USA "safer" Now That Gays Openly Serve in Military

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 8:23 PM GMT
    Huh? How?

    The Pentagon on Tuesday toasted gays in the military, with a top adviser to President Obama declaring the country is “safer” now that homosexuals may serve openly.

    Because we repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ our military … is stronger and our country is safer, more equal and more just,” said Valerie Jarrett, the keynote speaker at the Pentagon’s gay pride celebration.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/pentagon-celebrates-gay-troops/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 8:33 PM GMT
    Cuz.....other nations know if they fight us and lose they gerna get fucked up da azz. icon_eek.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Jun 25, 2013 8:44 PM GMT
    Sounds like they`re making a virtue out of a necessity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    chefBH saidHuh? How?

    The Pentagon on Tuesday toasted gays in the military, with a top adviser to President Obama declaring the country is “safer” now that homosexuals may serve openly.

    Because we repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ our military … is stronger and our country is safer, more equal and more just,” said Valerie Jarrett, the keynote speaker at the Pentagon’s gay pride celebration.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/pentagon-celebrates-gay-troops/


    Before, if a guy worked in an area that had classified information that spies/enemies wanted they would start watching him to see where his weak points were. They might see him going to a gay bar. Then they'd have one of their agents pretend to be gay and start an affair with him. They take pictures of them in bed. Now they can blackmail him into giving them classified information.

    Edit: this is standard stuff if you lived through the cold war era and read spy novels.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Jun 25, 2013 8:54 PM GMT
    Lumpynose said
    chefBH saidHuh? How?
    Then they'd have one of their agents pretend to be gay and start an affair with him. They take pictures of them in bed. Now they can blackmail him into giving them classified information.

    Edit: this is standard stuff if you lived through the cold war era and read spy novels.


    I bet THAT spy really liked (or hated) his job.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 9:32 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI bet THAT spy really liked (or hated) his job.


    All they really had to do was take pictures of him entering or leaving a gay bar, sex club, etc. But there were instances of them using a woman agent with a guy who was married so I used that model.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 9:42 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidSounds like they`re making a virtue out of a necessity.


    What? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 9:56 PM GMT
    Lumpynose said
    Apparition saidI bet THAT spy really liked (or hated) his job.


    All they really had to do was take pictures of him entering or leaving a gay bar, sex club, etc. But there were instances of them using a woman agent with a guy who was married so I used that model.


    Right, so wouldn't the same opportunity apply to straight service members?

    So I don't get how the country is "safer" now because of this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 10:02 PM GMT
    Because now if you're gay and the other side takes pictures of you entering or leaving a gay bar or sex club they can't use that against you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 10:17 PM GMT
    Lumpynose saidBecause now if you're gay and the other side takes pictures of you entering or leaving a gay bar or sex club they can't use that against you.


    Your example was that a gay service member would be subject to blackmail if his "secret" got out. A married straight service member has always been subject to blackmail if he "fooled around" with a woman who wasn't his wife. In fact, with gay marriage in so many states now, a married gay service member has the same "risk" that a straight married service member has.

    I don't get the connection how the USA is "safer" now that gays can serve openly in the military. How can this statement be quantified? Where's the data showing that the USA is now "safer?"


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 10:41 PM GMT
    It's only addressing one thing: a gay man can no longer be blackmailed for merely being gay. It has nothing to do with any of those other risks. They're not saying that all risks have been eliminated and we're now safe, they're only saying that since one of the risks has been removed we're safer.

    Edit: they're not saying that since this single risk has been eliminated that we're safe, just safer. It's a relative evaluation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 10:52 PM GMT
    Lumpynose saidIt's only addressing one thing: a gay man can no longer be blackmailed for merely being gay. It has nothing to do with any of those other risks. They're not saying that all risks have been eliminated and we're now safe, they're only saying that since one of the risks has been removed we're safer.

    Edit: they're not saying that since this single risk has been eliminated that we're safe, just safer. It's a relative evaluation.


    Do you really think Valeria Jarrett was talking about what you are talking about?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 11:02 PM GMT
    chefBH saidDo you really think Valeria Jarrett was talking about what you are talking about?


    Absolutely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 11:18 PM GMT
    chefBH saidDo you really think Valeria Jarrett was talking about what you are talking about?


    I'm puzzled as to why you don't see the "safer" part. It may not seem huge to you but it's significant.

    Let me try and give a hypothetical example. Suppose some terrorist organization wants to detonate a nuclear bomb in NYC. They blackmail some gay guy who's in the Air Force and get shipping information for nuclear cruise missiles that are being transported from one part of the country to another. Using that information they do a wild west train robbery job on the truck that's transporting the cruise missiles and steal them. Now they're set.

    They don't tell the person right off the bat to give them this jackpot information; they whittle away at them and get them to give them less important stuff in the beginning. As time goes by they put pressure on them and can get more critical information; not only can they blackmail them for being gay, but for being a spy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 1:05 AM GMT
    Lumpynose said
    chefBH saidDo you really think Valeria Jarrett was talking about what you are talking about?


    I'm puzzled as to why you don't see the "safer" part. It may not seem huge to you but it's significant.

    Let me try and give a hypothetical example. Suppose some terrorist organization wants to detonate a nuclear bomb in NYC. They blackmail some gay guy who's in the Air Force and get shipping information for nuclear cruise missiles that are being transported from one part of the country to another. Using that information they do a wild west train robbery job on the truck that's transporting the cruise missiles and steal them. Now they're set.

    They don't tell the person right off the bat to give them this jackpot information; they whittle away at them and get them to give them less important stuff in the beginning. As time goes by they put pressure on them and can get more critical information; not only can they blackmail them for being gay, but for being a spy.


    Where's the evidence supporting the statement that the USA is now "safer" due to the rollback of DADT?
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Jun 26, 2013 2:13 AM GMT
    Logic, plain and simple.

    Two sides of the debate:
    One argues that gay people are a security risk and state that as support for DA/DT, the other argues that if you eliminate DA/DT, the security risk is eliminated and the country is safer as a result.

    DA/DT had the really idiotic side effect of outright drumming out everyone who could be accused of being gay. Tie in that, with the obvious logic for service members to desire to KEEP their positions and continue to serve honorably, and the security risks that DA/DT presents are obvious.

    With DA/DT's demise, the potential security risk the policy forced upon gay and lesbian service members has been eliminated.

    Safer is relative; DA/DT repeal closed yet one more chink in the armor of the nation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:57 AM GMT
    chefBH saidWhere's the evidence supporting the statement that the USA is now "safer" due to the rollback of DADT?

    It's basic, simple logic. If A leads to/allows B and B leads to/allows C, then eliminating A or B breaks the chain and prevents C.

    Sorry, I don't know how else to explain it.