Military Brass Denounce DADT... (RJ Homepage Article)

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

    Feb 06, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    The quote in blue below comes from an article on RJ's homepage. I believe this General, and others, are using "the prospect of unequal treatment" as a way to block pro-gay changes to DADT, and twisting our argument of equal treatment against us. Their goal is to show that repealing DADT is unworkable.

    But the General's argument about "four kinds of showers" compared to two is disingenuous, since the US military DID in fact have 4 showers for many years, and may still in some places. That's because officers, or sometimes just the more senior officers, had their own locker rooms & showers separate from the enlisted men & women (the Privates & Sergeants, Airmen, Sailors, Marines).

    I know this, because I used the exclusive locker rooms for Lt. Colonels and above. Funny that four showers weren't "absolutely disastrous" when this General was using them, as he undoubtedly did at some point in his career.

    And even prominent opponents of the [DADT] change, such as General Carl Mundy, Jr., are not happy about the prospect of unequal treatment. "The last thing you even want to think about," Mundy said, "is creating separate facilities or separate groups or separate meeting places or having four kinds of showers—one of straight women, lesbians, straight men and gay men. That would be absolutely disastrous in the armed forces," says Mundy. "It would destroy any sense of cohesion or teamwork or good order and discipline."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 3:16 PM GMT
    He forgot to add one for the Bi-sexual…I don’t want to get mixed signals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    How many showers did they before they were integrated? They managed a discriminatory arrangement then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    I may be way off or just unable to trust anything that looks positive till it happens but here goes. This whole survey thing along with the review stuff will take a year or so I’ve read. Anyone think that it’s a stall tactic as part of an attempt to keep it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 11:03 PM GMT
    Caslon13000 saidHow many showers did they before they were integrated? They managed a discriminatory arrangement then.

    Before President Truman integrated the US armed forces, against strong Republican Party opposition, Blacks served in their own exclusive units, meaning that their barracks were segregated from Whites. A latrine and its showers served a single barracks, and since everyone in that barracks was either all Black or all White, the problem of additionally segregating the showers did not exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 11:12 PM GMT
    wi11 saidI may be way off or just unable to trust anything that looks positive till it happens but here goes. This whole survey thing along with the review stuff will take a year or so I’ve read. Anyone think that it’s a stall tactic as part of an attempt to keep it?

    I've already written in another thread here that I think what you speculate is likely the case. The conservative US military can read the writing on the wall, and knows the Republicans in Congress will never approve rescinding DADT, and its underlying US Code, especially after the 2010 election, when Dems are expected to suffer heavy losses, maybe even lose one of the houses in Congress. And then the whole issue will be moot, and military leaders will get what they want: no gays serving openly.

    Having made a career in the military, I know exactly what they are doing: a tactical ploy to appease pro-gay Dems so they'll let their defenses down, but fully expecting to strike back with strengthened Republican support and win the anti-gay war. I can read these guys like a book.

    Gentlemen, mark my words, these Generals & Admirals would rather fall on their swords than ever accept gays serving openly. John McCain, one of their own, shows you their true feelings.
  • CarbGoggles

    Posts: 705

    Feb 06, 2010 11:18 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon13000 saidHow many showers did they before they were integrated? They managed a discriminatory arrangement then.

    Before President Truman integrated the US armed forces, against strong Republican Party opposition, Blacks served in their own exclusive units, meaning that their barracks were segregated from Whites. A latrine and its showers served a single barracks, and since everyone in that barracks was either all Black or all White, the problem of additionally segregating the showers did not exist.


    Geez I would hope that the JCS can look back at those days and say wow we were pretty stupid back then. Next time I deploy I'm going to demand a Protestant only shower just to be a dick.
  • CarbGoggles

    Posts: 705

    Feb 06, 2010 11:31 PM GMT
    wi11 saidI may be way off or just unable to trust anything that looks positive till it happens but here goes. This whole survey thing along with the review stuff will take a year or so I’ve read. Anyone think that it’s a stall tactic as part of an attempt to keep it?


    I think DADT is like the Military curfew in S. Korea. Everybody realizes it is dumb and antiquated. However nobody wants to be the one to open the flood gates and deal with the potential carnage. It will take a gay Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do what no straight General has the balls to do. The president wants DADT repealed and so does Congress... Who cares what some crusty over paid General thinks is best for the military. At that rank they are so out of touch with the worker bees how can a General know what is best? It truly is insane to me that anybody is even resistant to repealing DADT when we have perfect models that prove straights and gays can effectively carry out the mission as a team. Just look at the UK, Israel, and Australia our 3 strongest allies. How long did it take for blacks and whites to GTFO it once the military was integrated? This is all so dumb and Obama should just crush it so we can move on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2010 11:45 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    I've already written in another thread here that I think what you speculate is likely the case. The conservative US military can read the writing on the wall, and knows the Republicans in Congress will never approve rescinding DADT, and its underlying US Code, especially after the 2010 election, when Dems are expected to suffer heavy losses, maybe even lose one of the houses in Congress. And then the whole issue will be moot, and military leaders will get what they want: no gays serving openly.

    Having made a career in the military, I know exactly what they are doing: a tactical ploy to appease pro-gay Dems so they'll let their defenses down, but fully expecting to strike back with strengthened Republican support and win the anti-gay war. I can read these guys like a book.

    Gentlemen, mark my words, these Generals & Admirals would rather fall on their swords than ever accept gays serving openly. John McCain, one of their own, shows you their true feelings.


    Firstly, Vespa, great point about 'senior leadership' showers. I would definitely like to see the hem & haw that would happen if that were addressed.

    With respect to your other comments about military leaders, I think they do see the writing on the wall, but I think the writing they see is that integration is going to happen, they're just trying to make it so they can say 'didn't happen on my watch'. Of course by they, I mean the hyper-homophobic d-bags that probably couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag.

    Just like with racial and gender integration, some 'leaders' will fight tooth and nail and others (I would argue the good ones) will embrace the change and figure out a way to make themselves, their troops, their unit & the military better.

    I know in my office, the jokes are already flying that you won't be able to throw the phrase 'that's gay' around and take that as just one more data point of inevitability, not stalling.

    However, on the note of stalling, what happens if the Dems get voted out of office in November? So what, they would still have 2 months to create & pass legislation that would repeal DADT & the ban. Is it possible? yeah. Will it happen? We can only hope. Am I holding my breath? Nope!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2010 2:58 AM GMT
    JDean said...However, on the note of stalling, what happens if the Dems get voted out of office in November? So what, they would still have 2 months to create & pass legislation that would repeal DADT & the ban. Is it possible? yeah. Will it happen? We can only hope. Am I holding my breath? Nope!

    I think the JCS and other senior military leaders are assuming and hoping that's exactly what will happen in November: the Dems will lose so badly that gays will never be allowed to serve openly in the military, just not on their own watch, but never. As for a 2-month post-election window in which to pass the DADT repeal, that's impossible.

    First and most importantly, the Dems have already lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. The Repubs will use an unbreakable filibuster to prevent any pro-gay legislation from ever going anywhere.

    Second, the Dems will blame us for their losses, because Repubs will once again successfully play the gay card against them during the election, only this time even better than in 2008, though perhaps not as much as in 2004, when anti-gay state constitutions were the bait the Republicans put on the ballot to bring out their base. The Dems will fear risking any more political capital on gay issues, as they lick their wounds and retrench for 2012.

    Third, if the Dems didn't have the backbone to tackle controversial issues like gay rights when they had a complete majority, do you think losing their advantage in Congress has made them MORE courageous? On the contrary, it's already spooked them into total retreat. These are the guys who couldn't even pass health care reform, a quintessential Democratic issue. Do you think they'd do any better with gay rights, an issue most of them are lukewarm about?

    The only reason I support Democrats on gay issues is because they aren't anti-gay fanatics like the Republicans, who are pledged to keep me a second-class citizen, or worse. But I certainly don't support Democrats for being pro-gay, because that they are definitely not.

    So I have to take the lesser of 2 evils, despite the illogic of some here who say that if the Democrats aren't my enthusiastic friends, then by default I must instead support my sworn enemies, the Republicans. We heard that looney argument repeatedly during the 2008 election from Repubs here, and I expect we'll hear it again as November, 2010 approaches.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 12:37 AM GMT
    I think they should create seperate units and showers and all that. But it shouldn't be for gays. It should be for Social Intolerants, or since the military likes abbreviations, SI units.

    The SI units can be voluntary units filled with those who can't manage professional behavior around people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian. If you're a religiously motivated homophobe or just plain homophobe, you should elect yourself into an SI unit.

    People who also make asses of themselves because they freak-out failing to deal with their own sexuality issues can be assigned there as well until they find develop some sexual maturity. Then they can be promoted into the regular armed services.

    Of course the SI units should receive less pay and shitty treatment, why reward them for creating a giant pain the ass for the military top brass and tax payer expense with their social immaturity.




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

    Feb 08, 2010 12:41 AM GMT
    lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 12:51 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Caslon13000 saidHow many showers did they before they were integrated? They managed a discriminatory arrangement then.

    Before President Truman integrated the US armed forces, against strong Republican Party opposition, Blacks served in their own exclusive units, meaning that their barracks were segregated from Whites. A latrine and its showers served a single barracks, and since everyone in that barracks was either all Black or all White, the problem of additionally segregating the showers did not exist.

    Whether the 4 showers were in the same barracks or in a separte barracks, it was still the same "4 shower" concept.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 1:04 AM GMT


    This would be a good time for a bit of political irony and some long overdue evidence of presidential testicles in the Obama White House.

    W and his cronies (e.g. Cheney and John Yoo) went out of their way to expound a legal theory known as 'the Unitary Executive'. In effect the theory says that in times of war the President has virtually limitless power to take any action that in his sole judgement affects the conduct of the war. It was this theory that Bush & Co relied upon to justify torture of prisoners, violations of the Geneva Protocols and illegal wiretaps.

    Using the same reasoning, for a refreshingly benign purpose, President Obama, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief during wartime, could, with a stroke of the pen, eliminate DADT and over ride the laws and regulations which make DADT necessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 1:07 AM GMT
    flieslikeabeagle said...Using the same reasoning, for a refreshingly benign purpose, President Obama, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief during wartime, could, with a stroke of the pen, eliminate DADT and over ride the laws and regulations which make DADT necessary.

    Very clever and original thinking! I like it! Still no more constitutional than Bush's Unitary Executive theory on which it is based, but it would stick their noses in it, wouldn't it? I'm sure the right-wing spin would be epic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 1:23 AM GMT
    Epic wouldn't begin to cover it. Can't you just see the spin on every single conservative show-"See we told you Obama would destroy the American family. He just signed immorality into law." Just wait for it.
  • MercuryMax

    Posts: 713

    Feb 08, 2010 1:29 AM GMT
    LOL seperate showeres is his argument? Um...the only time i had community showers was when i was in Boot camp and while I was overseas to somewhere like iraq. And still even in iraq we had seperate stalls with curtains, so whats the big deal? They need to man up.

    The only time i had a chance to look at another mans penis or ass in the military was when in boot camp. I was very respectable and didn't even think about it....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 8:33 AM GMT
    Republican AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda

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

    Feb 08, 2010 9:25 AM GMT
    The gay panic the most macho men in existence get down to when exposed to the prospect of being near a gay man is fucking ridiculous and hilarious in a way. Seriously, they're worse than a bunch of muslim women being asked to share a hotel room with a male nonrelative for the night (even if the male in question is a scrawny effeminate adolescent).

    You can tell it comes from their own behavior. Imagine what they would do if women showered or bunked with them, would they suddenly become rapists overnight at the sight of females?

    From the way they anticipate how gay men would react to a roomful of other men, I'm guessing they would. Why don't they get the fact that just because they happen to have a penis does NOT mean that we fantasize about THEM all day.
  • CarbGoggles

    Posts: 705

    Feb 08, 2010 2:11 PM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidRepublican AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda



    LMFAO!!! Wow this guy is an idiot. Clearly, only gays smoke weed, go AWOL, and catch HIV... Thank you Senator for clearing that up for us. Where does this idiot get the balls to give such an ignorant testimony? Jack off, how many of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were gay? They all fucked up big time. They must have been gay... By your logic straights are the example that all service members should model after.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    DId I miss something here where is the connection they court -marshalled Rollins problem solved. I'm sorry don't straight men also get HIV...hmmmm from women. Correction me if I'm isn't the information the medical information private, even in the military?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    How 'bout this?

    Add shower curtains to the communal shower areas.

    Boom! Problem solved.

    G'night. ;-)
  • curve

    Posts: 668

    Feb 09, 2010 12:22 AM GMT
    CarbGoggles said
    ActiveAndFit saidRepublican AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda



    LMFAO!!! Wow this guy is an idiot. Clearly, only gays smoke weed, go AWOL, and catch HIV... Thank you Senator for clearing that up for us. Where does this idiot get the balls to give such an ignorant testimony? Jack off, how many of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were gay? They all fucked up big time. They must have been gay... By your logic straights are the example that all service members should model after.



    you know, senators don't need to take IQ tests to get elected...
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Feb 09, 2010 12:47 AM GMT
    I've thought about that before. The shower arrangement wouldn't work (their idea anyway). You couldn't place lesbians and gays in their own showers because they would be attractive to each other, right?

    So the best they could do it is to pair one gay man and one lesbian per shower room (that would be a lot of shower rooms!), all straight guys in one shower room, all straight women in one shower room, and all bisexual people in their own separate individual shower rooms (!).

    Or not give a @#$@ and let men and women shower as they already do, just some will happen to be gay or bisexual. I think adults can handle that, especially ones trained in the armed forces, right?..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2010 3:17 AM GMT




    That may very well be the best real world example of the Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense) I've ever seen!