Reply With Quote
I would tend to agree with you. However this is a case where the military can't really do much about it. Its the law, and until that changes...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/30/us....ays/index.html
I think this is the perfect example of why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed. Here we have a useful officer, an Arab linguist who seemed to be well-received by his fellow soldiers. And he's kicked out because he was gay. Does that really make sense?CNN -- A panel of New York National Guard officers has recommended that an Iraq war veteran who acknowledged his sexuality must leave the service, his supporters said Tuesday.
First Lt. Dan Choi disclosed in March that he is gay, challenging the 1994 "don't ask, don't tell" law that requires the military to discharge troops who disclose their sexual orientation. Tuesday's ruling, made after a daylong hearing, is a step toward stripping Choi of his officer's commission and ending his career.
Fulton said the Guard's Federal Recognition Board heard from members of Choi's unit, his commanding officer and fellow soldiers who served in Iraq, and reviewed more than 150 letters of support for Choi, a 2003 West Point graduate and an Arab linguist.
"At the end of the day, they did not consider any of that material [to] whether he was a good soldier," she said. "It was solely about whether he said he was gay."
I know the arguments go that it would ruin a soldier's morale to know there might be a gay person in thier company... but honestly, I think our soldiers are more professional than that. I've known some gay people in the military, and though it was pretty well-known they were gay, they didn't 'admit' it, so they weren't thrown out.
I think it's time that we didn't discriminate against gays in the military. If they can do the job, then let them! Our soldiers are professional enough to handle a year to a year and a half away from their job, working every day with a minimum of sleep, in a hostile fire zone, but they aren't able to handle working next to a gay man or woman?
Anyways, that's my two cents. Spending money to train a linguist, or any soldier, isn't cheap, and it is a disservice to them and our nation that they can't serve openly as who they are.
I would tend to agree with you. However this is a case where the military can't really do much about it. Its the law, and until that changes...
My opinion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it this guy wanted out. He used this as the means to do so.
You'd be wrong.
This guy outed himself on the Rachel Maddow show a couple months ago I believe. He was doing it to bring awareness to the situation and try to force Obama's hand in repealing it. He knew his credentials were special in that he was an Arab linguist and it'd attract attention.
He didn't want out, but he felt he had to be a martyr of sorts.
Spartans boinked one another to improve comradary.
U mad milt. loving phobic america?
Same thing happened to an Air Force pilot who had like 2000 hours of combat air time and was a veteran of both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.
They're trying to make a statement and Obama is leaving them hanging in the wind. He's definitely wrong for this.
Then he was too stupid to remain in the military if he didn't think it would happen.
Um, no. He misjudged Obama's intentions and he's getting ed for it. It has nothing to do with him being dumb. It has every thing to do with Obama being a about DADT.
It's pretty sad when they can ram Cap n Trade through in a week and yet it's gonna take months and months and months to get rid of DADT.
never mind, jman beat me...
Don't expect for DADT to go away anytime soon. It's just not going to happen. It will happen about the same time men and women use common showers and multiple solders rooms.
Battlestar Galactica universe did have an 'interesting' military in their complete disregard for gender politics, and sporting events.
I was thinking of BSG myself when I posted that.
Why out himself now?
Even if he WANTED to out himself, that doesn't detract from my argument that it is stupid to lose people like this, that the government has spent alot of money to train, simply because we're afraid soldiers might not be professional enough to handle it.
There's nothing to be gained politically by vocally opposing DADT - that's why the vast majority of politicians could care less. That - and the gay population is a VERY SMALL minority. And there just isn't much public outcry to repeal it - in fact, I would guess there's far more support for keeping things just the way they are.
You know WC, that when you say things like this, given your admitted skepticality, I think it would be impossible to 'prove' this to you.
For instance, if I said, "I think WC is actually a female who lives in New England and voted straight Democrat", could you prove me wrong? Of course you couldn't. I'd just say all the evidence you provided is suspect for one reason or another.
Being skeptical is only useful when the situation warrants it, IMHO.
Not surprisingly, you'd be wrong.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w...nd_of_don.html
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-s...-military.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/0...ask-dont-tell/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/co...e-members.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Ma...-Marriage.aspx
Yes - these polls show people's at udes have changed - when asked about it in a poll. But I still haven't seen much of a PUBLIC outcry or protests about this issue. It's one thing to support something in an anonymous poll, and quite another to publicly support it.
But - considering the moral breakdown in America, I'm not surprised by these polls. And the policy will probably be changed sooner rather than later. Just one last point - I think the only people they should poll are the military members - after all, they're the ones most affected by the policy!
Funny how when you take people who support such ideas, how many of them change their views when they learn all the relevant facts.
A good leader does not endorse legislation based on polling data.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-01-2009 at 03:40 PM.
You could say that a 1Lt outing himself would be a 'public protest', as it were. I think you'll see more. Already, many in the LBGT community have been taking Obama to task for putting their agenda on the backburner, as it were.
Hes a politician, I would put it on the backburner too. He wants to spend his political capital elsewhere, and repealing DADT would be too expensive right now.
Too expensive? Maybe... if he thinks he can afford to lose the LBGT vote. Decisions, decisions...
He has them right where he wants them. They're not going to vote for Republicans obviously and theyre not going to vote for any pro-gay 3rd party candidates in cities other than San Fran maybe where that kinda person can actually get elected. So it's either vote Dem or don't vote at all.
Obama will probably give them another pittance in the Summer of 2010 to get them out to vote for the mid terms. He might be saving up DADT for 2012 though.
What a .
Scratch that. DADT would be too controversial for 2012. I'll change that to either Fall of 2010 or Spring of 2011.
Lame... another policy that puts the US behind advanced first world nations in social rights...
I'm with WC on this one. I think dude just wanted out of the Military.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
