Pace says he..........won't apologize

[EagleSmack]

Good Morning Pangloss

The Dont' Ask Don't Tell policy was instituted under the Clinton Administration and we can hardly call him a moralist eh?

I am surprised the number of people equate homosexuality in the male gender specific when there are so many excellent service people who are lesbians - and do a fabulous job. Perhaps women are more disguised in what is historically a male role - military service.

It was an insulting policy when it was put into force - and it remains even more stupid now. Anyone who serves his or her country should be free to live life as they desire.

It is such a blatant 'stick your head in the sand issue' - when there is more sexuality being shared in barrack life (both hetero and homo) than the administrators and generals will admit - knowing full well it goes on. Masturbation is a most frequent pastime among service people - while the generals practice mental masturbation.

I am LMAO. Hey, choking the chicken is no different in a barracks than in any college dorm or teenagers room! Beating the Bishop isn't a military invention! :lol:


Like i said... I could careless. However it should be kept out of the barracks regardless of what you like to do. Get a room... as they say.

 

[Curiosity]

EagleSmack

Guess I have too many military folk in my family .... nothing much sacred or secret around us.....

Certainly not the brass.

Thought: How about "Don't ask - don't yell" ???

 

[tracy]

I was a Marine and to me I could care less what a persons sexual preference is. However I have been in an infantry unit and I know that there are plenty who just do not like gay people. It's a fact. The military is not politically correct not matter how much you try to make them. They are not liberals. With that said, not many liberal young men and women join the military. How can one compare a college campus for example to a battallion of Marines? The only thing in common is that they are about the same age.

I actually don't try to make them pc. I really don't have anything to do with it, I was just thinking out loud. I wonder if what you're saying would mean that they would be incapable of doing their job if a gay man was around. I'm certain that a lot of them didn't like it when blacks started being allowed in their units either, but they seem to have adapted. I don't know if homosexuality is such a different animal or not. They aren't meeting their recruitment goals, they are short on soldiers with specialized language skills... even if they don't want to put them in the infantry, it seems foolish to not let them work in some occupations like translation services. But, again, that's just an outsider's view

 

[Pangloss]

Curio:

I was answering Tamarin's question, that's all. I'm not really all that fired up on the subject of a foreign country's sexual politics in their military.

Pangloss

 

[Curiosity]

I feel I've been reading something out of the 1970's military manuals.... this conversation is so outdated no wonder people seem confused. It isn't really a matter for Canadian concern is it? Or are we using Pace's idiocy for yet another interminable go around at the U.S. It suddenly becomes clear to me....it's the old boring critics R us.

Jeez - 'no blacks'.... 'no gays'.....woot.....sounds like the dark ages.

When you are under attack in the filthy sandbox you could care less 'what personal descriptive' has your back: Mexican, Black, White Asian, Bi, Gay, Straight, Male, Female - only that your comrade in arms is trained well enough and has the guts to make it through - so you both can live to see another day.

 

[tracy]

I realize it isn't a matter for Canadian concern, but that's the case for a lot of these threads. My comments were just meant as casual conversation. I'm not trying to tell the military down here what to do or insult the US.

 

[karrie]

If gay rights aren't an issue that Canadians should take an interest in, then neither is Darfur, or any other human rights issue which arises outside of our own borders. I can't imagine turning a blind eye and NOT discussing it, simply because it's taking place somewhere else.

 

[Curiosity]

If gay rights aren't an issue that Canadians should take an interest in, then neither is Darfur, or any other human rights issue which arises outside of our own borders. I can't imagine turning a blind eye and NOT discussing it, simply because it's taking place somewhere else.

Karrie The topic was 'gay rights' in the military

I agree if the topic had remained 'gay rights' - it morphed into more than that - so let's not put on a
pretense of human rights issue when the basic theme is easily recognized for what it truly is.

No matter what we discuss here - there are gays in the U.S. military and they are being treated reasonably well by their comrades if not a few out of touch leaders in the Pentagon who are still locked into the 1970s.... yet the military has gays serving so what's the issue? It's a moot point unless there is another attachment to the discussion.

I will argue firmly that the U.S. has done much in our world towards the advancement of human rights and for Canadians to feel they must 'minutely examine' the human rights of military service people serving in the United States military - is remote and disconnected. The dead are not segregated into gay and straight. No matter their preference they are military first and foremost. They still volunteer to serve and in so doing choose their path.

There are many more human rights issues crying for attention and discussion in our world, I hardly think the U.S. military is of utmost importance.

 

[karrie]

Karrie The topic was 'gay rights' in the military

I agree if the topic had remained 'gay rights' - it morphed into more than that - so let's not put on a
pretense of human rights issue when the basic theme is easily recognized for what it truly is.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the rights of gay participants in the military to be open about who they are. That still seems like a human rights issue to me. If you feel it's trivial, that's your own opinion. Personally, I don't feel it is. I think so long as policies like 'don't ask don't tell' stand in place, it helps bolster outmoded views like those which sparked the conversation. Views that state taht we can place limits on gays where we want to. I know it may seem like minute details, but, very rarely are human issues built only on large, obvious details.

 

[Curiosity]

Karrie

Then you have no idea about the military - the people are open about their status.

What is published is to placate the public only - and those backward pentagon goons who have to play their silly games.

I don't know why you feel it is ok to stand in judgment over something you know little about.

Any more than I would attempt to judge Canadian military protocol.

 

[karrie]

Karrie

Then you have no idea about the military - the people are open about their status.

What is published is to placate the public only - and those backward pentagon goons who have to play their silly games.

I don't know why you feel it is ok to stand in judgment over something you know little about.

Any more than I would attempt to judge Canadian military protocol.

stand in judgement?

I said at one point that the policy was backwards... but, I didn't blame it on the military or personell. And like I said, we're discussing it. I see no reason not to.

 

[EagleSmack]

I actually don't try to make them pc. I really don't have anything to do with it, I was just thinking out loud. I wonder if what you're saying would mean that they would be incapable of doing their job if a gay man was around. I'm certain that a lot of them didn't like it when blacks started being allowed in their units either, but they seem to have adapted. I don't know if homosexuality is such a different animal or not. They aren't meeting their recruitment goals, they are short on soldiers with specialized language skills... even if they don't want to put them in the infantry, it seems foolish to not let them work in some occupations like translation services. But, again, that's just an outsider's view

I did not mean to insinuate that you personally were trying to make the military PC. I was just saying that many groups try to make it PC. A kinder, gentler military if you will. I think that sexual persuasion has no effect on how one will do his or her job. I am not naive enough to say that there are not homosexuals currently serving honorably in the miliatary. However if one was to come out openly he could have some problems. I am not saying he would be beaten senseless every day but he could be isolated and that would s*** for him AND the unit. It is sad but that would happen.

 

[karrie]

s***

for the life of me, I can't figure out what word you used here, that it would have edited it, or that you would have edited it.

 

[tracy]

for the life of me, I can't figure out what word you used here, that it would have edited it, or that you would have edited it.

I thought suck?

 

[EagleSmack]

Tracy is right. I didn't know if "suck" would make it past the censors so I censored myself.

 

[MikeyDB]

If the statement made regarding homosexuality as an issue in the military...was offered by a man-on-the-street, and not a "general", then would the item have been quoted in the media? I'm sorry Curiosity but the position of authority given to a general in any military in the world changes (or ought to change) the degree of attention and supposed "authority" of a statement, the duty of the person making the statement is to clarify if the statement is intended as statement from that position or statement from a "general" as "Man-In-The-Street"

I can't believe that the military, a general or any officer could make a statement about the torture and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib outside the parameters of his "office" that would sanction this kind of behavior...but I've been wrong before...

What's the difference here?

If a man or woman makes a statement that is picked-up by the media on the basis that the opinion being stated has its origin in the mind of an officer of the military..and not simply a man-on-the-street, the complextion of the comment and its dissemination becomes important.

 

[EagleSmack]

If the statement made regarding homosexuality as an issue in the military...was offered by a man-on-the-street, and not a "general", then would the item have been quoted in the media? I'm sorry Curiosity but the position of authority given to a general in any military in the world changes (or ought to change) the degree of attention and supposed "authority" of a statement, the duty of the person making the statement is to clarify if the statement is intended as statement from that position or statement from a "general" as "Man-In-The-Street"

I can't believe that the military, a general or any officer could make a statement about the torture and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib outside the parameters of his "office" that would sanction this kind of behavior...but I've been wrong before...

What's the difference here?

If a man or woman makes a statement that is picked-up by the media on the basis that the opinion being stated has its origin in the mind of an officer of the military..and not simply a man-on-the-street, the complextion of the comment and its dissemination becomes important.

Boy is this a thread killer or what. :lol:

 

[MikeyDB]

Sorry Eaglesmack...

To convoluted ...too obscure...

I'm simply suggesting that the "authority" of a statement made by someone is related to the "status" of that individual. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[EagleSmack]

Sorry Eaglesmack...

To convoluted ...too obscure...

I'm simply suggesting that the "authority" of a statement made by someone is related to the "status" of that individual. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well that is what I thought you were trying to say.

The statement or opinion that was made, as it has been determined was not legally wrong to make. As it stands gay people are not allowed to serve openly in the US military. Whether they should be able to or not is another argument. So, although not politically correct, Pace's statement was in step with the current policy. If in a few years gay people are allowed to serve openly and a person of authority makes a statement like Pace did then he may be held responsible for a statement not in keeping with military policy.

 

[MikeyDB]

And what would be the response of the PTB to a general or a full bird colonel who decided to say something abut the Abu Ghraib business?

Where does the buck stop?