Latest Comments
Login Form
Who's Online
We have 8 guests and 1 member online- lirik
You are here:
Home 
Topics Human Rights Don't Ask - Don't Tell
Topics Human Rights Don't Ask - Don't Tell
| Don't Ask - Don't Tell |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by joni |
| Saturday, 06 February 2010 08:17 |
|
The absurd (in my opinion) policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" in the US military - introduced by the Clinton administration back in 1993 - looks like it could be reversed. Both the "Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen have both indicated support for Obama’s call to lift the ban." The ban did not prevent any gays being in the military, just that they could not be open about their sexuality. And somehow that made it all OK to be gay and to serve. The Sydney Star Observer reports that General Colin Powell supports lifting the ban. "In the almost 17 years since the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed...I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week." And who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who approved the policy back in 1983? That's right - Colin Powell. When you have people like Powell, Gates and Mullen supporting the reversal of the policy, it shows how absurd the policy has become. Hits: 139 Trackback(0)
Comments (30)
  When you have people like Powell, Gates and Mullen supporting the reversal of the policy, it shows how absurd the policy has become Yea baby....co-ed showers and bathrooms, here we come....  1
Sat 06 Feb 2010 08:52:19 EST
It seems that the US is in the minority. The US in this aligns herself with countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
The countries which allow gays to opening serve include Canada, Denmark, Israel, Italy etc etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Australia 2
Sat 06 Feb 2010 11:04:48 EST
It seems that the US is in the minority Thank god...... 3
Sat 06 Feb 2010 11:52:57 EST
Sparta, since WW2 doesn't the US now have a policy against people in close relationships serving in the same platoon or ship? This therefore separates wives and lovers. It was when, I think it was 5 brothers were all killed WW2. The rule about loved ones serving together wasn't strictly enforced until the brothers were all killed.
Found it via Wik at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_brothers That morning, the boys' father, Thomas, was preparing to go to work when three men in uniform, a lieutenant commander, a doctor and a chief petty officer, approached his front door. "I have some news for you about your boys," the naval officer said. "Which one?" asked Thomas. "I'm sorry," the officer replied. "All five."[ The above is a little off topic but does serve to emphasise that being able to come out benefits all in the armed services instead of a ridiculous Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy. 4
Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:05:56 EST
Sparta, I am certain that you must work/or have worked along side gay people. It's the same in the armed services. It's their ability to perform set tasks and have the discipliine necessary that is important, not who they happen to be in love with.
The same was said about women in the military, that they would be 'a distraction' yet now in Australia a good portion of Middies (Midshipmen, junior officers) are women..mustn't forget the cooks..nooo, never get the cook offside. 5
Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:19:56 EST
"It seems that the US is in the minority."
Yep Min. A big country hijacked by a bunch of narrow-minded NO sayers and profiteering bigots. And their "dumb as bat sh*t followers". So much for it being a leading light of democracy. "The US in this aligns herself with countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea." I imagine someone using an identifier such as Sparta could relate to that.  It seems some in the gay & lesbian community are good enuff to serve and die for their country...provided they keep their traps shut and lifestyle locked up in a cage. Tells me everything about who is really in the driver's seat of America and why I don't want their DARKSIDE havin' any major influence on our decision-making processes. We need to get our own Rights & sh*t together and set a better example. N' 6
Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:53:15 EST
The same was said about women in the military, that they would be 'a distraction' yet now in Australia a good portion of Middies (Midshipmen, junior officers) are women Yea, that has had any unintended consequences or anything…More theory there Min….I still don’t think women belong in combat zones and never will…..Unfortunately, most going into the military tend to be from conservative backgrounds for one and no offense, but men like to talk and bond over MEN things….We don’t need women or others bringing charges up about being “discriminated” against, offended etc… http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35173 http://www.time.com/time/magaz...16,00.html 7
Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:53:58 EST
Sparta..too bad, too late women already serve in combat zones.
Sparta, my son is a Leading Seaman an 8yr man with 2 tours of The Gulf and 2 tours of East Timor under his belt amongst other things. Yet not once have in those 8 years ever heard my son complain about either gays or women..with the except of don't hassle the cook. But that's a Navy thing and it wouldn't matter which gender or sexual orientation, a Navy cook is still a Navy cook. Yes agreed it's ancedotal. 8
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:09:42 EST
Nas'..it's worth repeating. From Nasking @6
It seems some in the gay & lesbian community are good enuff to serve and die for their country...provided they keep their traps shut and lifestyle locked up in a cage. 9
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:15:05 EST
Sparta re your 1st link. This is very very old hat in Australia. Females service personnel have been having babies for quite some time now. Maybe Australia doesn't have quite such a problem with this as both Australia and Britain have had a Women's Land Army since WW2. We also have female police officers.
10
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:21:13 EST
I should mention that anyone who manages to get through basic training at HMAS Cerberus has earned themselves a place on the team, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.
11
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:30:28 EST
Served on a DDG with a gay cook at a time when a person was discharged from the military if they were outed. Just about everyone onboard knew he was gay and as far as I know he served a long and distinguished career without being discharged. I know there were many more like him in the military.
So why weren't these people dobbed into command and why did so many get promoted and serve their full terms without being discharged, some like the cook on the DDG getting commendations? Because they were good at their jobs, served their country and uniform with distinction and in many cases were better troops than some of the straights they served with. ------------------ As an aside Min there are actually three people onboard a ship you never hassle or get on the bad side of. The cook foremost as you already know, the coxswain and the XO in that order. There are four people onboard a ship anyone of of whom can make it a good ship or a bad ship to serve on. The captain, the XO, the coxwain and the senior cook. Victuallers/Supply Officer can also make life a misery but you can live with that. Normally if you have a bastard of a skipper and good XO ship life can still be good, but having a bastard of an XO is not desirable no matter how good the skipper is. As they work hand in hand, a bad XO and a bad coxswain really is the pits yet one being good and the other shit tends to cancel the bad one out. That is very general but mostly how I've found it and how shipmates describe it as well, and that comes on the back of 21 years PN and 3 years RN of which nearly 15 years was at sea. 12
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:36:57 EST
Mobius, no nothing's changed. Son fortunately had 3 excellent XOs on HMAS T*, one was better than the other 2 regarding communication back to families. Son was the you'beaut best mate of the coxwain (PO I think) as son has an accurate hand and could always get the rope to shore..band playing and everyone looking..at Garden Island. On a return trip from the Gulf, after 3 tries the PO handed it to son. It was an excellent crew on the old Too Broke and (for Sparta) this includes the women.
13
Sat 06 Feb 2010 13:53:04 EST
Who said gays shouldn’t serve or were inept? I simply don’t think it serves anybody by making it “a tell all” thing….I certainly didn’t go around proclaiming I was a heterosexual? I don’t support forcing people to leave should their sexuality be made public but I question why the need to “come out”? The whole point of the military is to do away with your individualism is it not? As usual, you guys are living in theory and I can guarantee you there will be unforeseen problems…Besides, I am sure Adrian never made jokes at the expense of some groups or talked about women with his mates while lying around on the rack…..I can foresee the harassment and discrimination claims already…Anyhow, they are going to have to alter the UCMJ to accommodate this “feel good” policy and has anybody asked the troops? Of course not…..
14
Sat 06 Feb 2010 14:03:39 EST
Sparta, but that's what it's all about - that people should be able to come out if they want to but that they should not fear consequences such as automatic discharge due to this decision. However, nor should any service personnel be required to come out if this is not their choice.
Re The whole point of the military is to do away with your individualism is it not? Absolutely not. The military is all about people working together as a team, noting and utilizing each individual's best qualities while working towards a common goal. I cannot see how Adrian with his 21+yrs could possibly be accused of being just 'theory'. Sparta, too little and too late, women have been serving with or as adjuct to the Australian armed services since WW1. In fact I think since the Crimean War with Florence Nightingale. 15
Sat 06 Feb 2010 14:24:56 EST
#It seems some in the gay & lesbian community are good enough to serve and die for their country...provided they keep their traps shut and lifestyle locked up in a cage.
strong words. when i read that i cant debate it, nor would i. Negativity can only come from ones issues to deal with others, it seems some have elevated themselves over others. America is lucky to have a leader that can see this or things similar and try to correct it. it can never hurt unless your ignorant. 16
Sat 06 Feb 2010 14:28:49 EST
Maybe if we had females on the front line, countries would be more caustious in sending out troops into a war or starting one.
Probably a dumb thought 17
Sat 06 Feb 2010 14:36:09 EST
Hexx, not a dumb thought at all. But then you are a gentleman. Women in Australia serve in all spheres of the RAN with the exception of submarines.
18
Sat 06 Feb 2010 14:41:23 EST
Christ, is the US still fretting-away about crap like this?
Right now they're in so much self-created doo-doo that I think their military in far-away places needs all the combat effectives it can get, whether they be gay or straight. So far as I know, gays make just as good soldiers as anyone else, and that's all that matters, isn't it? At a time like this, whether they are "righteous" enough to serve their country as soldiers really is a rather stupid debate to be having. The Taliban must be killing themselves laughing over that one. In so far as it is relevant (and it isn't at all) the Talibs themselves are a bit like your ancient Greeks on the subject antway, despite what the Koran might have to say say about it. Talk about your classical values types: The men in that part of the world have a long tradition of treating their women like cattle and writing love poetry about doe-eyed young men. (Probably dates back to when Alexander the Great toured the place). 19
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:02:11 EST
Min methinks you have confused the coxswain (ship's sheriff if you like) with the bosun's mate (BM), the ship's foreman in charge of the deck.
The coxswain answers directly to the XO for ship's discipline and run's the table when a sailor faces punishment. The coxswain can also directly give out minor punishments like leave stoppage and/or extra work (chooks). Coxswains have many of the same powers as the civilian police. The bosun's mate answers to the XO for all deck evolutions and deck maintenance, like launching boats, jackstays, transfers, helo ops, ropes, anchor etc. 20
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:11:41 EST
Adrian, Yes you're right. Son was ABBM in charge of munitions. Son's main concern was the XO and the cook. Next phone call (like a good lad he phones his mum and dad at least once a week), I'll ask him about the coxwain. However I don't expect much more than a hummmff as a reply..navy people are a bit like that.
21
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:21:51 EST
Yep BMs, gay or not, are in charge of the ship's small arms and deck guns.
22
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:29:50 EST
And also girl BMs. Hubby's older cousin was at the Malay conflict in the days where they used to hang their hammocks..he sent me a couple of pics. And yes he did eventually receive his medal/s.
23
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:43:17 EST
I see the Senior Service is well represented here.
Cue Village People: "In the Navy........ 24
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:45:55 EST
Hehe Evan. Quite right..get a few navy people/musos/teachers etc together in the same room...
25
Sat 06 Feb 2010 18:54:09 EST
With my brother a former RAAF WO, I'm more of an "air-power, dig it" dude.
Ships are targets. 26
Sat 06 Feb 2010 19:04:54 EST
Evan, two of my uncles were Inspectors of Police, you want targets?
Am kidding, no not about my uncles. Mobius, just a quick phone call from son..he said 'snakes' is the name, but they're mostly ok. 27
Sat 06 Feb 2010 19:39:12 EST
Ah, targets.
The problem with ships is that they're so bloody big: Too big to hide and too slow to run. That makes them vulnerable. Things might have been OK during the second world war when the enemy (at least in the Pacific) had lousy radar, but these days any enemy we're likley to meet in a stand-up fight can find our ships relatively easily. Leave aside radar, satellites can locate any surface vessel to within a few metres anywhere on the globe, day or night and in real-time. And all the big players have them, or access to them. This makes surface ships sitting ducks, especially to sub-orbital ballistic missile strikes. Forget about phalanx guns, they're not fitted to the Anzac Frigates and would be useless at hitting something coming straight-down at the ship at mach 15 anyway. It would be like trying to knock-down a meteor with a souped-up machine-gun. If there's ever a big brew-up between, say China and the USA, the US carrier groups, the pride of their fleet, wouldn't last 5 minutes for this reason. There is just no effective defence against ballistic lissile attack, even a non-nuclear one. And the Chinese have plenty of non-nuclear ballistic missiles, some with very considerable ranges. Carriers are great at showing the flag, intimidating small-fry nations and giving Admirals somewhere to hang their uniforms, but that's about it. They're as obsolete now as battleships were in 1941. So is the rest of any surface fleet. Plus it's cost effective: A 4 or 5 million dollar missile taking-down a 5 or 6 billion dollar ship. Do the math. Subs might survive as an effective fighting force, but that's only because they're much harder to find and to kill. Surface naval warfare between technologically advanced foes is, however, kaput. 28
Sat 06 Feb 2010 22:29:44 EST
I think you wrong here Min.....Yes, we must learn to work as a team but individualism (which is what this is essentially promoting) and identity politics is where this will lead....It is much like how identity politics has back fired culturally (African or Asian-American)...You are no longer a "soldier" but a "gay soldier" here me roar...it is not going to go over smoothly...mark my words! Because the average troop has no say but is being FORCED to deal with this there will be a back lash...Seems those that have beliefs different from you and others here don't matter...Funny thing though Min, one chooses to serve in the military (gay or not) and in doing so makes a choice..U and others are now suggesting we must all accomodate them, nothing more....
Sparta, too little and too late, women have been serving with or as adjuct to the Australian armed services since WW1. In fact I think since the Crimean War with Florence Nightingale. LOL.....Sure, there is a place for women who want to serve but not on the front lines....They can bomb, fly choppers and care for the sick and dying but no way they will ever be permitted into direct combat roles like the marines...It simply wouldn't fly in the States....Feminization had it's place but has no place on the front lines...Again, you seem to think there is no difference between the genders.....I simply disagree with that...But by all means, the Navy and Fly-boys are panzies anyway....Just jokin.. 29
Sun 07 Feb 2010 05:56:33 EST
Sparta, I think that this is where the US and Australia differ. It's just about unknown for an Australian to be called an Asian Australian.
Also, in the armed services these days (at least in Australia) far more effort has gone into making a career in the armed services much more like a normal job. While single new enlistees might still live in apartment style accommodation in eg Garden Island Sydney, for a growing majority they live in regular houses with wives and partners. I think that this might be likewise in the US.. a friend of mine (from Tasmania) is married to a US Army sergeant and they live in a regular house in Atlanta. This serves to separate when you're on duty and recognises that personnel are entitled to a home/personal life. As previously stated, what people do in their bedrooms is their own business. As regards 'feminization', surely one's ability to perform in combat roles has little to do with gender but a matter of capability. Some women may be able to fulfill such a role, some men may feel themselves not capable. 30
Sun 07 Feb 2010 11:57:28 EST
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
