"Don't ask, Don't smell."

[jaminjim]

Okay, I went back and found an old post and copied it here. I have left it in the uncorrected version.


I'm going to risk straying back to the original topic for a minute.

While stationed in Germany in the late seventies, an incident occurred in our barracks. It was a Weekend night and as was the norm several of our guys were getting hammered. We two guys in our Platoon that we all knew were a gay. (we called them something else back then) The barracks were the old WWII type that had been remodeled so that the room were setup to allow four men to a room. One guy (straight) went to semi passed out, and had a dream, the dream was that he was "with" his girl friend. Shortly after things reached a climax he awoke to find his room mate to close for his comfort, along with his clothing being in disarray.

This info was never provided to the 1st Sergeant because the queer (queer |kwi(ə)r|adjective
1 strange; odd : she had a queer feeling that they were being watched.) behaving ETS'ed that next Monday.

As it turned out the First Sgt. and his clerk were both "gay" also. (The First Sgt. Was caught doing the hole in the bathroom stall thing at the Main PX.) This helped explain why he and his clerk went "missing" during field exercises for several hours at a time. A Great leader during a simulated battle wouldn't you say?

That was the only unit that I was in that the "gays" were comfortable enough to be "openly gay". But while I was stationed in Korea we had a tough as nails Staff Sgt. that only when drunk would he try to force you to do odd things. Don't know what ever happened to him because I went back to the States shortly after his arrival. This guy was an ex heavy weight boxer who had done very well in the ring but had come back into the Army for whatever reason. By the way he also happened to be a MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT. I read the reason that he received the medal and he was a fearless warrior (he took on at least a platoon size enemy force with a 45 and a grease gun (piece of junk machine gun) he was credited with saving somewhere around 15 GI's) , but I would not want to be in the platoon he was in during combat operations because eventually I might be faced with having to put a bullet in his head.

 

[witness23]

I'm still trying to figure out the title of this thread, "Don't ask, Don't smell". What does "smell" mean?

 

[jaminjim]

I'm still trying to figure out the title of this thread, "Don't ask, Don't smell". What does "smell" mean?

I don't know... Maybe smell rhymes with bell. You know a "tinkerbell"

 

[hossman54]

Personal opinion here, no one that is openly a homosexual should be allowed in the military. Most people who have served in the military share this opinion.

You and I are both entitled to our personal opinion,I also personally know straight and gay members of the military as well as friends and family, which is how I am able to know the circumstances without actually having been enlisted. and yes this does qualify me as someone does not need to experience something first hand to understand the situation. although I am sure you will disagree.

Yes thats true. But it is different in the military, in most every other 'team' you don't sleep in the same room nor do you shower with most other teammates (unless you are talking athletic teams).

so what differentiates between military and a football team , when talking about sleeping in the same room and showering together

And which comments show fear, insecurity, or that I might either have experience, or afraid I might want an experience.

The previous quote and the next quote

The problem is when your not doing those functions you are hanging out in the barracks and all that, that entails and that is one of the problems. There are potentially other problems that can and do happen that are as large a problem, but can have deadlier results.

And what other POTENTIAL problems and all that, would those be that would have deadlier results

I'll take that as a no to the question of your military experience. Just another example of someone who obviously knows nothing about the life of a military man making judgements on how someone else should do a job they know nothing about.

as previously stated not necessary to enlist to have accurate knowledge.

Mine are based on Observation and facts.

Observation maybe facts? have not seen a single one yet

 

[aristotle]

I'm still trying to figure out the title of this thread, "Don't ask, Don't smell". What does "smell" mean?

It means Obama's policies stink! Funny how presidents who have never served in the military are so hellbent on changing it to suit their purposes. This was totally predictable. Why do Democrats elect candidates with no experience? Take a look at their core constituency.

 

[witness23]

Just wondering Aristotle have you served in our military? I'm not trying to be confrontational just asking. You seem pretty passionate about the the policy and I'm trying find out where it's coming from.

 

[aristotle]

Just wondering Aristotle have you served in our military? I'm not trying to be confrontational just asking. You seem pretty passionate about the the policy and I'm trying find out where it's coming from.

witness23... I answered this same question from you last summer in the thread "Goodbye Don't ask, Don't Tell." I served proudly in the US Navy during the Reagan administration. For a US president to homosexualize our military boogles the mind. Even if Obama succeeds in doing so, it will cause tremendous harm and pushback from the troops. The very next conservative president would find it necessary to reverse such a foolish experiment. We will survive the Obama presidency, but be greatly diminished as a nation.

 

[RLENT]

But saying someone is insecure is not name calling it is an observation based on your own coments.

Actually it really isn't an observation - it's a characterization.

You really have no idea what is motivating jaminjim's viewpoint in this regard - but you have choosen to use your preconcieved notions and prejudices to construct a view of him based on very, very little actual observation and data.

Based on someones words I feel I am capable of forming a simple opinion of that person

Yeah, well .... I certainly wouldn't brag about it ....

I mean, afterall, a simple opinion is, quite possibly .... simplistic .....

Your opinion is based in your religious beliefs

Really ?

Where in anything that jaminjim posted in this thread did he reveal that ?

Strike one on your ability to accurately observe.

Really pretty funny .... you decry bias and prejudice .... but that's you yourself are operating off in this matter

 

[BigWill29]

exactly, irony... What is the difference what type of team. I am certain that gay people can shoot, obey orders, march, just as good as straight people and I would bet even better than some straight people. Would you be afraid that you or others might be tempted to change teams if in the shower with a gay person? You can disagree with the lifestyle as I do without being threatened by the lifestyle.

I think the shower thing is alittle far fetched, That's no different than co ed. Two different orientations... one shower. I think u just told us alot.

 

[layoutshooter]

" what differentiates between military and a football team , when talking about sleeping in the same room and showering together"

There may be little difference between the military and a football team when it comes to the shower. The similarity ends there.

You don't just sleep in the same room, you live together, in very close quarters in some cases, sometimes for years.

You work together, go to school together, play together and die together. In many ways being in the military is far closer to being in a family than a sports team.

The work you do in the military is important. Football, or any sport for that matter, is not.

Obama should not be using the military as a lab for social experimentation. He did not serve. It is quite obvious from the way he speaks that he has no understanding of what our military is for, has no understanding what military life is like nor any respect for the military or it's members.

Since Obama seems to believe that we live in a democracy then let those serving decide. Let those now serving vote on this. After all, it is their lives. They should have the final say.

Obama should stay on the sidelines where he belongs.

 

[hossman54]

Layout I agree with you entirely. My point here is that I don't think that the people currently serving in the military would care. as long as they knew they could trust their backs to the person next to them it does not mater what their sexual preference is. You see this really is a stupid thing to be concerned about anyhow unless the individual has an issue with it. Just like a job... i understand that there are in depth differences between the military and sports teams but the analogy was made so I went with it. I personally know many people currently serving for our country. Some gay some not. all but one person does not think it is an issue and should not be a concern. ANY minority or group that is PERCEIVED as different from the Norm should be allowed to serve for our country as long as they can do the job righteously. Bigotry has no place in the protection of our country...

 

[layoutshooter]

It is not a matter of bigotry but one of practicality. It is not up to Obama to decide. I know, he is commander in chief, and on paper he can. This is not a paper world. Either let the members serving decide or, do nothing. He should stay out of this.

I have no doubt that I served with gay men in the military. I was not aware of any but that means nothing. As long as they kept their life to themselves and did not bother me or others it is not a problem.

It will become a problem if they start to show "feelings" for someone who is not gay. There is no place on the battlefield or in the military for romance. Distractions can kill.

Keep it quiet as it has always been. It has worked fine for several hundred years. That is just my opinion. As commander in chief I would have never done what Obama has done. It is an indicator of his lack of experience and understanding of the military.

 

[chefdennis]

Hossman wrote:

I personally know many people currently serving for our country. Some gay some not. all but one person does not think it is an issue and should not be a concern. ANY minority or group that is PERCEIVED as different from the Norm should be allowed to serve for our country as long as they can do the job righteously. Bigotry has no place in the protection of our country...

Well the quotes and links below seem to show those in the military have a bit if a differing opinion.

58% of enlisted military personel polled are against changing any part of the law mistakenly known as "Don't ask, Don't tell" that is:

Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—the homosexual exclusion law

Center for Military Readiness

10% of those polled wouldn't Re-up, and 14% would END there careers.

Over 1100 Retired Military Officers from the Flag and General Officers of the Military are oppose to gays in the military....

Now no one is about to say that there aren't gays in the military, there are. The key to all of this is "OPENLY GAY", and that doesn't not refer to "FLAUNTING IT" as in flaming gays in feather boas, it simply refers to public admiting you are gay and openly communicating it to fellow members of the military.

One thing that hasn't been touched on here is that our troops often "interact" with troops of foreign countries....some that are extremely adverse to homosexuality (the arab nations come to mind) when these interaction are with OPENLY GAY troops, it can cause issues...

Now that 10% of troops that wouldn't re-up certainly isn't a huge number, but it is a number the military can't afford to lose, especially now and especially considering the number of those that are "Speciality" trained and just a bit harder to replace....

This has nothing to do with bigotry. The military culture is one of its own with its own stresses, the OPENLY GAY issue is a stress for some that isn't needed....

Don't just read the quotes below, go to the links and read the complete articles, especially the one from the 1100 retired Officers....

But the military has its own culture, more insular and more conservative than the broader population's. In a survey of active-duty service members released last week, 58 percent said they oppose any change in the military's policy toward gays. Up to 23 percent of troops might not re-enlist if the law is repealed, according to a Military Times poll.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177723

Repeal of Law on Gays Would Break Volunteer Force

More than 1,100 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement expressing support for the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. This law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., is commonly mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military

1. Concerns Regarding Recruiting, Retention, and Readiness

For four years in a row, the Military Times Poll of almost 2,000 active-duty subscribers found that 58% of respondents opposed repeal of the law. These surveys, done by a Gannet-owned newspaper company, are more relevant than civilian polls asking misleading questions.

• The 2008 Military Times Poll asked respondents what they would do if Congress repealed the 1993 law. In response, 10% said they would not re-enlist, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. If the smaller number (10%) left the military, active duty, guard, and reserve forces would lose 228,600 people─more than
the active-duty Marine Corps today.

• The Military Times Poll of active-duty personnel cannot predict the future, but its findings are significant. Many first-term enlistees normally leave, but the loss of even a few
thousand careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable would come at a crippling cost—especially when we are at war and trying to grow the Army and Marine Corps. Personnel remaining would have to face more deployments and potential combat situations with fewer, less-skilled people.

http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM Issue Overview 033109.pdf

No matter what the general public thinks and that includes us here this is a issue that as Layout said should be decided by those IN the military......

 

[aristotle]

I am hearing from current servicemembers that the level of disgust is much higher than the polls suggest. If Obama actually repeals DADT, which we must assume he will, there will be an exodus from military service unlike anyone imagines. So swift and severe will be public backlash that it almost assures Obama cannot be re-elected. As things are now, Obama holds nearly 100% of the gay vote. The political cost to Obama will be the loss of millions of independents and traditional-values voters. Bill Clinton was smart enough to understand this calculation. Obama, consumed by arrogance, doesn't care.

I would rather see Obama serve two full terms(GULP) than watch him transform our military into some Kafkaesque nightmare. We really must be more careful in the future about whom we elect as president. Elections have consequences... our hopey-changey president doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

 

[greg334]

So swift and severe will be public backlash that it almost assures Obama cannot be re-elected.

You are kidding yourself?

Look I'll be frank, most of us in this country don't even know there is a war going on and most of us don't care about what happens in the military - all sad but very true.

A lot of people go along in life as ignorant as they possibly can be without concern with what happens outside of their sad pathetic world. They take things for granted, are selfish little people and when someone brings up the subject about the military and some social cause, they get all p*ssed off and put that person in a position to either defend themselves or shut up.

This also goes for those who are involved with helping soldiers who are returning from the war, you can not imagine what sh*t they get just asking for people to get involved. Right here on EO is a perfect example, during the holidays I was ripped into by one member for asking people to get involved.

Don't ask, Don't tell was a compromise to garner time until the public at large would forget about the subject. The military shouldn't have been put in to this situation as much as some of the compromises about adjusting requirements due to gender and so on. The public should have their hand in the military, not at the end of engineering it to reflect the public's perception of what the military should look like but rather to make sure it is not used as a social engineering experiement.

As such the entire Gay agenda, it is like other things - it is done either on their terms or they won't accept any gains at all. The same goes for this, we have such a small gay minority in this country who are causing the mess and they scream discrimination but in fact not everyone is allowed to join the military or fight while in the military. They are not being discriminated against as much as a large majority of the population is based on Age. Age seems to be something we can't help but being gay is.

 

[skyraider]

Just watch Glen Beck on foxnews, and Bill Orielly, good stuff

 

[Pilgrim]

Consider this scenario: the DADT policy is repealed and OPENLY GAY HOMOSEXUALS are allowed to enlist and serve in the military. (1)What happens then the first transgender dude or diva shows up at the recruiting station? Does he/she/it join the Army or the WACS? What will the reaction be from the military in general if they are forced to accept these types? Don't think for a minute that this won't happen once DADT is repealed, if for no other reason than for the gay rights militants to take advantage of their newfound influence. (2)Suppose Victor/Victoria seems completely normal until he gets in the barracks and puts on his lace teddy in full view of the troops when the bugler sounds taps. Then he puts on his sheer panties and bra under his fatigues the next morning while everyone else is throwing on those baggy boxers and t-shirts. Does anyone think for one minute that having to tolerate these types of misfits won't affect the morale of our troops?

The fact of the matter is that while there are some gays that can function just fine in a military environment, there are others that are just not mentally fit for military service. This is not the right environment for social experimentation - it takes special people to be effective in the all volunteer military - and yes, discrimination should be a determining factor when one's mental state is concerned. The security of our country and the lives or our soldiers are at stake.

 

[jaminjim]

Does anyone remember the first episode of Survivor? Richard Hatch was the winner .

 

[greg334]

I want to know something, maybe some of you older vets can answer this;

When the military was segregated in 1913, there wasn't much said.

When the military was desegregated in 1948, there wasn't a joint chief's comments in the press, there wasn't the need for a year long study, but one piece of paper signed by the president that did the job.

Now when you look at the rhetoric and actions of this president, it may seem that he is not the president who wants to take chances but instead is coving his a**. If he really wanted to make real gains he would start claiming that Gay rights struggle is equal to the same struggle the blacks faced during the mid-20th century and because there is a lot of the same struggle going on, he will do the same thing that another president did in 1948 - sign an executive order to allow gays to serve openly.

BUT honestly, I don't think he is that serious to end any Clinton compromised policy, I think he is using the issue as a political tool and it may end up being nothing but more rhetoric which will result in nothing being changed.

 

[chefdennis]

you don't even have to go back that far, just go back to when they let women serve in COMBAT positions.....the uproar was huge, it all worked out, but they are still segragated in more issues then the general public thinks...this gay issue is simply about serving OPENLY....no one is about to say that gays don't serve, they do...its just that they keep it to themselves for the fear of being removed.....i don't see anything good for the day to day operations of our military that could come from the change in the law....there will not be a big influx of gays joining, but there could be a bigger issue with others leaving and some getting hurt.....