Retired Generals, Admirals want repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Who gives a shit? Can they shoot a gun?

If you mean they might do a better job, history does support that theory. After all some of the most feared warriors in history, such as the Spartans and the Samurai were commonly openly gay. The Hoplites saw it as a good thing, because it built a stronger union and it was encouraged.

Alexander was gay and led an army which conquered most of the world as he knew it. Apparently it had little effect on the success of the armies in history as to who was in the ranks, so long as they were there to do their duty and carry out their orders.

By the way, would is spelled with an l. Does this represent the intelligence of the poster?

Are Unuchs allowed...?

The hugs and kisses gang?

How about those who have there dicks at center command?

I don't think anyone has to tell...it is evident...

Family guy when stewy and the dog start making out to get kicked out of the war. Nice move. I wonder how many over there would "be coming out". I know I would to get out of that fucked up mess. Is that Unamerican of me :(

What a stupid idea. Not only does it codify and entrench bigotry and intolerance but it would take away willing troops from an already under-strength military.

Janitor wrote:

By the way, would is spelled with an l. Does this represent the intelligence of the poster?

Probably a typo.

Anyway, I would support macho gays being allowed to "openly" (whatever THAT means) serve in our military.

Prancing sissies can stay behind the lines and man "Pogue/REMF" positions (wow, is that open to different interpretations, or what?!?).

I haven't decided on my opinion of lesbians in the military yet. I'll get bact to you.

Who cares?
America is going down the tubes under an illegal, radical Marxist leader, elected by a moronic electorate.

Thank God, I no longer have to live there.

holy macaroni wrote:

Who gives a shit? Can they shoot a gun?

What the he*l called this racy?! LOL

..........

normal men don't want to serve with perverts...

causes a breakdown in unit cohesion......or maybe thats the idea?

the left-wing has been trying to weaken,undermine and destroy the military for 40 years now...

the introduction of f*ggots and women into previously all male military units is a good start..10,000 years of military wisdom ignored by the dimbulbs overseeing military affairs.

americas military took on and destroyed 2 of the strongest military forces in world history,{ germany,japan}, in less time than it's taking to conquer one primitive country, "iraq"....thats gotta say something for the fighting abilitys of the current military units...

..........

..........

What difference does it make anyway? Is this only for men or does this apply to women as well? What about bi-sexual people?

Janitor wrote:

If you mean they might do a better job, history does support that theory. After all some of the most feared warriors in history, such as the Spartans and the Samurai were commonly openly gay. The Hoplites saw it as a good thing, because it built a stronger union and it was encouraged.
Alexander was gay and led an army which conquered most of the world as he knew it. Apparently it had little effect on the success of the armies in history as to who was in the ranks, so long as they were there to do their duty and carry out their orders.
By the way, would is spelled with an l. Does this represent the intelligence of the poster?

There are those of us who are familiar enough with world history to know that what you say is true. Many kings lespt lovers on the side, sometimes both male and female. Sometimes ancient kings got married just to keep the line going, but kept male lovers on the side. It makes sense if you know that marriage back then, depending on thier station, was political and finacial and had nothing to do with love. The idea of the nuclear family is relatively new. Americans tend to forget what life was like before America was founded. Homosexuality has been around since two of one sex of humans has been on earth.

Yes, the gays coming marching in, indeed. Now homophobic str8 men won't be safe from their homoerotic feelings anywhere. We already know that gays and lesbians are way more intelligent than str8 folks, so a lot of those HS dropouts are going to be kicked aside in favor of those gays and lesbians. Odds are, the queers become superior officers in record time, when allowed to serve openly. Before you know it, the military will be run by queers.

Janitor wrote:

If you mean they might do a better job, history does support that theory. After all some of the most feared warriors in history, such as the Spartans and the Samurai were commonly openly gay. The Hoplites saw it as a good thing, because it built a stronger union and it was encouraged....

Well, that's just great! By the way, how'd it turn out for all of the above mentioned openly gay warriors?

I'm in the military, and I know that there's gays in it already. They stick out like a glittery pink scarf in the jungle. In the Marine Corps, I haven't met one of those flamboyant flaming types, but I know there here. As long as they don't draw too much attention to their gayness, they'll be ok. The Marine Corps upperleadership is mostly conservative WASP, and they'll have problems. I know females who claim to be straight or don't address their sexuality (that's a rarety in the Corps), but come'on.....really...you look like a trucker, and your stronger than most of the guys in the unit. I won't ask, you won't tell, but we both know.

But that's not a bad thing, because they're not a weak link during ultamite football games.

As for the Navy, Army, and Airforce...they're already here, queer, and we're use to it. I work in what you might call a joint service area. I've seen them in every branch, and judging from the way the other members of their branch interact with them, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

Bottom line, the transition to openly gay people in the military won't be easy. There's going to be hazing incidents and discrimination from the closed minded. Plus there's the issue of whether gays and straights should room together, since they don't let men and women do it.

Janitor wrote:

If you mean they might do a better job, history does support that theory. After all some of the most feared warriors in history, such as the Spartans and the Samurai were commonly openly gay. The Hoplites saw it as a good thing, because it built a stronger union and it was encouraged.
Alexander was gay and led an army which conquered most of the world as he knew it. Apparently it had little effect on the success of the armies in history as to who was in the ranks, so long as they were there to do their duty and carry out their orders.
By the way, would is spelled with an l. Does this represent the intelligence of the poster?

Yeah, history also tell's us that this is the 21st century, so get out of your fantasy world and face reality.

johnny canuk wrote:

americas military took on and destroyed 2 of the strongest military forces in world history,{ germany,japan}, in less time than it's taking to conquer one primitive country, "iraq"....thats gotta say something for the fighting abilitys of the current military units

we're using enormously different tactics this time. Had we dropped some nukes on the whole of that region, this mess would've quite possibly been over. Granted, we'd have an entirely different problem to deal with, of course...

Blaming our drawn out mess in Iraq on gays and women in the military is idiocy, pure and simple.

johnny canuk wrote:

americas military took on and destroyed 2 of the strongest military forces in world history,{ germany,japan}, in less time than it's taking to conquer one primitive country, "iraq"....thats gotta say something for the fighting abilitys of the current military units

And there were gay soldiers in their fighting, whether anyone knows they are gay or not.

The military knows that not only are they struggling to keep their numbers up, but a professional soldier doesn't allow their sexuality to be an issue in combat.

You and your fellow dimbulb, single dimension, black or white types apparently only imagine gay men as effeminate queens giggling at each other.

I am fairly confident that if an honest list of all the gay soldiers who ever served in the military ever came to light, the numbers would be staggering. It has no more to do with "unit cohesion" than it did when black troops were allowed in combat. The only real road block is in the minds of simple people like yourself.

If they can be professional and effective soldiers, I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation.