Gen Pace VS PC Police

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It seems not only does Gen Pace have to fight the terrorists and win the war in Iraq - he now has to win the war being waged against him by the libs



Gen. Pace vs. PC police

By Elaine Donnelly
March 18, 2007


Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should not apologize for supporting the law excluding homosexuals from the military. That law, Section 654, Title 10, was passed with veto-proof bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1993. Federal courts have declared it constitutional several times.
Nor should Gen. Pace be intimidated by name-calling homosexual activists who are berating the general for expressing his personal opinions on immorality. A relentless public relations campaign is promoting their cause and a controversial bill, sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan, Massachusetts Democrat, which would repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law.
The statute reflects the views of people who see the issue in moral terms, but it uses secular language emphasizing military discipline. Duly enacted laws -- including prohibitions against lying, stealing and murder -- should not be repealed just because they coincide with religious principles and moral codes such as the Ten Commandments.
The personal values of Gen. Pace are not unusual, but two contradictions in his March 12 statement deserve a closer look. Gen. Pace said that "don't ask, don't tell" allows homosexual individuals to serve, but that frequently stated misinterpretation lacks support in the law Congress actually approved.
Gen. Pace also equated homosexuality with adultery, a moral offense prohibited under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Using the general's comment as a teaching moment, consider what would happen if President Clinton had imposed on the military a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on adultery. Such a policy could condone adulterous relationships in the military, as long as the people involved do not say they are adulterers. That would encourage illicit behavior, in the same way the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, imposed by the Clinton administration, condones dishonesty about homosexual conduct.
This is why Congress rejected the "don't ask, don't tell" concept in 1993. Instead, members decided to codify pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations stating, "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."
Three months after signing the law -- apparently with fingers crossed behind his back -- Bill Clinton undermined the statute by announcing contradictory enforcement regulations: the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." These regulations state that "sexual orientation" (a vague phrase appearing nowhere in the law) is "personal and private" and "not a bar to military service."
The contradiction between the law and Mr. Clinton's enforcement policy created confusion that continues to this day. In 1996 the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations were inconsistent with statutory language stating, "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service."
Failure to resolve the disparity between policy and law works to the advantage of homosexual activists, because the statute is slandered every time it is mislabeled with the catch phrase "don't ask, don't tell." Chronic confusion helps their high-powered public relations campaign, which frequently cites questionable "studies" and public opinion surveys skewed to promote open homosexuality in the military.
In December 2006, for example, Zogby International released a poll commissioned by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a homosexual activist group now called the Michael D. Palm Center.
The Zogby news release publicized an innocuous question about respondents' relative "comfort" with homosexuals, but did not mention the key question displayed on the pollster's Web site: "Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?"
On that question, 26 percent of respondents agreed, but 37 percent disagreed. The poll also found 32 percent of respondents were "Neutral," and 5 percent were "Not sure." The combined 69 percent who were opposed or neutral outnumbered the 26 percent who wanted the law repealed. This was hardly a mandate for radical change. (See related article at http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287)

Another PR strategy, shedding crocodile tears about national security, blames the homosexual exclusion law for military personnel shortages. But the often-cited 2005 General Accountability Office report, which provided statistical data on the number of "unprogrammed separations" between 1994 and 2003, did not support that claim.
The Pentagon's Office of Personnel and Readiness responded to the GAO report by putting discharge numbers into perspective. During the nine years in question, there were 26,446 discharges for pregnancy; 36,513 for violations of weight standards; 38,178 for "serious offenses;" 20,527 for parenthood, and 59,098 for "drug offenses/use." In contrast, 9,501 persons were discharged when they acknowledged homosexual conduct -- about 5 percent of unplanned separations, or 0.37 percent of discharges for all reasons. That number could be reduced to near zero if potential recruits were accurately informed that homosexual men and women are not eligible to serve in the military.
Defense Secretary William Gates should exercise his legally authorized option to reinstate "the question" about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. At the very least, President Bush should drop Mr. Clinton's expendable "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, and provide accurate information about the meaning and purpose of the law.
The statute recognizes differences between military and civilian life, and notes that in combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment. Such realities justify numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian life.
Simply stated in gender-neutral terms, the law says that in conditions "characterized by forced intimacy, with little or no privacy," persons should not have to expose themselves to persons who might be sexually attracted to them. The same principle protects privacy between military men and women, to the greatest extent possible. It encourages good order and discipline by respecting the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters.
Homosexual activists will not stop pushing their agenda, but the law deserves continued support.

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that concentrates on military personnel issues.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070317-114439-3520r.htm
 

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
They miss the point.

Pace slandered tens of thousands of his own troops. How would you feel being a gay kid fighting besides his comrades in Iraq right now? Your boss essentially said last year at the Wharton Business School that you are not to be trusted.

Pace also is a supporter of the worst kind of hypocrisy; he's helped expand the "moral waiver" program which allows all manner of sociopaths, criminals and other near-do-wells into the armed forces.

(That's why 90% of my day at work is now spent building the paperwork and discipline case against an admitted "former" white supremacist who would have joined the Army if only he hadn't had two knee surgeries from his days as a steroid-popping high school football player.)

Private Steven Green, a murderer of an Iraqi family and rapist of their daughter, got in on the moral waiver program. The statistics we all want to see are about how many of these guys take up the time of the military justice system.

Pace is a political hack who should be fired for slandering the troops he's supposed to be responsible for. Instead, he's some kind of hero for stabbing them in the back and making all the people who hate gays applaud how politicized our military has become from both the left and the right.

I've yet to see a performance issue from a gay sailor or Marine. I've yet to see a serious issue resulting from someone not approving of them being gay. Guess what? Its because most people don't have time to care. I'm personally far more bothered by the hedonistic behavior of sailors (including senior officers and chiefs) to include adultery and sadism in places like Thailand and Australia than I am about gays. Nevertheless, we all have a job to do and we go do it.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
They miss the point.

Pace slandered tens of thousands of his own troops. How would you feel being a gay kid fighting besides his comrades in Iraq right now? Your boss essentially said last year at the Wharton Business School that you are not to be trusted.

Pace also is a supporter of the worst kind of hypocrisy; he's helped expand the "moral waiver" program which allows all manner of sociopaths, criminals and other near-do-wells into the armed forces.

(That's why 90% of my day at work is now spent building the paperwork and discipline case against an admitted "former" white supremacist who would have joined the Army if only he hadn't had two knee surgeries from his days as a steroid-popping high school football player.)

Private Steven Green, a murderer of an Iraqi family and rapist of their daughter, got in on the moral waiver program. The statistics we all want to see are about how many of these guys take up the time of the military justice system.

Pace is a political hack who should be fired for slandering the troops he's supposed to be responsible for. Instead, he's some kind of hero for stabbing them in the back and making all the people who hate gays applaud how politicized our military has become from both the left and the right.

I've yet to see a performance issue from a gay sailor or Marine. I've yet to see a serious issue resulting from someone not approving of them being gay. Guess what? Its because most people don't have time to care. I'm personally far more bothered by the hedonistic behavior of sailors (including senior officers and chiefs) to include adultery and sadism in places like Thailand and Australia than I am about gays. Nevertheless, we all have a job to do and we go do it.


What Gen Pace said was his own personal opinion. It has nothing to do with military policy

The US military defends the right for free speech - that includes members of the US military
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
They miss the point.

Pace slandered tens of thousands of his own troops. How would you feel being a gay kid fighting besides his comrades in Iraq right now? Your boss essentially said last year at the Wharton Business School that you are not to be trusted.

Pace also is a supporter of the worst kind of hypocrisy; he's helped expand the "moral waiver" program which allows all manner of sociopaths, criminals and other near-do-wells into the armed forces.

(That's why 90% of my day at work is now spent building the paperwork and discipline case against an admitted "former" white supremacist who would have joined the Army if only he hadn't had two knee surgeries from his days as a steroid-popping high school football player.)

Private Steven Green, a murderer of an Iraqi family and rapist of their daughter, got in on the moral waiver program. The statistics we all want to see are about how many of these guys take up the time of the military justice system.

Pace is a political hack who should be fired for slandering the troops he's supposed to be responsible for. Instead, he's some kind of hero for stabbing them in the back and making all the people who hate gays applaud how politicized our military has become from both the left and the right.

I've yet to see a performance issue from a gay sailor or Marine. I've yet to see a serious issue resulting from someone not approving of them being gay. Guess what? Its because most people don't have time to care. I'm personally far more bothered by the hedonistic behavior of sailors (including senior officers and chiefs) to include adultery and sadism in places like Thailand and Australia than I am about gays. Nevertheless, we all have a job to do and we go do it.
right on.... gays have been serving honorably and dying bravely for the entire length of our country's history.
 

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
What Gen Pace said was his own personal opinion. It has nothing to do with military policy

The US military defends the right for free speech - that includes members of the US military
Not while in uniform during an official function. Especially when he is in charge of implementing effectively the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Not while in uniform during an official function. Especially when he is in charge of implementing effectively the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
precisely...if you are in uniform speaking at an approved function, you toe the party line. period.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
They miss the point.

Pace slandered tens of thousands of his own troops. How would you feel being a gay kid fighting besides his comrades in Iraq right now? Your boss essentially said last year at the Wharton Business School that you are not to be trusted.

Pace also is a supporter of the worst kind of hypocrisy; he's helped expand the "moral waiver" program which allows all manner of sociopaths, criminals and other near-do-wells into the armed forces.

(That's why 90% of my day at work is now spent building the paperwork and discipline case against an admitted "former" white supremacist who would have joined the Army if only he hadn't had two knee surgeries from his days as a steroid-popping high school football player.)

Private Steven Green, a murderer of an Iraqi family and rapist of their daughter, got in on the moral waiver program. The statistics we all want to see are about how many of these guys take up the time of the military justice system.

Pace is a political hack who should be fired for slandering the troops he's supposed to be responsible for. Instead, he's some kind of hero for stabbing them in the back and making all the people who hate gays applaud how politicized our military has become from both the left and the right.

I've yet to see a performance issue from a gay sailor or Marine. I've yet to see a serious issue resulting from someone not approving of them being gay. Guess what? Its because most people don't have time to care. I'm personally far more bothered by the hedonistic behavior of sailors (including senior officers and chiefs) to include adultery and sadism in places like Thailand and Australia than I am about gays. Nevertheless, we all have a job to do and we go do it.
I've seen quite a few serious issues resulting from finding out a Marine was gay ... one was nearly beaten to death. It's just asking for trouble trying to forcibly integrate what 90+% of your alpha-male military types are at best barely tolerant of, and at worst violent and physically harmful oward.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
I've seen quite a few serious issues resulting from finding out a Marine was gay ... one was nearly beaten to death. It's just asking for trouble trying to forcibly integrate what 90+% of your alpha-male military types are at best barely tolerant of, and at worst violent and physically harmful oward.
gunny....I bet you would be surprised to find out how many of your shipmates had been in the closet the whole time and you never had a clue.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
gunny....I bet you would be surprised to find out how many of your shipmates had been in the closet the whole time and you never had a clue.
No, I actually probably would not be surprised. I know they're there. But they are thereunder the default premise of being straight, not identified; therefore not considered a threat.

I dentify them, and you WILL have the real or perceived threat.

If they make up the same percentage of the military as they do the general public, it is IMO not worth the disruption it would cause to cater to 5-7%.

I would refuse to have one in my tent, fighting hole, or using the head when I was. Letting a gay military person use the mass shower/toilet facilities is like letting me use teh ladies head to S-S-S.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
No, I actually probably would not be surprised. I know they're there. But they are thereunder the default premise of being straight, not identified; therefore not considered a threat.

I dentify them, and you WILL have the real or perceived threat.

If they make up the same percentage of the military as they do the general public, it is IMO not worth the disruption it would cause to cater to 5-7%.

I would refuse to have one in my tent, fighting hole, or using the head when I was. Letting a gay military person use the mass shower/toilet facilities is like letting me use teh ladies head to S-S-S.
interesting perspective. In my life out of the military, I have come in contact with a fairly large number of gay men.... they happen to like one of the same restaurants my wife and I like and we have gotten to know some of them fairly well. I sing in my church choir with an openly gay, former methodist minister... and I have a gay couple living next door. They all tell me that, oddly enough, there really isn't an overwhelming physical attraction for heterosexual men... if they know someone is straight, there is no spark there. I dunno...that is what they tell me - although I suppose it could all be a pretext to get me to go to the communal hot tub joint with them! lol
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
interesting perspective. In my life out of the military, I have come in contact with a fairly large number of gay men.... they happen to like one of the same restaurants my wife and I like and we have gotten to know some of them fairly well. I sing in my church choir with an openly gay, former methodist minister... and I have a gay couple living next door. They all tell me that, oddly enough, there really isn't an overwhelming physical attraction for heterosexual men... if they know someone is straight, there is no spark there. I dunno...that is what they tell me - although I suppose it could all be a pretext to get me to go to the communal hot tub joint with them! lol
I don't care what gays do in private, and I haven't ever argued about it. I'm not really all that offended at seeing a gay couple. providing they are flaming and making a point of themselves. Because I don't like hetero's who carry on outside closed doors either. It isn't appropriate public conduct, IMO.

In examining allowing gays to openly enlist in the military, the first question is "Why?" While I know younger people do it to an extent anyway, it is STILL inapprorpriate professional behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexuality in public in the military. If a guy comes in and starts yacking about what-all he did with Suzy Rottencrotch, the first thing I think of is he must not hold in very high regard to disrespect her in such a way.

As you pointed out, the gays that are in the military are already there. Those gays want to serve FIRST, and be gay second. The ones that want to be allowed to flaunt it want to be gay first, and serve second.

If you aren't a Marine first in my company, I have mess duty, guard and maintenance quotas to fill.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
I don't care what gays do in private, and I haven't ever argued about it. I'm not really all that offended at seeing a gay couple. providing they are flaming and making a point of themselves. Because I don't like hetero's who carry on outside closed doors either. It isn't appropriate public conduct, IMO.

In examining allowing gays to openly enlist in the military, the first question is "Why?" While I know younger people do it to an extent anyway, it is STILL inapprorpriate professional behavior for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexuality in public in the military. If a guy comes in and starts yacking about what-all he did with Suzy Rottencrotch, the first thing I think of is he must not hold in very high regard to disrespect her in such a way.

As you pointed out, the gays that are in the military are already there. Those gays want to serve FIRST, and be gay second. The ones that want to be allowed to flaunt it want to be gay first, and serve second.

If you aren't a Marine first in my company, I have mess duty, guard and maintenance quotas to fill.
I agree completely. Guys who bring sex into the military workplace are unprofessional and inappropriate.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
but regarding the subject of this thread, Pace was inappropriate in sharing his personal beliefs while at an official speaking engagement where the administration should expect him to speak the party line.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
but regarding the subject of this thread, Pace was inappropriate in sharing his personal beliefs while at an official speaking engagement where the administration should expect him to speak the party line.
The privielge of knowing there are no more stars in your future, and you're holding a terminal post.
 

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
I agree completely. Guys who bring sex into the military workplace are unprofessional and inappropriate.
Sad that that attitude does not prevail in the Navy!

The biggest thing here is obviously that the "out and proud and flaunting it" types are a severe problem. But I believe that is a tiny minority of the gays who serve or would serve.
Nevertheless, if they conduct themselves as Marines/sailors/airmen/soldiers first, I would welcome them.
The types who would beat a gay man to death are the types who don't belong in today's military; how the hell could they conduct counterinsurgency operations with that kind of attitude?

Personally, and I mean this in the most un-PC, straight up manner; I see a lot more problems with women in the military than gays. I don't have gays getting pregnant (on purpose 9 times out of 10) before deployments, I don't have gays causing multiple people to stand around trying to get their attention or talk to them to the point where the job doesn't get done. I don't have men trying to rape gays (or vice versa) as much as this has been a problem in the battlefield apparently in Iraq.

All trade-offs we have and accept. Thanks to Bin Laden and his ilk, the endemic poverty and cultural collapse of much of the world (including in some of our own cities), the short-sighted policies of Western democrats and Eastern dictators alike..... we'll be a world at war for a long time. Not just against terrorism, but against and within all manner of bad, terrible things. We need all the qualified and capable bodies we can get.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Really? WTF do you think you are going to do to him for it? Not give him his next duty station choice or not recommend him for his 5th star (which the Corps doesn't have)? Ask him to quietly step down so he can go get paid twice as much for his expert opinion by media outlets?

I see you put a lot of thought into your response.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Really? WTF do you think you are going to do to him for it? Not give him his next duty station choice or not recommend him for his 5th star (which the Corps doesn't have)? Ask him to quietly step down so he can go get paid twice as much for his expert opinion by media outlets?

I see you put a lot of thought into your response.


Why should any of those be done to him? He was asked his personal opinion about the topic and he gave it

It ssems the Dems and liberal media support free speech as long as it is liberal free speech and the PC Police give it their stamp of approval
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Really? WTF do you think you are going to do to him for it? Not give him his next duty station choice or not recommend him for his 5th star (which the Corps doesn't have)? Ask him to quietly step down so he can go get paid twice as much for his expert opinion by media outlets?

I see you put a lot of thought into your response.
you are right, of course....when you are CJCS, there really isn't much of a career path left for you in uniform!
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Why should any of those be done to him? He was asked his personal opinion about the topic and he gave it

It ssems the Dems and liberal media support free speech as long as it is liberal free speech and the PC Police give it their stamp of approval
I did not say any of those things should be done to him. I presented them as some rather ineffecual options.

My professional opinion as a Marine ... It is a chargeable offense in the Marine Corps to present one's personal viewpoints in support of any candidate/party or their political philosophy as a Marine viewpoint. At an official function, in uniform, Gen Pace represented the senior-most Marine in the Corps ... not Peter Pace, US citizen.

So, on one side, the argument can be made that his doind so was unprofessional.

The argument can also be made that at the Commandant of the Marine Corps/Chairman, JCS level, it's hard to separate the personal from professional opinions. His personal prejudices are going to be reflected in Maine Corps policy for at least four years.

So one could also say that Gen Pace's professional opinion is also his personal opinion, or based on it, and representing it solely as personal opinion is BS.

For instance, when General Kelly was first slated to be Commandant, the rumors abounded he was going to make everyone shave off their moustaches. A personal bias which would be implimented in Marine Corps grooming policy (didn't happen, btw).

General Gray basically tried to turn everyone in the Marines Corps into a grunt, and had a list of books selected the Commandant that all Marines were required to choose I beleive 2 annually and read. Books based on what he thought was good.

General Mundy made his name in recruiting. When he became Commandant, suddenly all Marines werer looking at not beign competitive for promotion without a "B" billet (Recruting, Drill Instructor or Marine Security Guard).

Gen C Krulak was raised by Gen Victor Krulak, and his personal and professional opinions were one and the same, and he was a political animal. He had little man's syndrome, walked the hall of HQMC with a baseball bat, and he was vindication for his father never having been Commandant.

So Gen Pace doesn't believe gays belong in the Corps. Neither do/did I, and consider it as much if not more my professional opinion than my personal one.

IMO, expressing the opinion that gays don't belong in the Corps, while in uniform, at an official function is as much a professional opinion as a personal one.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top