was there ever any doubt at what Clinton got started? That the frog would come to a full boil? We will also soon have gay marriage and it will be taught in publik skewels. (Hell,it already is.)
I was wondering, what sort of problems did they have with women?
thought you might be interested in this posting about slant put in the military survey used to justify the change in DADT: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2752470/posts
I think it’s also interesting that the Inspector General is looking into the info being leaked.
“I don’t believe that is correct. The law gave the military discretion to enact the DADT repeal only when it didn’t threaten security. Panetta didn’t have to do this. Panetta has chosen a path that will make the US military another social program.”
The Senate confirmed Panetta 100-0, knowing what his agenda would be. Not one single vote against him.
This may well work.
I think the Taliban will laugh themselves to death.
Seriously, though, the biggest criticism Muslims have of Western culture is that it’s “decadent”. This only serves to reinforce that view.
It’s a propaganda victory for Islamic fundamentalists....
You really couldn’t be more wrong. The SOD has to follow orders just like everyone else in the President’s cabinet. He could quit or be fired over it but then he would simply be replaced by someone that would follow orders. If you have spent any time in the military, you would know how these things work in reality despite how you think they ought to work in fantasy land.
In the past, I have encouraged young men I knew, to emlist in the Air Force (I served in the Air Force), now I will
tell them to stay away from the Armed Servises.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The Secretary of Defense position is a creation of Congress and the duties of the Secretary of Defense are enumerated in Title X of the US Code. Nothing in the Sec of Defense's Oath of Office requires him to follow ANY order of the President, much less ALL of them.
Whether he follows orders of the President is entirely discretionary and then only when the order of the President does not violate his oath of office, which is to uphold the laws of congress and the Constitution.
Marlowe is correct. The SecDef is a civilian appointee of both the president and the senate. He is not military. He is under no legal requirement to follow the orders of the potus as are members of the military. The potus could, of course, replace him, but that isn’t really the point.
like I said, there’s the real world chain of command and your fantasy world.
For starters, there is a shortage of sleeping space on board, so you either have to have seperate quarters for women, or women who don't mind sharing sleeping quarters with men. This means all men in the crew, not just the ones they might find attractive. There is no private area to dress and undress. Not to mention "Hot-Racking". Also, there is a rank-privelage to selecting your bunk. Usually, the newest crewmembers have to sleep in a common area in the Torpedo Room. If there is a seperate quarters for women, then they are outside of this, getting special treatment. The same goes for bathroom/shower facilities. The Officers have one, the chiefs have one, the Captain has one. The rest of the crew,(approximately 90 sailors) share 2. That means 3 shower stalls and 5 toilets. With limited space and privacy. The chances of harassment complaints (real or imagined) are huge. Did I mention that space is tight on a sub? There are many areas where two people approachine each other have to pass sideways. I can already hear the cries of "He rubbed up against me!"
Then you have the cultural issues. Submariners are a different breed of sailor. Under the sea, things get a little more informal. Crude humor, friendly harassment, pronography, and vulgar speech are the norm. Again, huge potential for harassment. So now, you would be forcing an entire group of people to change their way of life for individuals. Women will be resented because of the special treatment that they will get, because of the rules that they will bring, and because of the eggshells on which the rest of the crew will have to walk on around them. I haven't enve gone into the potential of "Hook-up" drama. Submarine life is already very stressful, the crew needs to be a cohesive as possible to survive. Having women on board will work against that cohesiveness.
I could go on about this for hours, but it is very difficult to explain submarine life to the uninitiated.
Thanks for the information.
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.