Poll: Don't ask don't tell

[Mel_13]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

Our Nation fields troops to break and kill people with the expectation they'll do it with the least amount of harm to themselves and innocent bystanders while achieving an successful military objective. I say the Commanders should be left free to do that and not have to engage in social debates over matters that don't matter in the context of battle.

Where's that answer on the survey?

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Cons ution says otherwise.

[Yonivore]

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Cons ution says otherwise.

No, it doesn't.

I take that back. It may say otherwise but, it doesn't say what you think it does or there'd be no argument. Would there?

[ChumpDumper]

The military is not infallible. They have ed up mightily before.

[Mel_13]

No, it doesn't.

I take that back. It may say otherwise but, it doesn't say what you think it does or there'd be no argument. Would there?

It directly contradicts the portion of your previous post that I quoted in bold. There's no argument about that.

Clearly there is an argument as to what the policy should be regarding sexuals serving in the military, but there is absolutely no argument that "civilian leaders have a stake in the game". That stake is clearly defined in the Cons ution.

[MannyIsGod]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

Our Nation fields troops to break and kill people with the expectation they'll do it with the least amount of harm to themselves and innocent bystanders while achieving an successful military objective. I say the Commanders should be left free to do that and not have to engage in social debates over matters that don't matter in the context of battle.

Where's that answer on the survey?

The military still falls under the cons ution.

[Yonivore]

It directly contradicts the portion of your previous post that I quoted in bold. There's no argument about that.

Clearly there is an argument as to what the policy should be regarding sexuals serving in the military, but there is absolutely no argument that "civilian leaders have a stake in the game". That stake is clearly defined in the Cons ution.

I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

[MannyIsGod]

Blah, Mel beat me. Good job pointing out the blatantly obvious to the hopelessly blind.

[Yonivore]

The military still falls under the cons ution.

Yeah, I know.

However, I'm not certain the issue of gays in the military does...except as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

Our military is subject to the same rules that everyone else is and who has a supposed stake in the game is absolutely and completely irrelevant.

The military must follow the same rules everyone else is subject to regarding equality in this country and that is a principle that is above anything else you can come up with. NO law in this country supersedes the cons ution.

[ChumpDumper]

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

Frankly, you would have said the same thing about desegregating the armed forces in 1948.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, I know.

However, I'm not certain the issue of gays in the military does...except as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Um, what?

[Mel_13]

I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

The Commander in Chief has a stake in every important decision concerning the military.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. Its the United States military, not some separate en y that somehow exists outside our countries preview.

Civilians and their leadership are just supposed to let the military operate in their own bubble? Yeah, that.

[Yonivore]

The Commander in Chief has a stake in every important decision concerning the military.

That's not necessarily true. The Commander-in-Chief makes decisions all the time that don't impact him personally.

[Yonivore]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. Its the United States military, not some separate en y that somehow exists outside our countries preview.

Civilians and their leadership are just supposed to let the military operate in their own bubble? Yeah, that.

They have their own system of laws.

[ChumpDumper]

They have their own system of laws.

That doesn't mean they are not subject to other laws.

[MannyIsGod]

They have their own system of laws.

None of which supersede the Cons ution.

[DarrinS]

Don't ask don't tell is a re ed policy.

[ChumpDumper]

It might be instructive to list a few other countries that exclude gays from military service:

Cuba
China
Egypt
Iran
North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Venezuela
Yemen


Nice company you guys want to keep.

[Mel_13]

That's not necessarily true. The Commander-in-Chief makes decisions all the time that don't impact him personally.

Huh? Of course he does. That doesn't make my point untrue in any way at all.

[Yonivore]

None of which supersede the Cons ution.

Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.

And, I concur, DADT is a stupid policy but, that's not the issue.

[Mel_13]

They have their own system of laws.

Military law is not separate from U.S. law, rather it is subject to it.

[ChumpDumper]

Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.

if the policy is uncons utional, there is nothing to decide.

[MannyIsGod]

Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.

And, I concur, DADT is a stupid policy but, that's not the issue.

You must have missed the recent federal court ruling deciding DADT is uncons utional.

[Yonivore]

You must have missed the recent federal court ruling deciding DADT is uncons utional.

And yet, it persists.

There's a federal court out in California that is constantly saying a bunch of is uncons utional and they keep getting their asses handed back to them.