Posted on 12/19/2010 12:59:21 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
It is possible as the Presidency switches from party to party over the next 100 years that the removal of DADT will increase the politics in the US Military and not reduce them.
The Fundamental reason DADT was crafted in the first place was to remove these harmful destructive politics from the US Military.
Due to the repeal of DADT, the military will have to deal with political retribution over their decisions in the US Military as the Presidency changes political hands. This is going to waste huge amounts of money and human resources that the military needs to fight the two conflicts they are involved in.
This represents Obama’s biggest failure in the war on terror.
This may be wishful thinking but I have to think that somewhere in America a young man or young woman was sworn in on Friday. I have to believe that somewhere one of this poeple will sue because living side by side with a homosexual was NOT part of their contract. Just one of these could tie this policy up. Wishful thinking maybe?
Just pinging a couple of you - gotta turn computer off before surges fry it.
The military will likely want all service mambers who enlisted under the DADT policy to sign amendments to their enlistment contracts agreeing to the new policy. Is there any group I can offer my services to that will support a mass refusal to sign off on the repeal? It can be argued that this unilateral change of a material term of their employment contract makes it voidable, but not if they agree to waive their contract rights. Is anybody organizing on this??
Thank you VERY MUCH for posting this! I was looking forward to moving the discussion in this direction, as there is always the opportunity to make changes in the future. We need to understand who the enemy really is, and how they think and act in order to defeat them, permanently.
Never before have we seen the meaning of the old saying “elections have consequences” so vividly.
No, DADT was a compromise with Evil Clinton.
It was much better before. DADT is bad enough, open faggots in the military will be hell.
This is a war against all that is good.
Interesting! I asked the question yesterday, ‘what is to stop a new conservative president and conservative congress from undoing the repeal?”
Appraently, nothing.
There is one vanity posted here that claims Lieberman plans to attach an item to the defense authorization bill, that will remove sodomy as a crime. No links were provided. I will find the vanity.
Yes, but it goes both ways, the loser is our military.
I”t is possible as the Presidency switches from party to party over the next 100 years that the removal of DADT will increase the politics in the US Military and not reduce them.
The Fundamental reason DADT was crafted in the first place was to remove these harmful destructive politics from the US Military.”
Agreed. The solutions are three fold. In the short term, have Congressional hearings to highlight the failure of Obama ‘s new policy and to build public support to restore the old policy. Next, defeat Obama and overturn his policy by Executive Order. Finally, elect conservatives to Congress who will restore the policy legislatively.
I would certainly hope so. These people didn’t sign a contract to be a part of the new “Homosex Military.” I’d support 100% any soldier who argued this point.
Simply use the UCMJ to file “sexual harassment” complaints against gays who show PDA, fraternize, or make passes at you.
If military members begin to do this, it sends the signal that being “in your face” about sex, no matter whether straight or homosexual, you might get yourself in trouble.
Repealing DADT is a lack of policy.
This is going to be a political ping ball for sometime to come. Obama showed he isn’t intelligent enough to appreciate the political reality he is creating in the midst of two wars.
Is there any chance that allowing gays to serve will be in actual military work no big deal?
What I mean by that is, if sex, sex acts, pick-up attempts, etc, are illegal and prosecuted, would it matter that much about the soldiers’ orientation if they do not act on it in the military?
I am thinking of some of the women serving now. Their sisters in arms know that certain women are lesbian, but the women are good soldiers and don’t do anything wrong. Does their orientation hurt the military really?
Just wondering. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn’t matter that much? Anyone ever served with a great soldier who happened to be a very butch woman who was probably gay? How did it go?
Love it!
Even if they removed sodomy as a crime, they would still have article 134 to contend with.
I would like to see the link, Onyx. I can’t stand Lieberman.
Actually, I kind of agree with you.
However, the thought of having a S and M type Marine Drill Instructor?
WOW, that would be just awful!
And, to prevent such things? Remember that men have the same rights to protest sexual advances as do women.
What goes both ways? Not sure what you mean.
Our military was harmed by DADT, and now it will be destroyed, along with the rest of the country, unless the faggot agenda is stopped, turned around, and shoved back into the closet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.