Marine Corps Chief: 'Distraction' of Gays Serving Openly Could Cost Marines Limbs

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON -- Using graphic imagery and his strongest language to date, the new Marine Corps commandant spoke out again Tuesday against a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this time suggesting that a change in the law would risk maiming Marines because of the "distraction." In a background briefing with a handful of Pentagon reporters, Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines. Fox News was not invited to the briefing, but the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" provided an audio recording.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/14/marine-corps-chief-distraction-gays-serving-openly-cost-marines-limbs/


Note: Published December 14, 2010

[Platapus]

So the homosexuals currently in the Marine Corps are not a distraction, but homosexuals in the Marine Corps after the repeal of DADT will be a distraction?

[Dowly]

WASHINGTON -- Using graphic imagery and his strongest language to date, the new Marine Corps commandant spoke out again Tuesday against a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this time suggesting that a change in the law would risk maiming Marines because of the "distraction." In a background briefing with a handful of Pentagon reporters, Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines. Fox News was not invited to the briefing, but the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" provided an audio recording.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/14/marine-corps-chief-distraction-gays-serving-openly-cost-marines-limbs/



Bull****.

[DarkFish]

Well, it's the US of A. Whaddya expect?:roll:

[TLAM Strike]

Any Marine so easily distracted over the fact that is squad mate prefers someone with a penis rather than a vagina in their bed (or vice versa) should not be a Marine.

[the_tyrant]

You know, most of us usually grow out of the homophobe stage before we graduate from high school

I personally have nothing against a gay guy fighting alongside me.

[Skybird]

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna :haha: and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news:har:, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.

[Platapus]

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." Barry Goldwater :salute:

[August]

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna :haha: and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news:har:, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.

Well said Skybird.

[GoldenRivet]

So the homosexuals currently in the Marine Corps are not a distraction, but homosexuals in the Marine Corps after the repeal of DADT will be a distraction?

i think the valid portion of any argument for DODT is that homosexuals openly serving in the military will be at risk of mistreatment, beatings, hazing and even murder.

a man who likes to rub on penises absorbs machine gun fire just as good as a man who doesnt like to run on penises IMHO

the problem is that you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of young men some of whom may retaliate against homosexuals violently perhaps without consideration to the consequences.

[ETR3(SS)]

I wonder if no ask-no tell gets abandoned, if this means that women serving in the military will be allowed to shower together with the guys and lie side by side with them in crew quarters?!

The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.

I wonder why in a country that is so prudish that you are expected to wear bathers even in the Sauna :haha: and Nipplegate makes it into the headline of the national news:har:, this simple thing must be explained!? There is a reason why women and men serving in the military usually are kept seperate, regarding certain intimate details of life in the military, and it has something to do with sexuality and preferences (hear hear...). But with gay men and hetereo men, this all of a sudden is not valid argument anymore...? Being politically correct is all nice and well, but when it comes at the cost of ignoring realities, then it becomes anything but "correct" in a meaning of reasonability.This.:yeah:

[Tessa]

i think the valid portion of any argument for DODT is that homosexuals openly serving in the military will be at risk of mistreatment, beatings, hazing and even murder.

a man who likes to rub on penises absorbs machine gun fire just as good as a man who doesnt like to run on penises IMHO

the problem is that you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of young men some of whom may retaliate against homosexuals violently perhaps without consideration to the consequences.

Even though society has largely become more receptive to homosexual relationships, they have already been labeled by society. Sociologically once you attach a label to a group of people it generally will stick with them forever.

The DODT is actually protecting them from becoming at risk. If that information were to come out into the open I concur that there woulc probably be a lot of hazing/retaliations against the gay servicemen regardless of their quality of duty. While it's oppressive in nature, I believe the DODT is the only good way to deal with the situation.

[Penguin]

The argument of protection, which I believe you two guys mean honestly, is also used as a strawman argument to hide the intentions to keep people out of the military.

I am pretty sure that this argument was also used when blacks were allowed to join the armed forces: "Oh, we gotta protect them from racism"

60 years ago at some boot camp:
"Hi my name is Bill and I'm black!"
- "Sorry guy, you have to leave the military, we have a strict don't ask, don't tell policy!" :D

[mookiemookie]

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Distractions causing soldiers to lose limbs? Who's going to be so worried about the gay man behind them that they get their legs blown off? That's about one of the stupidest and nonsensical things I've ever heard. And I hang out in GT. :O:

[August]

The argument of protection, which I believe you two guys mean honestly, is also used as a strawman argument to hide the intentions to keep people out of the military.

I am pretty sure that this argument was also used when blacks were allowed to join the armed forces: "Oh, we gotta protect them from racism"

60 years ago at some boot camp:
"Hi my name is Bill and I'm black!"
- "Sorry guy, you have to leave the military, we have a strict don't ask, don't tell policy!" :D

Let's not get into comparing blacks with homosexuals. Race is not at all the same thing as sexual orientation. That said I don't buy the violence against gays argument. Soldiers are expected to have more self discipline than that.

[Penguin]

Let's not get into comparing blacks with homosexuals. Race is not at all the same thing as sexual orientation. That said I don't buy the violence against gays argument. Soldiers are expected to have more self discipline than that.

The aspect I wanted to point out that you usually can''t chose your sexual orientation nor the melanin level in your skin.

[August]

The aspect I wanted to point out that you usually can''t chose your sexual orientation nor the melanin level in your skin.

Some people say that jerks can't choose not to be who they are either. That doesn't mean it's a valid comparison with ethnicity.

[Tessa]

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Distractions causing soldiers to lose limbs? Who's going to be so worried about the gay man behind them that they get their legs blown off? That's about one of the stupidest and nonsensical things I've ever heard. And I hang out in GT. :O:

I agree with you and don't think it should be a major issue, unfortunately in the US its a volatile subject regardless. It's likely going to have to follow the same sort of path that the civil rights movement did in the 50's/60's in order to gain nation wide acceptace.

The main reason I'm behind the DADT for the interim is so that we don't end up with social segregation, where they are considered different but equal. We all know how well that turned out (just watch Mississippi Burning, a perfect example of how callous people can be and deep rooted the stereotypes run).

[Penguin]

Some people say that jerks can't choose not to be who they are either. That doesn't mean it's a valid comparison with ethnicity.

valid in my book. Both groups (blacks & homosexuals) are/were seen as inferiour soldiers due to prejudices.

[Skybird]

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries.

What m eans "to openly serve"...? Actually, most countries, and certainly Germany, handle it more or less according to "don'T ask, don'T tell". No recruit in Germany is being asked for his sexual preferances, as far as I know, but gay men are well-advised to not boast with their gayness, for they could easily find themselves at the receiving end of discriminating reactions from their comrades. After all, the military world still is a pretty much "macho" world. That may not be the way some want it to be, but it is a social reality.

You have the same problem in sports. One year ago, in Germany we have had the case of the dpressive goalie Enke, the national team'S keeper he was, committing suicide. There was a lot of talking done and forgotten since then, abiout how to protect the weaker and the deporessive and how to prevent against burnout of atheletes etc etc etc. But fact is that depression in football tranbslates into weaknbess and weakness translates into "unmanly". Most pros and club'S officials still advise to hide such features of a character, or personal problems, for it means they loose ground in the profession and support i general, and fall down the ladder soon. The same advise is given for gay players: nobody gets asked whether he is gay or not, but the atmosphere is such that gay players better also do not start to boast with theirgayness at all.

And why the hell should they even want that...? A question to be asked both for sports and military service.


The purpose of no ask-no tell was not to prevent gays serving. Obviuoosuly it allows them to serve, and they do. The simple purpose is to avoid unnecessary "complications" and "irritations" amongst the vast majority of troops not being gay.


Why do they have separate showers for men and women in the military? Because it might not be a good idea to have the one undressing and exposing themselves in the presence of the other (I hope I must not start to explain why). Most people do not like the idea to become naked in the presence of people, usually of the other sex, who might feel aroused by the sight.

So to make this clear once again: don't ask don't tell is not to "protect" gays from the hetero majority. It's purpose is to avoid any complications from hetero men exposing themselves to people who have a preference not for naked women, but naked men. This, and variations of this problem - that is what don't ask, don't tell is all about. If there is any protective purpose of this rule, then it is protection of the hetero majority. You cannot be worried about you naked neighbour under the shower if you do not know that he might find your sight "interesting". Was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß.

I fail to see how don'T ask don'T tell can be considered "discrimination" of gays. They are allowed to serve, and they use the opportunity to serve, if that is what they want to. They just are not allowed - and there is no need at all to do so! - to make a big show of their personal preferences. Big deal. It serves no purpose at all and there is nothing to be gained from teling the world that one maintains a "gay army". Gayness is no virtue, nor is it a benefit. It simply is. There is no reason to discriminate against it, nor to make a big show of it. So let'S stop this drum-beating about it. It already has stirred more debate and media stunts than the issue deserves or ever could deserve.

[GoldenRivet]

22 out of 26 NATO countries allow gays to openly serve in the military. All of the handwringing and objections have already been handled by these countries. You don't read about beatings being handed down to gay Australian or German troops, or Israeli soldiers being distracted because one of their squadmates happens to be gay.

Well i tell you what mookie, thats good, thats real good and i like it. honestly.

I'm glad the details are ironed out for the US Military already, hell bud... you've convinced me. (i'm serious.)

eff me, i have changed my mind.

let them serve openly.






but hey, if we're going to do that, the next time a homosexual gets his brains beat out all over the nice white tile of a bathroom floor somewhere by his fellow soldiers lets not apply any special interest monikers like "hate crime" or "discrimination" to such an event ok?

[Armistead]

If someone gay wants to serve and possibly die for our country, I don't care, but I do understand the concern of mixing people that have the same sexual desires on the battlefield. Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...

I just don't think we're there yet culturally.

[GoldenRivet]

Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...


Uhhh

I'm gay




where do i sign?

[Takeda Shingen]

Well i tell you what mookie, thats good, thats real good and i like it. honestly.

I'm glad the details are ironed out for the US Military already, hell bud... you've convinced me. (i'm serious.)

eff me, i have changed my mind.

let them serve openly.






but hey, if we're going to do that, the next time a homosexual gets his brains beat out all over the nice white tile of a bathroom floor somewhere by his fellow soldiers lets not apply any special interest monikers like "hate crime" or "discrimination" to such an event ok?

There is a tone to your posts on this subject that I find to be rather, shall we say, disquieting.

[Tribesman]

Whats the bets on Gen. James Amos soon being found in a gay sex scandal?

[GoldenRivet]

There is a tone to your posts on this subject that I find to be rather, shall we say, disquieting.

naaa


really, I'm all for gays serving in the military, i truly am.

I just think that the same people who are pushing so hard for it to be an "open" service need to be fully prepared for the possibility of the negative repercussions of such a thing. because i promise you, they will be the same people then turning around and complaining about hate crimes, discrimination and that there isnt enough being done to protect homosexuals in the military. The bleeding heart types are like girlfriends... there isnt a single GD thing you can do that will be "right"

not that discrimination and outright hate is typical of a new recruit in the US Military but you have to consider the probability that you will have a bunch of 18-20 year old guys in a barracks who are fresh out of high school wanting to prove their might, bravery, stones, manliness etc and there exists a very real possibility that the one gay dude in the barracks would be singled out for a number of mistreatment etc.

I certainly wouldn't behave that way, but there are those - particularly younger people, who would.

I do NOT discriminate against homosexuals... i jokingly told my wife the other day "Hey... I'll not complain about anything that instantly doubles my odds of a BJ." :haha:

EDIT:

bottom line: in a professional service, your sexual orientation, preference, fetishes, and much of your personal life shouldnt even be a factor for discussion. Dont Ask Dont Tell simply reinforces the "you should not be asked about sexual preference by anyone regardless of rank or position, and if asked, you are not required to respond." its simply a good HR position to have.

go get a job at a major company and start asking everyone about their sexual preferences - your going to get canned in a hurry.

[August]

valid in my book. Both groups (blacks & homosexuals) are/were seen as inferiour soldiers due to prejudices.

So are women and children when it comes to the strength required to carry an Infantrymans basic load. Are you also advocating to have them in combat units too?

[August]

Maybe the gay men should bunk with the women...

I'll bet the women would have a big issue with that. :DL

[TLAM Strike]

So are women and children when it comes to the strength required to carry an Infantrymans basic load. Are you also advocating to have them in combat units too?
Worked for the Soviets in WWII... :03:

[August]

Worked for the Soviets in WWII... :03:

Piling the bodies of ones neighbors makes a fairly decent barricade too but it wouldn't be my first choice of material... ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Piling the bodies of ones neighbors makes a fairly decent barricade too but it wouldn't be my first choice of material... ;)

When the Commissar is poking you in the back with a Degtyaryov machine gun what you would chose sort of becomes a moot point. :03:

[GoldenRivet]

When the Commissar is poking you in the back with a Degtyaryov machine gun what you would chose sort of becomes a moot point. :03:

different place, different time, different set of circumstances.

What works for soviet Russia circa 1942 - isnt necessarily going to work for the highly complex and intricate society of the United States in 2010+

when a billion Chinese soldiers land on the coast of California, after California surrenders and they move on to Nevada and Arizona - then we will talk about commissars and piling up body barriers

[Tribesman]

So are women and children when it comes to the strength required to carry an Infantrymans basic load.
Is anyone suggesting blacks and gays lack strength or is that simply a nice strawman you are building for yourself?

different place, different time, different set of circumstances.


But don't forget Obamas secret army of nazi dentists, they may force you to build barricades by threatening root canal treatment with no pain relief.

[GoldenRivet]

But don't forget Obamas secret army of nazi dentists, they may force you to build barricades by threatening root canal treatment with no pain relief.


Uhhhh


What?:06:

[August]

When the Commissar is poking you in the back with a Degtyaryov machine gun what you would chose sort of becomes a moot point. :03:

Poor tactics might work but that doesn't make them the best choice. The Soviets lost millions of people that they didn't have to loose because of that same type of thing.

[GoldenRivet]

Poor tactics might work but that doesn't make them the best choice. The Soviets lost millions of people that they didn't have to loose because of that same type of thing.

I saw a statistic that more Russians were killed than Jews during ww2

I'd wager a fair number of the Russians were killed by their own people

[Tribesman]

Uhhhh


What?:06:

Referencing back to Bubbleheads topic about the secret Gestapo like private army America now has under its communist dictator president.
After all its bound to have its own version of commisars isn't it.

[TLAM Strike]

I saw a statistic that more Russians were killed than Jews during ww2

I'd wager a fair number of the Russians were killed by their own people The Russians lost more people than anyone else in WWII... combined.

Poor tactics might work but that doesn't make them the best choice. The Soviets lost millions of people that they didn't have to loose because of that same type of thing. I would not call what the Russians did poor tactics, more of an acceptance of the low quality of troops they had and using that to their advantage. They had a huge poorly educated population, they used that to their advantage.

[GoldenRivet]

They had a huge poorly educated population

Hmmm

Guess its relevant to the present day United States after all :D

[the_tyrant]

Hmmm

Guess its relevant to the present day United States after all :D

Nope, nowdays a huge amount of young people want to be "hip" and "non-conformist". I have seen teenagers rebel just for the sake of rebelling.

And with sources of information like wikileaks that are biased towards the anti government side, i predict that there will be tons of idiots defecting to north korea when they come.

what I am saying is, there is a lot of teenagers these days educated enough to understand that America sometimes does bad things just like North korea, but not well educated enough to understand patriotism

[Raptor1]

The Russians lost more people than anyone else in WWII... combined.

China...

[Tchocky]

THe idea that this situation is exactly analogous to men and women serving alongside each other is remarkably silly.

[Madox58]

One of my best Friends way back in the late '60's early '70's was Gay.
He passed away while I was in the Service.
I could not make it home to carry him to his final resting place.
:nope:
One of my Support Team Members was Gay while in the Service during the early '80's.
He was one of my main go to Guys!
He never made it Home alive but protected my Life on several occasions.
And I never lost a Limb, nor a minute of sleep knowing he was Gay.
He was a TRUE Warrior that gave his life for his Friends!
We always said,
'With our Shields, or on them!'
Funny how when I saw '300' how that hit me.
The Wife couldn't understand my reaction at first.
(I broke down and cried like a Baby)
Until I explained that was one of the last things he said to me before
all Hell broke lose!
I had not thought of that engagement since 1986 or so.
It was something I had blocked out over the years.
I'd let it slide for my mental well being.
Now I ask myself if I put that day away becasue he was just a faggot.
I can tell you with all my heart,
NO!

He was the only Hero I have met face to face in my life!
And I would gladly go back to that moment and take his place.

If young recruits can not handle the fact someone is Gay?
They should never serve in the Military.
They have a defect that would compromise the Mission.
And as any good AirBorne Trooper will tell you?
The Mission is ALL that matters!

[nikimcbee]

I saw a statistic that more Russians were killed than Jews during ww2

I'd wager a fair number of the Russians were killed by their own people

See final push on Berlin. Konev was ahead of Zhukov, and would have captured Berlin first. Zhukov= Stalin's golden boy.

You don't want to beat the boss's kid.:doh:

Stalin orders Zhukov to attack Konev to slow him down.:o

[mookiemookie]

One of my best Friends way back in the late '60's early '70's was Gay.
He passed away while I was in the Service.
I could not make it home to carry him to his final resting place.
:nope:
One of my Support Team Members was Gay while in the Service during the early '80's.
He was one of my main go to Guys!
He never made it Home alive but protected my Life on several occasions.
And I never lost a Limb, nor a minute of sleep knowing he was Gay.
He was a TRUE Warrior that gave his life for his Friends!
We always said,
'With our Shields, or on them!'
Funny how when I saw '300' how that hit me.
The Wife couldn't understand my reaction at first.
(I broke down and cried like a Baby)
Until I explained that was one of the last things he said to me before
all Hell broke lose!
I had not thought of that engagement since 1986 or so.
It was something I had blocked out over the years.
I'd let it slide for my mental well being.
Now I ask myself if I put that day away becasue he was just a faggot.
I can tell you with all my heart,
NO!

He was the only Hero I have met face to face in my life!
And I would gladly go back to that moment and take his place.

If young recruits can not handle the fact someone is Gay?
They should never serve in the Military.
They have a defect that would compromise the Mission.
And as any good AirBorne Trooper will tell you?
The Mission is ALL that matters!

Great post. Thank you.

[Raptor1]

See final push on Berlin. Konev was ahead of Zhukov, and would have captured Berlin first. Zhukov= Stalin's golden boy.

You don't want to beat the boss's kid.:doh:

Stalin orders Zhukov to attack Konev to slow him down.:o

I...doubt that...

[Madox58]

The Russain were fighting for thier very exsitence!
Had Russia fallen?
Things would be very different today no doubt.
There does exist the same Law under U.S. Military Justice
that would allow you to be shot if you turn and run from Battle.

Human nature is to run for safety.
Some can put that aside even if it means certian death.
Humans are a pack animal so will follow the pack when danger is there.
Why do you see mass deaths at Stadiums and such?
From stomping and other panic reactions no less!
That is the pact instinct!

Ask yourself this.....
If your in a Mall and someone yells FIRE, you see the fire and everyone else is running.
What would you do?

Don't bravo this but post your first instinct!

[Tribesman]

Nope, nowdays a huge amount of young people want to be "hip" and "non-conformist". I have seen teenagers rebel just for the sake of rebelling.

Thats shocking, but it sounds like a big famous 1950s movie that was a development of 1940s stories.
Kids nowadays eh

[August]

The best way to accommodate gays in the military is to get away from the fancy semi-private barracks rooms and go back to the double squad bay like what they had in ww2.

And Skybirds right. If you're going to have heteros, homos and bisexuals sharing bunk beds then you might as well stick the women in the same quarters too and abandon any pretense of making sexual distinctions.

Even so there likely wouldn't be much funny stuff going on in this kind of public setting:

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_04_2008/post-211-1209422413.jpg

[Platapus]

The DODT is actually protecting them from becoming at risk.


If DADT was implemented in the military correctly and in accordance to the law, this would be true. The biggest problem I have with DADT is that it has never been implemented correctly. Third party reporting is specifically prohibited in DADT but the majority of homosexuals being kicked out were outed by third parties.

[August]

If DADT was implemented in the military correctly and in accordance to the law, this would be true. The biggest problem I have with DADT is that it has never been implemented correctly. Third party reporting is specifically prohibited in DADT but the majority of homosexuals being kicked out were outed by third parties.

What do you mean by third party?

[TLAM Strike]

China...

Ok more than all the other countries put to together or China alone. According to some studies China lost between 10-20 million, still short of the Soviet's 24 million. If the lost estimate if corrected than it might be more than all combined.

[Platapus]

What do you mean by third party?

Under DADT, if a third party (another person in the military) reports to the commander that "that guy is gay" the commander can not investigate any further unless there is evidence of a crime. The military was only supposed to kick people out if the homosexual military member self identified. That's the whole purpose of DADT

1. The military does not ask.
2. The homosexual military member does not tell (meaning exhibit homosexual behaviors)

Even with DADT, homosexual behavour is still against the UCMJ. But if a military member does not engage in homosexual behavour but one of his buddies finds out about it, the homosexual member is not supposed to be "asked" (Don't ask don't tell).

The problem is that commanders have not been following the letter of the law. Military members who have not engaged in homosexual behavour nor have they self-confessed have been and still were (up until recently) discharged based on a third party identification (or "outing")

When I was in the military as a Security Officer, I had to interview members for accesses. One of the questions we used to ask pertained to homosexuality. When DADT passed, I not only could not ask any of our homosexual questions, if I knew that the person was a homosexual or if I were told the person was a homosexual, I could not act on that knowledge or information, unless the member self-confessed. That was how DADT was supposed to work.

One of the reasons I am in favour of repealing DADT is that the military, over the years, drifted away from following the law. Commanders were considering the fact that a member told another member that they were homosexual counted as an official self-confession. And that is not how it was supposed to work.

[krashkart]

Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines.

Aren't there greater worries for people in combat? :lol:

[August]

And that is not how it was supposed to work.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Gerald]

Aren't there greater worries for people in combat? :lol: Yes, that condoms are out of stock........:o

[krashkart]

Yes, that condoms are out of stock........:o

Uh-oh! Better have a doctor look that over. :arrgh!:








Aaand the classic jingle that's been burned into my psyche since junior high:

Peter-Rooter. That's the name. You just flush your troubles, down the drain.


Someone here is bound to remember that one.

[Gerald]

Uh-oh! Better have a doctor look that over. :arrgh!:








Aaand the classic jingle that's been burned into my psyche since junior high:

Peter-Rooter. That's the name. You just flush your troubles, down the drain.


Someone here is bound to remember that one. You are absolutely right, that's for experts :huh:

[TLAM Strike]

Yes, that condoms are out of stock........:o

Well if you know a better way of water proofing the muzzle of an M-16 I'm all ears... :O:

[krashkart]

Well if you know a better way of water proofing the muzzle of an M-16 I'm all ears... :O:

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww35/sqeeber/condom_full_body_costume_6838big.jpg

Why not waterproof the rifle and the rifleman with the ease and convenience of one condom ? :DL

[TLAM Strike]

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww35/sqeeber/condom_full_body_costume_6838big.jpg

Why not waterproof the rifle and the rifleman with the ease and convenience of one condom ? :DL

That's called MOPP 4 ;)

I'm qute sure some of our resident grunts have "fond" memories of that... :O:

[Freiwillige]

I roommated with a couple of Marine reservists back in the 90's. And this topic came up all the time. The consensus was not good. In fact they used to sing a song similar to this (More rude) all the time as a laugh but it shows you where their heads were at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paGa80T-nWU

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON - Congress is one step away from ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, with the Senate ready for a landmark vote that could deliver a major victory to the homosexual community, liberals and President Barack Obama.Senators planned a procedural vote Saturday on a bill ending the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as lawmakers held an unusual weekend session in their race to finish the year's legislative business.If at least 60 senators vote to advance the bill as expected, the repeal, which passed the House this week, could win final passage by late afternoon.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/



Note: Update post, Published December 18, 2010

[onelifecrisis]

It's not my country... but when did that ever stop me having an opinion? :D

I can see valid points being made on both sides, but pragmatically I support the decision to get rid of DADT. Gays always have and always will serve in any army. Any man who feels he can't concentrate with a gay man at his side may simply choose not to sign up. Simple!

[Madox58]

When incoming fire is hitting your AO?
The last thing your thinking of is who is or is not Gay!
If that is the top thing on your mind in Combat?
You deserve to suffer whatever happens to you.

[antikristuseke]

But what if the gay guy gets shot and you have to do your best to provide first aid and some of his gay blood gets on you, you might catch THE GAY!:haha:

[TLAM Strike]

But what if the gay guy gets shot and you have to do your best to provide first aid and some of his gay blood gets on you, you might catch THE GAY!:haha:

I'm reminded of the old MASH episode where they get a racist demanding only "white blood" for his transfusion. Hawkeye and Trapper then darken his skin while he is asleep to freak him out. :haha:

[Freiwillige]

Gays can serve in the military its called DADT! I feel DADT was a good compromise to the issue. This is a volunteer army and polls show that a great many volunteers would not reenlist if gays served openly. Some polls show as high as 40% in the Marine Corps!

One republican stated that they hope America can stomach re instituting the draft because that is the only way they will be able to shore up the losses.

[Tribesman]

Some polls show as high as 40% in the Marine Corps!


So does that mean a sizable minority of up to 40% of marines are secretly in the closet?

[ReFaN]

I'm reminded of the old MASH episode where they get a racist demanding only "white blood" for his transfusion. Hawkeye and Trapper then darken his skin while he is asleep to freak him out. :haha:

Heh, i Remember that :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0 *Not related to Mash*

[Platapus]

One republican stated that they hope America can stomach re instituting the draft because that is the only way they will be able to shore up the losses.


OR

Maybe we will stop starting wars????? :hmmm:

[Dowly]

OR

Maybe we will stop starting wars????? :hmmm:

There's a thought. :DL

[antikristuseke]

What, stop starting wars? **** that!
Isnt it basic american culture to declare war on everything? Like drugs, christmass, religion, atheism and **** knows what else... it has worked great so far.

[Takeda Shingen]

But what if the gay guy gets shot and you have to do your best to provide first aid and some of his gay blood gets on you, you might catch THE GAY!:haha:

:haha:

[Dowly]

What, stop starting wars? **** that!
Isnt it basic american culture to declare war on everything? Like drugs, christmass, religion, atheism and **** knows what else... it has worked great so far.

Oh oh oh! I got it! I give an anonymous tip that american culture is planning terror attacks on US soil and US will then declare war on american culture! Holy ****, I'm genius! :o

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCieAb-55fU&feature=related

*Language*

[krashkart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCieAb-55fU&feature=related

*Language*

MadTV. Irreverent sandbaggers! :har::har::har:

[August]

Freiwillige has a valid question. Will this will affect enlistment and retention enough for the Dems to justify bringing back the draft?

[Tribesman]

Will this will affect enlistment and retention enough for the Dems to justify bringing back the draft?
Will they just do the same as the last government and issue lots of waivers for criminals and drug users to make up the shortfall in enlistment numbers?