Support our troops

[DavidS]

I've been reading through several news sites tonight and I just picked up on a great story about a US Air Force pilot who probably saved a lot of US Military lives in the early goings of the Iraq War. Now let's get one thing straight, I initially agreed with the reason for going into Iraq, but I no longer agree with it. I support Obama's decision to pull our troops out by next year. I always, 100% side with our brave men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way.

Now today, I came upon this story on TV.

Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. He was promoted to Lt. Colenel in 2006. He's part of the 325th Fighter Wing Mission that serves off of Tyndall Air Force Base flying F-15C's and F-22 Raptors. He's been in the Air Force for 18 years. He is just 2 years short of retirement. He's flown missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and has been awaiting re-deployment a new tour of duty. If you know anything about air force, he's Afelm JT Fly Trng.

Back in 2003 this hero won the Air Medal for Heroism. Back in April, 2003 the Army was making the initial advance to capture Baghdad Int'l airport, Victor and his wingmen found an Iraqi ambush site of about 12 APCs that were less than a mile from the Army advance. At the time, his wingman was suffering from a major malfunction in his plane that prohibited him from deploying his weapons. Within a timespan of 20-30 minutes, he and his wingman were finally able to deploy all of their weapons and destroy the 8 APCs that were about to ambush the US Army on their mission to take Baghdad International Airport. They took out the entire enemy position and that night the Army captured Baghdad International Airport.

Why am I posting this when there have been several hundred if not thousand of other US Soldiers, Seamen and Pilots who have each served their country heroicly and have also won medals, which some have even died for?

Because this hero was 2 years away from retirement and is being discharged, against his will, from the Air Force. Is this because of bad behavior? No. He has an excellent record of service and has never had any problems. Then why, if this 18-year veteran who is an excellent Pilot of the US Air Force being discharged against his will, 2 years before he retires?

Because he's openly gay. He's commanded squadrons, saved other American soldiers' lives and served with honor. But because he is different than we are, because he is sexually attracted to men, his sexuality trumps the incredible record of service he's had over 18 years.

Are you telling me that the most professionally trained, the meanest, the fiercest military in the world that can destroy any other enemy and accomplish any goal its given, cannot accept men or women who have different seuxality tastes than other people?

This Don't Ask, Don't Tell law absolutely MUST be repealed immediately! Men and women who fight to save our country, who are more than willing to die to protect our freedom, must NOT be discriminated against.

It's time to end prejudice and time to accept human beings for who they are - ESPEICALLY our heroic men and women in the US Military. Support Our Troops! ALL OF THEM!

 

[Pyrite]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

 

[DavidS]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

 

[C-101]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

The military is designed to protect our nation and that is their top priority first and foremost.

If anything gets in the way of that being accomplished, the military seeks to remove it.

Having soldiers that are openly gay sparks contention among troops, resulting in lower morale, less teamwork, and overall a lack of professionalism.

There is no discrimination against gays. They can join the military if they want.

However, they cannot make an issue out of their homosexuality by declaring it to other soldiers. Similarly, any form of sexual misconduct on the parts of heterosexuals is also prohibited and they cannot inquire as to what another soldier's sexuality is.

Overall, the military is a lean, mean fighting machine, not a Manhattan cocktail party.

 

[Pyrite]

The military is designed to protect our nation and that is their top priority first and foremost.

If anything gets in the way of that being accomplished, the military seeks to remove it.

Having soldiers that are openly gay sparks contention among troops, resulting in lower morale, less teamwork, and overall a lack of professionalism.

There is no discrimination against gays. They can join the military if they want.

However, they cannot make an issue out of their homosexuality by declaring it to other soldiers. Similarly, any form of sexual misconduct on the parts of heterosexuals is also prohibited and they cannot inquire as to what another soldier's sexuality is.

Overall, the military is lean, mean fighting machine, not a Manhattan cocktail party.

Fortunately, the military is more resilient than you are. They dealt with the inclusion of blacks when that was controversial, and with the inclusion of women. Both inclusions have helped make our military as strong as it is today.

But no, you feel that our men and women in the armed forces are too delicate to deal with the truth about the men and women they might be serving with. You want to mandate that certain members of the military must lie to their comrades in arms every day in order to keep the privilege of protecting us.

You do a great disservice to our military by assuming such weakness of character on their part.

 

[DavidS]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

The military is designed to protect our nation and that is their top priority first and foremost. If anything gets in the way of that being accomplished, the military seeks to remove it.

So if having women serve in our military gets in the way, should we remove them? What if a bunch of guys in our military are racist and don't like black people? Should we remove them? What if they don't like Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims? Should we only have only a White Christian military? What if there are people in our military who don't like people with dark hair? Should we only have a White Christian Blonde Military? What if there are people who don't like people with brown or green eyes? Should we only have a White Christian Blonde Hair Blue Eyed Military? Hmmm.. a White, Blonde Hair, Blue Eye Military. Holy shit, this is beginning to sound familiar.

Didn't we lose hundreds of thousands of men and women to defeat these assholes? And now you stand here as a proponent for discrimination from people who are different than you?

The fact is being gay only gets in the way of people who are bigots. Do bigots belong in our military if our military is supposed to be comprised of the most professional fighting force in the world?

Having soldiers that are openly gay sparks contention among troops, resulting in lower morale, less teamwork, and overall a lack of professionalism.

It only sparks that in biggotted troops who don't belong in our military to begin with.

There is no discrimination against gays. They can join the military if they want. However, they cannot make an issue out of their homosexuality by declaring it to other soldiers.

So, if a bunch of guys are looking over copies of Playboy that's completely fine. But if a guy wants to look over a copy of Playgirl, that's not?

How often are our men and women allowed to call home to their wives and children? What if a woman wants to call home to her wife and child? That's not allowed?

Similarly, any form of sexual misconduct on the parts of heterosexuals is also prohibited and they cannot inquire as to what another soldier's sexuality is.

How do you exactly hide your sexuality when you talk about your wife and children? Or is that banned? Just as someone wishes to talk about their wife and family or husband and family, a homosexual person should be allowed to as well.

Overall, the military is lean, mean fighting machine, not a Manhattan cocktail party.

A Manhattan cocktail party? What is it you think gay people will do when they're under fire from the enemy and if they lift their head too high, they'll get killed?

Nice stereotyping. Flaming homosexuals would not serve in the military. Normal gay people who just like the same sex as they are, would serve honorably in the military, just as the above mentioned Lt. Col. did.

 

[del]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

how was your military experience affected by DADT?

 

[Article 15]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

The military is designed to protect our nation and that is their top priority first and foremost.

If anything gets in the way of that being accomplished, the military seeks to remove it.

Having soldiers that are openly gay sparks contention among troops, resulting in lower morale, less teamwork, and overall a lack of professionalism.

There is no discrimination against gays. They can join the military if they want.

However, they cannot make an issue out of their homosexuality by declaring it to other soldiers. Similarly, any form of sexual misconduct on the parts of heterosexuals is also prohibited and they cannot inquire as to what another soldier's sexuality is.

Overall, the military is lean, mean fighting machine, not a Manhattan cocktail party.

Are you suggesting that our military members can't handle working with someone who is openly gay?

I served with a few men and women who were very obviously gay, it didn't bother me or seem to bother others around them at the time. I don't think if they came out and said what everyone already knew things would have changed much. Well, other then them being discharged and all that jazz.

 

[DavidS]

I agree. In these troubled times we simply cannot do without this significant portion of potential enlistees, and talented senior members, to uphold an absurd, and bigoted, policy. Most absurdly, we are allowing ourselves to fire Arabic language specialists, people whose positions are critical at this time, due to a trait that has no effect on the performance of their duties.

I know congress has a lot on their plates right now, but they need to move on this soon. Preferably with a solution that would allow soldiers lost to this idiotic policy to reenlist if they still wish to.

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

how was your military experience affected by DADT?

My brother wasn't allowed to serve because he is openly gay. Instead he became a firefighter and almost gave his life on 9/11.

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

 

[del]

This isn't something that takes a great deal of work or effort. I think a one page bill will do it.

"If a member of the US Military is openly gay, he or she may serve honorably with everyone else in the military."

Republicans disagree with it - ok, they disagree with it. That's their problem. It doesn't effect them. It effects the people who want to serve in our military but can't. We did this for African Americans, we did this for women, now it's time to do it for gays.

how was your military experience affected by DADT?

My brother wasn't allowed to serve because he is openly gay. Instead he became a firefighter and almost gave his life on 9/11.

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

i didn't ask about your brother, i asked about you.

 

[DavidS]

how was your military experience affected by DADT?

My brother wasn't allowed to serve because he is openly gay. Instead he became a firefighter and almost gave his life on 9/11.

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

i didn't ask about your brother, i asked about you.

My brother is my family. That's how it effects me. Perhaps you don't give two shits about your family, but my family and I are thicker than thieves.

 

[del]

My brother wasn't allowed to serve because he is openly gay. Instead he became a firefighter and almost gave his life on 9/11.

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

i didn't ask about your brother, i asked about you.

My brother is my family. That's how it effects me. Perhaps you don't give two shits about your family, but my family and I are thicker than thieves.

if you're any indication, i'll concede that your family is thicker than most substances known to man.

 

[DavidS]

i didn't ask about your brother, i asked about you.

My brother is my family. That's how it effects me. Perhaps you don't give two shits about your family, but my family and I are thicker than thieves.

if you're any indication, i'll concede that your family is thicker than most substances known to man.

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[del]

My brother is my family. That's how it effects me. Perhaps you don't give two shits about your family, but my family and I are thicker than thieves.

if you're any indication, i'll concede that your family is thicker than most substances known to man.

Are you going to answer my question?

why don't you ask one and find out?

 

[DavidS]

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

 

[del]

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

apparently not. next?

 

[DavidS]

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

apparently not. next?

Is that your opinion?

 

[Pyrite]

if you're any indication, i'll concede that your family is thicker than most substances known to man.

Are you going to answer my question?

why don't you ask one and find out?

Here's one: how is your question even remotely relevant? should we just not care about things outside of our direct experience?

 

[del]

Let me see here - if you're good enough to save lives on 9/11 and almost give your life, you're NOT good enough to save lives and give your life for your country?

apparently not. next?

Is that your opinion?

he, and i'm not entirely convinced he exists, is inadmissible under the current standing orders. that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

[DavidS]

apparently not. next?

Is that your opinion?

he, and i'm not entirely convinced he exists, is inadmissible under the current standing orders. that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

I didn't ask that.

I asked what your opinion was.