Spot on Opinion about DADT from Oliver North

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Maximus, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. Maximus

    Maximus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Maximus, not to stir the hornet's nest, and you know I truly respect your opinion, but I have several answers to Mr. North's "ultimate question" on whether we have any examples of how getting rid of DADT will help us do the mission.

    I'll leave you with one.

    Guy I knew in my sister squadron, very good combat aviator. Tons of experience under fire when it matters, with the citations and medals to prove it. Solid leader, respected for his sound judgment, strong knowledge of tactics, and even-headed temperament under pressure. A proven warrior greatly respected by his peers and the junior aviators who worked under him, who relied on his experience to get them ready for the next round of conflict.

    Relieved of duty and forced out of the service with less than 2 years before retirement because a police informant was going to testify that he was a homosexual. The AF lost a good aviator and leader. And most importantly, the mission readiness and capability of his squadron WAS negatively impacted by his removal.

    Sorry, Ollie. You'll have to do better than that.

    The Generals, molded in a military experience from a generation ago, are just too timid to admit they are backing a policy mostly because of their own prejudices. The majority of the young men and women they lead just couldn't care less about their buddy' sexual orientation, as long as they can do their job when under fire.

    Just my $0.02.....
     
  3. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    Oliver North has no idea what is good or bad for the military. He has demonstrated that by his actions. He forgot his oath to defend the Constitution when he was involved in the biggest Constitutional crisis since Watergate. Illegally funding a war in Nicaragua, without Congressional approval/oversight, and then lying about it under oath. I would hardly call such a person a beacon of authority on understanding a profession that is based on honorable service. For you right wing guys that are sure to jump on me, let me remind you, the only reason Lt. Col North is not in prison is because the ACLU worked to have his convictions overturned. This is the same ACLU that helped represent Rush Limbaugh during his publicized court battle involving Oxycontin abuse (just saying). That really has no relevance to anything regarding DADT, I just like saying it.

    Whatever I feel about Oliver North is irrelevant. Bullet is right, no one cares what the sexual orientation of the guy next to you in the field is. If you do, it's because you have personal prejudices that you need to get over. As long as a military member is competent and can do his or her job, there should be no issue as to sexual orientation.
     
  4. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sorry Bullet & Sprog, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this issue. I think that, particularly at the lower levels, and especially with combat troops, a homosexual serving will be viewed negatively. After all, combat troops base their humor around lewd, anti-homosexual jokes and often times sleep/shower/eat next to each other....I do not predict very many being comfortable with a gay man in the shower with them. Why do people keep wanting to experiment with the military? This is an organization created to PROTECT us, not for us to EXPERIMENT with for society. I'm sorry, but the USMC Commandant is correct. I respect all of you immensely for your service to our country but, no offense this isn't "your" Air Force anymore. It's the younger generations. And I think the majority of us would like to preserve the traditions, honor, integrity, and sanctity of our military.

    Rant Finished
     
  5. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    272
    Samaca10, how do you know these things?

    I don't agree with homosexuality, but I can't think of a valid legal reason for discriminating against homosexuals (at least not without bringing religion-based arguments).

    Will it cause problems? Sure. So did desegregation.
    There are problems now, too. (See Bullet's example)
    These people are serving now, but are forced to hide part of their lives. That is a bad idea. DADT has forced out some capable people and created potential security concerns for others. (Pretty easy to blackmail someone when their career is based on keeping part of their life secret.)
     
  6. Emsa

    Emsa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    3
    Beats me why Oliver North is considered a credible commentator on anything. Its one sided tripe from begining to end. And im really curious Sam if your post actually makes any sense to you when you read it back. Not only is it among the most junior officer and enlisted ranks of the military that by far the most support for repealing DADT has been demonstrated but clearly DADT is a product of the older generation (not necessarily of the military only but of the political/military generation before you) that you claim no longer own the AF, but if the younger generation that you refer to just maintain the status quo in what way is it now your AF??????
     
  7. Weather

    Weather Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the end of the day, we're all going to salute like the good soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines (and coasties) that we are and do what congress tells us to do.

    If congress repeals DADT, the US military will comply with whatever directives they're given. It might not be pretty, but it will happen.
     
  8. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    Dude. Big time stereotypes there. So the reason that homosexuals should be excluded from service is because straight troops are going to engage in sexual harassment and we should allow that? What if, instead of "lewd anti-homosexual jokes" they were telling racist jokes or jokes that minimized women? Well, in practicality, those jokes do exist. If, however, word of such jokes gets to command, the people telling them would be in deep doo doo. Why is it only ok to tell lewd, bigoted jokes against one group of people? Also, your whole "showering" example is predicated on an assumption that all homosexuals are what, rapists? Sexual assault is still a crime, and any such incident would be treated accordingly by UCMJ. As far as I know, homosexuals need to keep clean. And who cares if a gay guy eats next to you? We should exclude gay members because what? Straight troops might catch homosexuality at chow time?

    Why is this "experimenting" with the military? Gay members are already serving, and have served with honor (Bullets example). You might want to ask Harry Truman (if he were still alive) why he felt it necessary to "experiment" with the military and desegregate it. After all, at that time, combat troops often had to eat/sleep/shower next to each other and a lot of their humor was based on racist jokes. Oh, that's right, it's because racist behavior is unacceptable and African Americans deserved the chance to serve. Well, gay Americans who love their country and want to defend it should not be excluded because of an archaic policy devised by the older generations.
     
  9. vampsoul

    vampsoul Candidate

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    What bothers me about DADT is that it essentially involves asking a service member to lie to their fellow service members who need to be able to trust each other implicitly in order to do their job to the best of their abilities. Service members are supposed to uphold standards of honor; what is honorable about asking that someone conceal part of their identity from the people who rely on him/her? The obvious "there's something not quite right here" aura that is bound to eventually permeate the working environment can be FAR more damaging to "unit cohesion" than allowing homosexual men and women to serve openly.
     
  10. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    One could argue that it was the Congress that forgot their oaths, and that he was doing what should have been done.

    I thought lying under oath was OK with liberals, now?

    Oh! That's right! Only if it's about sex and sexual harassment regarding an employee young enough to be your daughter. Silly me!

    And you'd be wrong.

    The ACLU was arguing that no one's medical file should be rifled through by the government for any reason. The AG in Palm Beach wanted to do it to Limbaugh because they were on a witch hunt against someone whose opinions they didn't like, which is precisely the kind of abuse the ACLU was arguing would happen.

    As for their other positions, they fall under the "broken clock" rule.

    You ever spent any time in the field in close quarters with a bunch of people?

    Ah, yes. The old, "If you don't agree with my perverted view of the universe, then you're a bigot" routine. Classic.

    Except when that sexual orientation begins impacting their competency and those around them.

    Hey, let's allow child molesters to be teachers. After all, what they do in the privacy of their own home has NO impact on their job performance, right?



    My biggest concern with the repeal of DADT isn't the number of professionals who do their jobs properly and proudly. No, it's going to be with the wave of activists who will come through demanding such things as cross-dressing in uniform, demanding sex-change operations on the government dime, and all of that jazz. THEN you will see the ACLU in their usual form, because after all, denying these folks that is a violation of their civil rights, right?

    There is also the concern about the rights of individuals not to be placed in a position where they can be oggled (privately or otherwise) by someone else. What about THEIR rights? After all, if a homosexual is now granted the opportunity to openly serve and gets the chance to walk around a berthing compartment with a bunch of people in their prime, then why don't the straights get to do that in the berthing compartments of the opposite sex? Oh! Women have a right to privacy? Well so do men!

    The way to solve ALL of this is to simply have open coeducational living quarters, that way everyone IS equal. Yeah. Like THAT'S going to happen! :rolleyes:

    Therefore, this is not a request for equal rights, it's a request for special recognition and privleges.


    Oh, and Colonel North has more credibility on the military and life in it than just about anyone else on thia board, and certainly more than any of the schmucks in Congress and the ACLU pushing this issue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  11. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    My biggest concern or belief is the minute DADT is removed you will see lawsuits from the ACLU regarding benefits for a spouse. If I were an ACLU lawyer I would be drooling over the fact that not every state recognizes homosexual unions, thus some homosexual military members will get more benefits than others. It would an easy way to make a case for discrimination.

    How do you give housing or BAH with deps to one homosexual member and not the other? The military would be required to follow the regs, you are entitled if you have a valid marriage license. They will argue it is an unfair practice to deny these benefits based on HOR.

    How about military ID? How about health insurance? How about PCS pay? How about moving weight allowances? How about BAH? All of these issues are tied to the marriage certificate.

    I believe homosexuals should be able to serve openly, but this is not just about sexual orientation, this is also a fiscal issue. Until the federal govt gives the same rights regarding marriage/unions to homosexuals, they are going to find themselves tied up in courts regarding homosexuals within the military.
     
  12. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    343
    Funny...

    I see all the "emotions" in this "discussion" and they mirror what I expect from the military at-large when DADT IS overturned.

    BUT...take the emotions out of the equation...

    PIMA has hit it dead-on!

    Study Pres Truman's desegregation of the military...MOST of the issues that were feared were "social" and not "fiscal." Folks simply did NOT accept black and white together in large parts of this country. And I don't mean just the South...plenty of places North of the Mason-Dixon line made the South look tame.

    When Pres Truman said: "And it shall be so..." then it was. And yes, military members were discriminated against; but it was social. When DADT is overturned...then the seperation of powers re: states' rights and federal law argument will begin. MOST states do not allow homosexual marriage; but if the military allows homosexual's to serve openly, then they will HAVE to accept marriage...and there's your 10th amendment argument.

    I truly believe that by and large the military will salute smartly and press on once DADT is overturned. Yes, I also believe there will be "incidents" and some folks will be discriminated against, the pendulum will swing both ways, people will be dealt with harshly, special "privileges" will be granted homosexuals to "right actual or perceived" wrongs...it'll be chaotic in some places and times.

    And then it'll be fine.

    At the end of the day, this is MUCH bigger than the individual.

    And yes, I also have seen a superb military member who was outed as a lesbian by others (she never said word one) forced to leave the USAF. And when she left, we lost a superb leader who had a brilliant career ahead of her.

    What benefit to the USA was that?

    Steve
    USAFA ALO
    USAFA '83
     
  13. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    There was also this recent case where some policemen (who just HAPPENED to see a marriage certificate that just HAPPENED to be close enough to a window to be read from outside......yeah right) spilled the beans on an otherwise excellent AF SGT.




    I really DESPISE how so many people "love" the military because it is a place where social experimentation can be forced without complaints, rather than because of what they are supposed to do: kill people and break things to keep us free. :mad:
     
  14. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    Zaphod, I just spent the better part of an hour thoroughly rebutting every aspect of your post. I hit the wrong button, and lost it. Such is life. Most of the posters are on my side, so there is no need to belabor the point.

    As I have no desire to type my rebuttal again, I'll just hit on one thing-I'm not wrong about the ACLU coming to Limbaugh's aid. The issue of the government being able to subpoena medical records is one involving an individual's right to privacy. The ACLU came to Limbaugh's defense there, because everyone is entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights, and it doesn't matter what that person's political agenda is. It speaks volumes about the ACLU that they would come to his aid, as they clearly do not see eye to eye with Rush politically. The same can be said of their defense of Oliver North at the appellate level.

    Here is a news article about the ACLU and Limbaugh. It is from Fox News, so you can't say I'm not being "fair and balanced. "

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html


    I had a lot more, but you'll have to pm me.
     
  15. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    Proudly contributed to his defense fund back in the old days. Watched the Congressional Inquisition every day. Best Quote Ever: "What am I a potted plant?" Go Ollie:thumb:
     
  16. linkgmr

    linkgmr Old Grad

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be perfectly honest, I would rather serve with someone who would serve alongside me no matter what than with someone who would only do so if he were comfortable with my sexual preferences.

    But that's just my opinion.
     
  17. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Which is what I said.

    Yeah, right.

    Sorry, but just because they did ONE thing right doesn't make up for all the other damage they've done.

    I sense something....... something I've not felt since......... the last incarnation of Confused was here..... :biggrin:
     
  18. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    The funny thing is that it never occurred to me to ask what the other's preferences were, nor did they ever feel the need to tell me theirs.

    Funny how that works....
     
  19. linkgmr

    linkgmr Old Grad

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you didn't assume that they were straight?

    Suppose you found out that the other was a homosexual, through no admission of their own? Does that person deserve to be thrown out of the service?
     
  20. sprog

    sprog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    9
    You don't have to sense anything. I'm an ACLU member, Democrat, and proud left wing pinko. I admit it. I'm also an Air Force vet and VMI graduate. I'm sure you are proud of your right wing political stance, and you feel you feel passionately about your side of various issues and causes. That's fine, as disagreement is healthy in democratic societies. I'm not trying to make you agree with me, as I certainly don't agree with you. It takes all kinds.
     

Share This Page