What Colonel North is actually saying is that we should ignore any successes on the part of the armed forces of Israel, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, France and Australia (all of whom allow gays to serve openly) and follow the lead of such forward-thinking nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I hope that GLBT advocates and their liberal enablers don't dismiss the arguments that Col. North advances by making ad hominem arguments about Col. North. It's a cheap way to discredit the argument.
TUAD: Why have all the other countries mentioned above not seen a mass exodus of troops? What's so unique about American troops? I don't think they are. That's why North's arguments are a bit hard to swallow."Rabbi David Rosen, the Jerusalem-based international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, noted that the same ultra-Orthodox leaders who regularly decry gay pride parades never tried to stop openly gay soldiers from IDF service."http://ncronline.org/news/justice/israel-model-gays-military
James,Perhaps you should ask instead, why is it that those who most hate and despise the military (the leftists) are the ones who are so quick to try to force their agenda on the military?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.htmlJames,Did you know that Pfc. Bradley Manning of Wilileaks notoriety is a gay activist?
TUAD: Did you know that Ted Bundy was a notorious heterosexual serial killer? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were also heterosexuals found guilty of treason. Is there a point you'd like to make in there somewhere?Peter: I wouldn't know. I'm not a leftist. I do know that opposition to desegregation within the military in 1948 was even stronger than its opposition to letting gays in. After Truman forced it via an executive order, the military didn't collapse as many predicted.
James,It's hard to predict how American culture will react to some policy based on how some other culture (like, say, the Netherlands) reacts. American culture is not very homogeneous in comparison with a lot of these other cultures. A policy that might not ruffle many feathers in Great Britain may be a cause of great division in America.
James,Pfc. Manning's gay activism and illegal behavior reinforces the U.S. military's perceptions and beliefs about having gays in the military.If you wish to reject that, go ahead.
James,I do know that opposition to desegregation within the military in 1948 was even stronger than its opposition to letting gays in. After Truman forced it via an executive order, the military didn't collapse as many predicted.I don't know if your facts are right. Cf. chapter 7 ("The Economics of Discrimination") in Thomas Sowell's Applied Economics.
You know, leaving aside the moral issues for the moment, the biggest problem with those who seek to infuse the military with openly-gay service men and women is that I've nowhere seen any argument about how this will make the military a better military. That is, where is the argument that tinkering with the military so that openly gay people can be in it will actually result in fewer casualities, more dead bad guys, and faster victories?Because if we're ignoring ethics, shouldn't we go by the utilitarian stance, which is that our military works pretty darn well as it is right now, so why risk that for no foreseeable benefit?
"The Berkeley City Council will consider a resolution that would declare the Army private suspected of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks a hero and call for his release. The council plans a vote Tuesday on the resolution in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is being held in a military brig in Virginia. A city commission already has approved it.Bob Meola, who authored the resolution, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that Manning is a patriot who deserves a medal."Hi Patrick,Did you go to the University of California Berkeley? Just curious. If so, what was it like to live and study in Berkeley?
Why have all the other countries mentioned above not seen a mass exodus of troops? What's so unique about American troops? I don't think they are. That's why North's arguments are a bit hard to swallow.James, you don't seem to realize the enormous cultural difference between the US and other countries. Homosexuals are encouraged to be very vocal and in people's faces about their sexual orientation. If inclusion of homosexuals has smaller impact on foreign armies, I imagine that is because homosexuals in those armies keep it to themselves, something that American homosexuals are conditioned not to do.opposition to desegregation within the military in 1948 was even stronger than its opposition to letting gays in.Do you have any actual documentation for that? And even if you are right (which I'd like to see substantiated), it makes no sense to equate the two situations. Does your analogy prove we should have mixed male-female units? Does it mean that *anyone* should be allowed in a military unit no matter what they do, since you think troops will eventually get used to it? You've just pulled a random analogy out of the air without showing why it's applicable.And make no mistake, putting homosexuals in the military will inevitably lead to abuse of power on their part in order to prey on those they outrank:http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5291911282/m/8700027671001
JAMES SAID:"What Colonel North is actually saying is that we should ignore any successes on the part of the armed forces of Israel, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, France and Australia (all of whom allow gays to serve openly) and follow the lead of such forward-thinking nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran."i) The point of an army is not to be "forward-thinking," but to win battles. Aside from the fact that the armed forces of contemporary Italy, Germany, and France hardly strike terror in the hearts of the enemy (to take three of your examples), the gratuitous assumption you're making is that, say, Israel's armed forces are a more effective fighting force because they have homosexuals openly serving in their ranks.But, of course, there's no frame of reference. You'd have to be able to compare it without a homosexual presence.ii) Moreover, Israel is, to my knowledge, legally and politically quite liberal, so that would be imposed on the Israeli armed forces regardless. Even if it diminished the effectiveness of the Israeli armed forces, the political class would still insist on that.iii) Also, I think until recently (maybe that's still the case), Ultraorthodox Jews were exempt from service. So their absence would liberalize the armed forces. iv) In addition, these are countries where a soldier or officer wouldn't dare publicly voice his disapproval.
Ok, looks like James has bailed, but if I might point out just one more of his non sequiturs:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were also heterosexuals found guilty of treason. Is there a point you'd like to make in there somewhere?Not to speak for "Truth unites...", but Manning's crime was directly motivated by his loyalty to his sexual perversion as the highest principle of his life. You can't say the same about the Rosenbergs and their sexuality. What James says is as silly as a drunkard trying to pass laws that allow drunken airline pilots and bus drivers, on the grounds that sober people have had errors in judgment too.
CA writes: "Manning's crime was directly motivated by his loyalty to his sexual perversion"Another ridiculous comment.Even if it were true: so what? Are you suggesting that all gays currently serving in the military are traitors like Manning? Here's a fact: pretty much all of sexual assaults committed against women are done by heterosexual men in the interests of satisfying their sexual urges. If Manning's actions indicate a general truth about gays, then so do the statistics of straight male sexual assaults indicate the trustworthiness of all other similar males.Try again.
Someone here doubted that there was any resistance to ending segregation in the military. I'm not sure what sort of proof they're looking for, but here's one reference:"[Truman] was accused of playing politics on the military desegregation order - and as far as his timing was concerned, there can be little doubt that he acted with an eye on the campaign. But who saw any political advantage in taking the initiative on such a controversial issue? A 1946 national opinion survey had found that two-thirds of all [W]hite Americans believed [B]lacks were already being treated fairly in the society at large. Congress passed a new Selective Service Act in June 1948 that left segregation in place, and Truman signed it into law. Southerners in both houses were fighting tooth and nail against any modification in the racial rules of the armed forces, and most of the military top brass were also dragging their feet on the issue. "http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_n13_v14/ai_20031732/
JAMES SAID:"Here's a fact: pretty much all of sexual assaults committed against women are done by heterosexual men in the interests of satisfying their sexual urges."Of course, that's also an argument against a coed military.
Another ridiculous comment.You are either ignorant or deliberately trying to ignore the facts. Manning was known to be disgruntled over DADT. He belonged to organizations that opposed it. His loyalty to the sexual urges that sprung up in his head outweighed his loyalty to the United States that he pledged to serve when joining the military. He also had a history of narcissistic behavior that led to demotions on his part, that should have led to his discharge before his treason. So it seems that the military has compromised itself already by being too tolerant of homosexual presence, even when DADT is supposedly in force.I'm not sure what sort of proof they're looking for, but here's one reference:Well thank you for confirming that you were spouting exaggeration in your previous comment. You confidently asserted that opposition to desegregation was greater than current opposition to repeal of DADT. But you are just speculating and blowing smoke.You cite 2/3rds (66%). But a full 75% of military in combat situations (not those at desk jobs) who would be the most impacted by having to put up with homosexuals in close quarters oppose the repeal of DADT.So, James, whose interests include fashion and interior decorating, I'm sure you are just being unbiased and honest in your analysis of this situation and have no ulterior motives, but please try to get your facts straight in the future. If you've got a solid case, you shouldn't have to resort to sophistry.