Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Is Obama a pussy? (1 Viewer)

[kami]

During his campaign President Obama promised to repeal Don't ask, Don't tell (DADT) which is a military policy in the US forbidding LGBT persons from serving openly in the military. However, in the wake of his being inducted into office, Obama has completely back pedaled on the issue despite near unanimous supporting for the repeal of the policy by the military itself and LGBT groups. Recently Obama has also disclaimed the fact that he has the authority to repeal DADT, despite him being Commander in Chief of the armed forces and all that.

So wth is up with Obama? Is he that scared of the conservatives? This move would lose him pretty much no political capital at all so why is he upholding a policy that puts the US up there with Russia, China and Iran in its handling of gays in the military? Is Obama that much of a pussy?

 

[Iron]

He's fighting a war

We have to win.

You ask the guys in special ops over there if they want to know if anyone in their unit is homosexual.

Let them win the war on terrorism
Do you want to win?

 

[Slidey]

During his campaign President Obama promised to repeal Don't ask, Don't tell (DADT) which is a military policy in the US forbidding LGBT persons from serving openly in the military. However, in the wake of his being inducted into office, Obama has completely back pedaled on the issue despite near unanimous supporting for the repeal of the policy by the military itself and LGBT groups. Recently Obama has also disclaimed the fact that he has the authority to repeal DADT, despite him being Commander in Chief of the armed forces and all that.

So wth is up with Obama? Is he that scared of the conservatives? This move would lose him pretty much no political capital at all so why is he upholding a policy that puts the US up there with Russia, China and Iran in its handling of gays in the military? Is Obama that much of a pussy?

Obama isn't going to touch gay rights issues until at least one of the following is true: it's his second term, or he's passed his climate change and healthcare bills.

 

[Iron]

slidey, dont apply 4 mod pls

 

[kami]

He's fighting a war

We have to win.

You ask the guys in special ops over there if they want to know if anyone in their unit is homosexual.

Let them win the war on terrorism
Do you want to win?

Including gays is an easy way to relieve tension, imo. A mouth is a mouth, amirite?

Obama isn't going to touch gay rights issues until at least one of the following is true: it's his second term, or he's passed his climate change and healthcare bills.

That's all too likely, unfortunately, but this in particular isn't going to harm his image or reduce his political capital to any noticeable degree. He literally just has to sign a piece of paper suspending the discharge of LGBT officers rather than actively defending the policy in courts that he was calling abhorrent four months ago. It just seems as if there's no reason not to, at this stage.

 

[Iron]

Yuck Kami. You seem so classy usually, but you have a great yuck ability m8

 

[kami]

Yuck Kami. You seem so classy usually, but you have a great yuck ability m8

Sorry m8, ive just been lonely witout u. wil u forgive me?

 

[Iron]

ofc m8

 

[loquasagacious]

Remember to check the fine print...

Yes We Can but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to

Moral Kombat | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Basically I think it is quite ridiculous that this has not been overturned. Because when you look at it:

• In a time of critical need they are kicking people out
• They are discharging arabic translators - an undeniably vital skill set
• How about kicking out fighter pilots - after investing millions in their training
• All it takes is an executive order - just like Truman ending segregation in the forces
• What actual risk does openly homosexual soldiers pose? Will they rape hetero soldiers in their sleep? Will our enemies think we're pansies? Will group showers no longer be acceptable?

A ridiculous back down to conservatives.

 

[JonathanM]

Don't really care too much about the LGBT issue, but I agree that Obama is a bit of a pussy. He doesn't stand up for his country, he's bending over backward to satisfy the left of the media, probably to repay them for their biased, unflinching support during and after his election to office. He's probably now realising, though, that the media by no means represent the majority of views in America and is retracing some of his steps.

 

[Iron]

Yeah, dudes, you all seem willfully blind to the morale issue. I think that's pretty significant. If i'm preparing to give my life in the service, and i'm trying to get to know the other guys who may save my life one day etc, I dont even want to consider the idea of a male soldier being romantically interested in me. Theyre important relationships of trust that need to be built and I think that it's damaging to those relationships if you bring in this suspicion of unrequited love... Like I said before, the job is just too important and professionalism is too vital to allow the 'luxury' of sexuality while on duty.

Is x being friendly to me because he loves his country and wants to build the strongest professional unit, or is he grooming me for sex?

But anyways, I still dont see exactly how it 'harms' a homosexual soldier to be required to not talk about their sexuality. It's not homophobic at all - it's just a sensible attempt to increase effectiveness by leaving 'sex' for after hours

 

[kami]

Remember to check the fine print...

Yes We Can but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to

Moral Kombat | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Basically I think it is quite ridiculous that this has not been overturned. Because when you look at it:

• In a time of critical need they are kicking people out
• They are discharging arabic translators - an undeniably vital skill set
• How about kicking out fighter pilots - after investing millions in their training
• All it takes is an executive order - just like Truman ending segregation in the forces
• What actual risk does openly homosexual soldiers pose? Will they rape hetero soldiers in their sleep? Will our enemies think we're pansies? Will group showers no longer be acceptable?

A ridiculous back down to conservatives.

Well, some of the arguments about the 'risks' I've read from political advisors affiliated with congress are ridiculous (and some are misogynistic to boot). Some of the arguments so far:

• "there is no right to be in the military ... some people are just not eligible" (... wtf)
• 'sensitivity' training would be needlessly expensive (as opposed to the money wasted in the mass discharge of expensively trained professionals).
• allowing homosexual soldiers would open the door to trans officers; "if you treat it as a civil rights issue, anything goes." (because trans people are clearly terrors of the night)
• religious military servicemen may feel uncomfortable (because the military is all about making people comfortable).
• it's already difficult to cope with women being allowed in the military (um, what? That's because the people who can't cope are bigoted arseholes not because women fuck up the military).

*snorts*

 

[loquasagacious]

Yeah, dudes, you all seem willfully blind to the morale issue. I think that's pretty significant. If i'm preparing to give my life in the service, and i'm trying to get to know the other guys who may save my life one day etc, I dont even want to consider the idea of a male soldier being romantically interested in me. Theyre important relationships of trust that need to be built and I think that it's damaging to those relationships if you bring in this suspicion of unrequited love... Like I said before, the job is just too important and professionalism is too vital to allow the 'luxury' of sexuality while on duty.

Is x being friendly to me because he loves his country and wants to build the strongest professional unit, or is he grooming me for sex?

But anyways, I still dont see exactly how it 'harms' a homosexual soldier to be required to not talk about their sexuality. It's not homophobic at all - it's just a sensible attempt to increase effectiveness by leaving 'sex' for after hours

I don't see how it matters. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that homosexuals can't be friends with anyone because they are consumed lust. imo if you can work in an office or on a construction site with a homosexual then you can fight alongside. Men and women serve together, isolated for months at a time on ships and they don't seem to have a problem.

Time to behave like grownups and show a little maturity tbh.

 

[kami]

I don't see how it matters. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that homosexuals can't be friends with anyone because they are consumed lust. imo if you can work in an office or on a construction site with a homosexual then you can fight alongside. Men and women serve together, isolated for months at a time on ships and they don't seem to have a problem.

Time to behave like grownups and show a little maturity tbh.

Well, apparently there were lots of problems initially, as I've gotten the impression that there were quite a few cases of assault and battery back in the beginning of female recruitment. I'd also expect there to be quite a few issues with conservative superiors in command of soldiers who happen to be LGBT, especially in war time, but that's something that can be addressed after the wider revamp with anti-discrimination policies and such.

I also think that many of these preconceptions are caused by a poor awareness of gender issues as well. There's still the instinctive reaction that a man and a woman in orbit of each other will invariably lead to a relationship and that's just being passed on to LGBT persons instinctively with a bit of paranoia and insecurity thrown in.

 

[Iron]

Yeah, I think it's basically absurd to compare military service to 'office' work. They sign up fully aware that they may lose their life in the course of duty. It is far more important that soliders know and trust eachother because if they dont, then people can get killed. My simple point is that I believe that the trust is less if you suspect sexual motives.
There is no inherent need for these people to communicate their homosexuality with fellow soldiers. They have nothing to gain and the nation's military capacity has everything to lose.

 

[kami]

Yeah, I think it's basically absurd to compare military service to 'office' work. They sign up fully aware that they may lose their life in the course of duty. It is far more important that soliders know and trust eachother because if they dont, then people can get killed. My simple point is that I believe that the trust is less if you suspect sexual motives.
There is no inherent need for these people to communicate their homosexuality with fellow soldiers. They have nothing to gain and the nation's military capacity has everything to lose.

The problem there though is that discussion of partners, sexual commentary and what not are inherent in basic bond forming - people always end up talking about these things despite the anti-fraternisation policies. Also, if you are required to keep your life more secret than necessary than those around you then that prevents trust. If you are working with someone and are either required to lie to them or know that the people around you are required to lie to you then that creates a problem.

Besides, UK, Australia and Canada, all countries with relatively similar values, all seem to do fine with allowing out LGBT service men and women without a break down of trust.

 

[Sprangler]

Gays aren't all sexualized monsters out to prey on straight men, I'm sure going into the military they would realize that acting like a "faggot" and hitting on straight guys is not acceptable.

Also, you should look up "the Sacred Band of Thebes", they were an elite ancient greek fighting force consisting of gay lovers. They fought better and harder because they were emotionally connected to their partners, I guess the mentality was that they had too much to lose so they had to fight to the best of their ability and could not be at all careless.
I'm not saying that the military should create a special gay unit, but they fight no differently to straighties.

 

[Iron]

That's because we're not the ones holding the world together ^_^

The lie is the price they pay for wanting to go into one of the handful of professions where this is relevant. They didnt wake up as soldiers...
Sure theyll still be suspicion, but at least it's unconfirmed.

 

[Iron]

Gays aren't all sexualized monsters out to prey on straight men, I'm sure going into the military they would realize that acting like a "faggot" and hitting on straight guys is not acceptable.

Also, you should look up "the Sacred Band of Thebes", they were an elite ancient greek fighting force consisting of gay lovers. They fought better and harder because they were emotionally connected to their partners, I guess the mentality was that they had too much to lose so they had to fight to the best of their ability and could not be at all careless.
I'm not saying that the military should create a special gay unit, but they fight no differently to straighties.

Yeah, well, how did that work out for them...
A homosexual society is a weak and condemned one. It will soon fall to a stronger people who understand and value the full strength of the family unit

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm pretty sure that Alexander the Great would have still annihilated them even if they were straight..... after all he did conquer the known world..

And incidentally Alexander the Great was gay. Very gay.