Obama to sign law ending military gay ban

[Darias]

.


Finally...


DADT is repealed.

And it was done so via Congress - not via the courts.

And it was done with a Republican dominated House.

It will take a while before the policy goes into action, but at least it's there.

I didn't expect this to ever happen after the results of the November election.

Now the U.S. can join the rest of the world... finally.


Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

[Choir Loft]

.


Finally...


DADT is repealed.

And it was done so via Congress - not via the courts.

And it was done with a Republican dominated House.

It will take a while before the policy goes into action, but at least it's there.

I didn't expect this to ever happen after the results of the November election.

Now the U.S. can join the rest of the world... finally.


Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

The question for true consideration is not the sexual orientation of a person in the American military but whether the bloated US military is necessary in the first place. Exactly what is it we are supposed to be defending ourselves AGAINST?

Military expenditures and adventures are destroying our economy, but no one seems to notice or care. Instead we argue about the qualifications of those who volunteer for service.

The United States Navy, for example, is larger than the next seventeen nations COMBINED. Is this really necessary? Where is the nautical threat we are to defend against?

The Roman Empire had almost forty foreign military bases and at its peak the British Empire had nearly twice as many. Today the Pentagon has admitted to nearly eight hundred foreign military bases and facilities. Critics believe the number is much much higher. We have enough nuclear warheads to glass the entire planet if we wish to.

This is madness and the designs of the American military industrial complex is destroying our economy, our liberty and our future.

The question before us is not whether gays should be allowed to participate in the military nightmare, but whether any of us ought to.

Sorry, but you don't get to "repeal" the clear topic of a thread, change the subject, and substitute your own topic. That's called "hijacking." If you want to start a debate on the US military, feel free, but start a thread of your own.

Did YOU --- READ the CLEAR TOPIC of this thread?

It specifically asked how we FEEL about this repeal. I gave a clear and documented statement of how I feel and what EFFECT (the second question) it may have on the military.

If the readers want a more simplistic answer to how I feel about gays in the military it is SIMPLY this; that gays as well as anybody else in uniform are BREAKING THE LAW (including my own service therein).
The US Constitution says that only a declaration of war may preceed military action. There has been none since Dec. 8, 1944. Therefore anyone who participates in a war zone is breaking US law.

What effect will gays be in the military? None whatsoever, since the purpose of the military industrial complex is to suck treasure and blood out of the nation.

The issue of gays in the military is a smoke screen to more severe and pervasive problems. It is a non-issue and bickering about it or celebrating it is pointless to the greater hidden agenda of our corrupt and bloated system.

One may just as well argue about gay kids participating in a high school glee club and what effect that might have on the US military presence in Afghanistan. It has none, in case you're wondering.....it's an example of a non-issue militarily speaking.

WHAT IS IMMORAL HERE? Gays in the military or an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation? The two issues are light years apart, one has no meaning while the other has deadly consequences.

[Lux]

To get us back on topic, here is yet another reason, one that should appeal to conservatives, to support the repeal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/2 ... 11741.html

The policy cost us $200 billion over 5 years, $40 billion a year.



And we are supposed to oppose the repeal because some of those now in the military might leave, when in fact, we know such threats that have been made in the past have come to nought?

Just to add: even if some people do leave, openly gay people could join, plus we wouldn't be kicking non-heterosexuals out anymore. So unless the number of people that leaves after the repeal is very large, it'd probably even out.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

.


Finally...


DADT is repealed.

And it was done so via Congress - not via the courts.

And it was done with a Republican dominated House.

It will take a while before the policy goes into action, but at least it's there.

I didn't expect this to ever happen after the results of the November election.

Now the U.S. can join the rest of the world... finally.


Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

The question for true consideration is not the sexual orientation of a person in the American military but whether the bloated US military is necessary in the first place. Exactly what is it we are supposed to be defending ourselves AGAINST?

Military expenditures and adventures are destroying our economy, but no one seems to notice or care. Instead we argue about the qualifications of those who volunteer for service.

The United States Navy, for example, is larger than the next seventeen nations COMBINED. Is this really necessary? Where is the nautical threat we are to defend against?

The Roman Empire had almost forty foreign military bases and at its peak the British Empire had nearly twice as many. Today the Pentagon has admitted to nearly eight hundred foreign military bases and facilities. Critics believe the number is much much higher. We have enough nuclear warheads to glass the entire planet if we wish to.

This is madness and the designs of the American military industrial complex is destroying our economy, our liberty and our future.

The question before us is not whether gays should be allowed to participate in the military nightmare, but whether any of us ought to.

Sorry, but you don't get to "repeal" the clear topic of a thread, change the subject, and substitute your own topic. That's called "hijacking." If you want to start a debate on the US military, feel free, but start a thread of your own.

Did YOU --- READ the CLEAR TOPIC of this thread?

It specifically asked how we FEEL about this repeal. I gave a clear and documented statement of how I feel and what EFFECT (the second question) it may have on the military.

If the readers want a more simplistic answer to how I feel about gays in the military it is SIMPLY this; that gays as well as anybody else in uniform are BREAKING THE LAW (including my own service therein).
The US Constitution says that only a declaration of war may preceed military action. There has been none since Dec. 8, 1944. Therefore anyone who participates in a war zone is breaking US law.

What effect will gays be in the military? None whatsoever, since the purpose of the military industrial complex is to suck treasure and blood out of the nation.

The issue of gays in the military is a smoke screen to more severe and pervasive problems. It is a non-issue and bickering about it or celebrating it is pointless to the greater hidden agenda of our corrupt and bloated system.

One may just as well argue about gay kids participating in a high school glee club and what effect that might have on the US military presence in Afghanistan. It has none, in case you're wondering.....it's an example of a non-issue militarily speaking.

WHAT IS IMMORAL HERE? Gays in the military or an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation? The two issues are light years apart, one has no meaning while the other has deadly consequences.

The questions for debate on this thread are:

Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

Some of what you say above does address these questions. However, the other issues you raise, while worthy of debate, are rather irrelevant to the stated questions. If you wish to debate whether any of the recent military actions by the U.S. are legal or justified, or whether military actions in general are immoral, that should be done on another thread. The forum rules do include keeping on the topic of the given thread.