Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the US spent millions and millions of dollars training this guy who has fought the taliban, fought in several wars and who has been rewarded with multiple medals, but now they want to get rid of him for being a homosexual?
http://www.q ue e rty.com/shock-obama-lets-military-ax-18-year-fighter-pilot-vet-victor-fehrenbach-20090520/
this is similar to the story about dan choi. it makes no sense. these are language specialist and valuable assets to the military.
obama seems to be disappointing those who backed his promises of change...
the US spent millions and millions of dollars training this guy who has fought the taliban, fought in several wars and who has been rewarded with multiple medals, but now they want to get rid of him for being a homosexual?
http://www.q ue e rty.com/shock-obama-lets-military-ax-18-year-fighter-pilot-vet-victor-fehrenbach-20090520/
this is similar to the story about dan choi. it makes no sense. these are language specialist and valuable assets to the military.
obama seems to be disappointing those who backed his promises of change...
I saw this story on MSNBC. DADT may be problematic to some, but it is the law/policy. When you break the law, you pay the consequences. He obviously divulged his gay lifestyle to someone. Until the policy is changed, what can anyone say? It is what it is.
What bothered me is that Rachel Maddow NEVER asked him why he broke the law/policy. Seems like a logical question to me. Everything else is moot.
I saw this story on MSNBC. DADT may be problematic to some, but it is the law/policy. When you break the law, you pay the consequences. He obviously divulged his gay lifestyle to someone. Until the policy is changed, what can anyone say? It is what it is.
You can say it's a ridiculous policy and should be changed, that's what you can say.
You can say it's a ridiculous policy and should be changed, that's what you can say.
Perhaps. For the sake of argument, can you elaborate why you think that it would be beneficial for anyone to know your sexual orientation? Especially for troops that share close quarters? Why does that need to be divulged? What good could come from that information? Just curious what your opinion is since you think it is a ridiculous policy.
It's policy. It does not matter how much was "spent" or what great things the guy did. If the policy changes, it won't happen. Before then, it's just one of many rules enforced.
Ok, so maybe I got off on the wrong foot with Mr. Fury, but this is the second time that I can't argue with his point.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell seems to be a pretty cut and dry proposition and the military is pretty cut and dry on dealing with cut and dry issues. So, while I find the policy stupid and counterproductive, it is the policy. Should it be changed, most definitely and I have no doubt that by outing themselves this is precisely what these officers intended on doing.
Perhaps. For the sake of argument, can you elaborate why you think that it would be beneficial for anyone to know your sexual orientation? Especially for troops that share close quarters? Why does that need to be divulged? What good could come from that information? Just curious what your opinion is since you think it is a ridiculous policy.
How is my sexual orientation relevant? It's not. But for the record, no I am not gay.
Your point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.