We lost a Lt fluent in Arabic due to DADT

[Ms Tree]

Lt Choi

Lt Choi graduated West Point. He served 2 tours of duty in Iraq as a platoon leader. He is also fluent in Arabic. He has been n the military for at least 7 years with out incident. Some how the fact that we now know he is gay makes him unfit to serve his country.

The military is talking about conducting a survey to see if the troops are OK with working side by side with gays (they already are). First off, who the hell cares what the military thinks. If someone is qualified to serve he/she is qualified to serve. Their sexual orientation has no more to do with anything than their race does. BTW, in 1947 the military conducted a survey to see if they wanted to desegregate the military. No bog surprise but close to 75% of the folks did not want the military integrated. Truman told them to stick it and did it anyway. They followed orders and the world kept spinning. Go figure.

1947 survey


Since DADT we have lost 12,000 soldiers. We are fighting 2 wars and NK is getting plucky yet we can afford to discharge over 12,000 qualified soldiers? That has got to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard.

 

[delldude]

There is no room for GLBT in a Marxist/Socialist country, only when votes are needed is it an issue.

 

[Ms Tree]

There is no room for GLBT in a Marxist/Socialist country, only when votes are needed is it an issue.

What kind of meds are you on? When did the COTUS get revoked? I must have missed the memo on that one.

 

[dapoes]

There is no room for GLBT in a Marxist/Socialist country, only when votes are needed is it an issue.

Err, very well said. The disdain they show is muted when they are wanting their vote. They always go for the lowest hanging fruit (no pun intended).

 

[delldude]

What kind of meds are you on? When did the COTUS get revoked? I must have missed the memo on that one.

January 20th, 2009......wake up.

 

[Ms Tree]

Seems like you are saying it is ok to discharge close to 13,000 soldiers for merely admitting they are gay even though they were gay upon enlistment. They were gay when they were serving. More than likely their colleges knew they were gay but actually saying they were gay makes them unfit for service. This at a time when we are engaged in two conflicts that have stretched our forces to the limits.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

Gays have not been permitted in the military long before Obama became POTUS. DADT was implemented under a republican Congress and democrat controlled WH. There has been no room in the military for gays just as there was no room in the military for blacks till 1948. Of course when we were in a world war fighting for our survival, it was OK for blacks to serve but they had to be segregated.

 

[dapoes]

Seems like you are saying it is ok to discharge close to 13,000 soldiers for merely admitting they are gay even though they were gay upon enlistment. They were gay when they were serving. More than likely their colleges knew they were gay but actually saying they were gay makes them unfit for service. This at a time when we are engaged in two conflicts that have stretched our forces to the limits.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

Gays have not been permitted in the military long before Obama became POTUS. DADT was implemented under a republican Congress and democrat controlled WH. There has been no room in the military for gays just as there was no room in the military for blacks till 1948. Of course when we were in a world war fighting for our survival, it was OK for blacks to serve but they had to be segregated.

This is not a perfect world, nor will it ever be. No matter what the liberal/progressive agenda is. You cant force ones agenda or opinions/thoughts onto another. If a person feels uncomfortable around another due to his sexual preference, that's his issue to contend with and shouldn't be pushed upon him via the liberal/progressive Ideology. DADT makes sense as the military is not the forum to parade around ones sexual preference. Those that do will only bring grief upon themselves. Its not about being sensitive or being politically correct. Its about common sense and duty. You are there to serve your country, not a forum to champion ones sexual identity.

 

[delldude]

Seems like you are saying it is ok to discharge close to 13,000 soldiers for merely admitting they are gay even though they were gay upon enlistment. They were gay when they were serving. More than likely their colleges knew they were gay but actually saying they were gay makes them unfit for service. This at a time when we are engaged in two conflicts that have stretched our forces to the limits.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

Gays have not been permitted in the military long before Obama became POTUS. DADT was implemented under a republican Congress and democrat controlled WH. There has been no room in the military for gays just as there was no room in the military for blacks till 1948. Of course when we were in a world war fighting for our survival, it was OK for blacks to serve but they had to be segregated.

What I am clearly saying is this administration is steadfast intent on moving us into Socialism/Communism and that ideology has no room for GLBT. Like I guess its still too obscure to tell this is the direction with so many ideologues of that flavor surrounding our esteemed first black president.

 

[Seatacus]

Lt Choi

. Some how the fact that we now know he is gay makes him unfit to serve his country.

No one is allowed to ask so why did he tell?

 

[Ms Tree]

This is not a perfect world, nor will it ever be. No matter what the liberal/progressive agenda is. You cant force ones agenda or opinions/thoughts onto another. If a person feels uncomfortable around another due to his sexual preference, that's his issue to contend with and shouldn't be pushed upon him via the liberal/progressive Ideology. DADT makes sense as the military is not the forum to parade around ones sexual preference. Those that do will only bring grief upon themselves. Its not about being sensitive or being politically correct. Its about common sense and duty. You are there to serve your country, not a forum to champion ones sexual identity.

According to the link I posted over 75% of the people surveyed in 1947 did not want the military integrated. Do you do believe Trueman should not have gone against their will and integrated the military?

 

[Ms Tree]

No one is allowed to ask so why did he tell?

Were I in his shoes I probably would have done it because I was tired of being treated like a second class citizen and a stand needs to be made. Rosa Parks decided enough was enough. Why should he be asked to risk his life for his country and not ask to be treated like every other citizen. Most people I have spoken to that we in the military said everyone knew who was gay and no one gave a crap. As long as they did their job and had their back, all was good. The expectations were the same if they were gay or straight.

 

[Seatacus]

Most people I have spoken to that we in the military said everyone knew who was gay and no one gave a crap. As long as they did their job and had their back, all was good. The expectations were the same if they were gay or straight.

I believe you are correct that no one cares he was gay. But by taking a stand look what he lost. i don't think what he did in his own privacy matters to anyone and did not make him a second class citizen. His rights are the same as others it is just that the military does not want him to be open about his sexual preference. Probably because it is not the norm and different form a majority of the service people. Maybe it will change someday but these are the rules now.

 

[delldude]

Were I in his shoes I probably would have done it because I was tired of being treated like a second class citizen and a stand needs to be made. Rosa Parks decided enough was enough. Why should he be asked to risk his life for his country and not ask to be treated like every other citizen. Most people I have spoken to that we in the military said everyone knew who was gay and no one gave a crap. As long as they did their job and had their back, all was good. The expectations were the same if they were gay or straight.

Much like the young girl who refused to stand.......

 

[Ms Tree]

I believe you are correct that no one cares he was gay. But by taking a stand look what he lost. i don't think what he did in his own privacy matters to anyone and did not make him a second class citizen. His rights are the same as others it is just that the military does not want him to be open about his sexual preference. Probably because it is not the norm and different form a majority of the service people. Maybe it will change someday but these are the rules now.

I agree that he lost a lot. I do not remember the entire interview but I think I recall him saying that he had hoped DADT would be gone before the discharge took place. At some point you have to take a stand. I admire the fact that he did so. Unfortunately we lost a valuable asset.

He knew the risk. The military did not want blacks or women either but they were forced to deal with it and they survived. They will also be forced to accept gays and they will survive. Gays are already there. Most know who they are and there are no issues. His rights are the same except for benefits. \

Also, consider this. There are gays in the military. We all know there are. What happens when someone not as brave as Choi is told, either you tell me some secrets or I will tell the military you are gay. By making them hide who they are, they are more susceptible to black male or extortion.

 

[delldude]

Progressives use the gays just like they do Blacks. They don't give a hoot........just a vote to further their agenda.

Margaret Sanger