We lost a Lt fluent in Arabic due to DADT

[Ms Tree]

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

Margaret Sanger

And you gleaned this tidbit of information where? I consider my self a liberal/progressive or what ever other term you want to confer on me and I do give a damn about the rights of others. I can assure you I am not alone in this belief.

Politics is a different matter. Each party has people that it courts to further it's own goals. Are you trying to imply that there are not groups of people that the republican party whores it's self out to?

 

[delldude]

And you gleaned this tidbit of information where? I consider my self a liberal/progressive or what ever other term you want to confer on me and I do give a damn about the rights of others. I can assure you I am not alone in this belief.

Politics is a different matter. Each party has people that it courts to further it's own goals. Are you trying to imply that there are not groups of people that the republican party whores it's self out to?

Politics and rights of others are tied together friend.
If you consider yourself a liberal/progressive...........you should consider what you are saying. Progressives ruined politics and stole the term liberal.....look it up....progressives, true progressives are bad news for everybody.
Both parties have been infiltrated with progressives.....we are all in trouble.

 

[Seatacus]

At some point you have to take a stand. I admire the fact that he did so. Unfortunately we lost a valuable asset.

I guess he felt it was time. People make choices and he chose to come out of the closet. Whatever hapens from now on will partly be because of his choice to speak out. I would really like to know what he was thinking when he did this. Coming out was not necessary, he could have stayed with the staus quo. I don't understand why it is that important to bring up your private life.

 

[Ms Tree]

I guess he felt it was time. People make choices and he chose to come out of the closet. Whatever hapens from now on will partly be because of his choice to speak out. I would really like to know what he was thinking when he did this. Coming out was not necessary, he could have stayed with the staus quo. I don't understand why it is that important to bring up your private life.

As I said earlier. Rosa Parks had enough and made a stand. Had she sat in the back of the bus, change would have to wait on someone else to decide they had enough.

Lt Choi had enough and took a stand. Sure he could have just kept quite and retired a general or JCS for all we know. Someone else would have had to make the stand. The sad part is that Arabic speakers are in short supply. I hope no one dies because of our homophobic prejudice.

Dell,

I'm not sure what definition you are using but I use this as mine:

Progressive = favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

I consider my self a social liberal, fiscally conservative progressive.

Politics has nothing to do with anything. They (politicians) feather their own beds at the expense of the people they are charged with representing. Personally I think both parties have been infiltrated by the radicals of the party in question.

 

[eolesen]

Nice spin at making Choi out to be all innocent. He wasn't your normal "don't tell" guy or gal. He's a self-avowed activist who chained himself to a fence in protest.

He wasn't fired for being gay. He was fired for not following current policy. Going on MSNBC was just asking to be discharged, and that's just what he got.

BTW, adultery is also grounds for discipline and discharge. Where are all the people chaining themselves to fences over the people who get discharged for that crime against humanity....

 

[Ms Tree]

LOL How do you link adultery and homosexuality with a straight face? Adultery is a voluntary act that is grounds for a divorce. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed other than being a diversion for the real issue. If you want to campaign for the rights of adulterers go ahead and knock your self out.

Of course he violated the current DADT policy and according to what I have read he was fully aware that he would more than likely get discharged. I believe that he was hoping that DADT would be repealed before that took place but he was fully aware that he was risking his career in declaring his sexuality.

Innocent? What is he guilty of? He is sanding up fpr what he believes in. The pledge says "freedom and justice for all".
Is it true or not? Would you say the same of Ms Parks? Should she have been a good 'colored' lady and just gone o the back of the bus and not made any waves? Give me a break. Mr Choi was a officer, served two tours as a platoon leader. And now because he come out and says he is gay, the US discharges him. The US has done this to over 12,000 soldiers at a time when we have 2 conflicts going on, our forces are stretched thin and we have other hot spots that could flare up.

Te religious right needs to stop worrying about what people do in private and start worrying about treating people on their abilities. Mr Choi's ability to perform his job did not change. Only some people vie of him did. Get over it.

 

[eolesen]

Mr Choi's ability to perform his job did not change.

Oh, I disagree.... Vehemently.


Apparently you don't get the whole idea of being in the military....

Part of basic training is understanding that orders are orders, rules are rules, directives are directives, and policies are policies. Unless you're wearing a lot of brass on your shoulders, you don't get to decide when to follow them, and when it's optional.

There's a process, a time and a place for questioning things you disagree with. Until the rules/orders/directives/policies change, you follow the book.

I frankly don't care if he was banging all of his platoon mates in the bunkhouse or as celebate as an 80 year old Sicillian widow.

The minute you decide on your own which rules do & don't apply, you're done.

Period.

 

[Seatacus]

Someone else would have had to make the stand.

Not really. Why not just let it be.

 

[Ms Tree]

It is my understanding that as a member of the military if you receive an order that you believe is unlawful you are obligated not to follow it so apparently there are cases where rules are not rules.

I understand the idea of a chain of command and the necessity of following the rules. It is my opinion that this particular rule has no basis in law and has nothing to do with the operation of the military. This rule, IMO is purely based on hatred, bigotry and religious fear mongering. This rule is based on the same logic that was used to deny minorities and women entrance in the armed forces. This is a rule that IMO, required a stance. I for one admire Lt Choi and commend him for standing up for his rights.

Seatacus
Long answer:
I was under the impression that we lived in a country that did not sit idle by when we see an injustice (perhaps I was wrong). Mr Choi was being deprived the opportunity to serve his country not be cause he was incapable but because he is gay. I am glad that the women stood up and demanded their rights in 1920's. I am glad the blacks stood up and demanded their equal rights in the 1960's. I am glad Lt Choi has stood up (with others) and demanded their equal rights. If you sit around and do nothing, you are part of the problem, not the solution. I am glad he stood up.

Short answer:
Because it is wrong.

 

[eolesen]

Mr Choi was being deprived the opportunity to serve his country not be cause he was incapable but because he is gay.

I'll type slower so you can understand me.

Denying an order that is unlawful is one thing. DADT is codified in law, so there's no grounds for challenging the order as unlawful. Whether it's a just law or not is another discussion.

Choi wasn't deprived the opportunity to serve his country. He could have just done his job like the tens of thousands of others who are gay or lesbian and manage to serve in the military.

Going on MSNBC and chaining himself to a fence in protest are extreme measures for anyone, regardless of their orientation.

Choi apparently felt that his cause was more important, and now he's out of the military. Actions have consequences.

Next.

 

[Ms Tree]

Feel free to type s fast or slow as you see fit, it will not affect the merit of your argument.

No one is denying that he violated military policy. I have not heard him say that that he did not think he would get discharged. I believe I did her him say he had hoped DADT would be repealed before he was discharged.

My understanding is that he did what he did because he thought and thinks it is the right thing to do.

To argue that Lt Choi is not being denied the right to serve his country os like saying Ms Parks was not denied the right to ride the bus. While technically correct, he still cannot be treated like an equal because he has to hide who he is. He is not allowed benefits for a domestic partner. Can't live with who he chooses, can't have his partner visit him should he be injured to name a few.

I hope his actions are not in vain. One of these days the rule will fall. Hopefully Obama will repeal it by EO if Congress does not do the right thing.

 

[Seatacus]

My understanding is that he did what he did because he thought and thinks it is the right thing to do.

In what respect? For himself or for the cause. I really wonder because it is human nature to go after one's own self interest. I'm just sayin'

 

[Ms Tree]

Both. You need to listen to the interview I linked at the top of the OP.

I do not necessarily disagree with the idea that most people protest their self interest but there are obvious exceptions to the rule. First responders, combat military personnel to name a few.

Lt Choi placed his life on the line every day for 2 tours. I am not sure how that serves ones self interest other than being a source of pride. My brother in law is a fire fighter. He does it because he loves the job and it is satisfying to help others. HE has placed his life in jeopardy numerous times. I do not know how to classify that. Yes it obviously serves a self interest but I think it is different than someone who fights for something to get a personal gain out of it if that makes any sense.

Listen to the interview and judge for your self.

 

[Ms Tree]

Twenty eight percent of the 400,000 surveys sent out responded. Of the 28%, a majority felt that lifting the ban would have no effect or be a positive by the military. I wonder if this will be good enough for McCain to get off his butt and do something or if he will dance away from this result as well. I hope Obama can carry through on his promise.Survey

 

[dapoes]

Twenty eight percent of the 400,000 surveys sent out responded. Of the 28%, a majority felt that lifting the ban would have no effect or be a positive by the military. I wonder if this will be good enough for McCain to get off his butt and do something or if he will dance away from this result as well. I hope Obama can carry through on his promise.Survey

Who knows. Maybe he finally caught a clue that its not about acknowledging the sexual preference/identity of each individual soldier. It doesnt matter. When you enlist in the military you surrender your personal identity to serve the country first then the corp. Its not that hard to comprehend. Once we surrender our military to the "feelings" of each individual soldier then the military strength will be eventually compromised.