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.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
So yeah I guess you could make a case that since we (Americans) vote a president in and he gives orders to the military that in some way the civilians are in charge of the military....But what to do in a situation when an order is given that goes against the constitution that they are sworn to protect? Do they defend the constitution, or follow the orders of the "civilian" Commander-in-Chief?
Trust me, the commanders are always in charge and they will always do what is in the best interest our men and women in uniform...no matter what. My husband and both of his brothers served in the army...I know all too well how the "system" works. We will see how well it all is enforced.
"Civilian-controlled"...LOL!! Oh man...ok. I would love to see the looks on some of the Officer's and NCO's faces if told that : "Hey, yall are gonna allow openly gay people in the military because the 'public at large' says you should and it is socially acceptable now and yall need to move in to the 21st century"...it is not like they have more important things to deal with...for crying out loud!!
"Civilian-controlled"...LOL!! Oh man...ok. I would love to see the looks on some of the Officer's and NCO's faces if told that : "Hey, yall are gonna allow openly gay people in the military because the 'public at large' says you should and it is socially acceptable now and yall need to move in to the 21st century"...it is not like they have more important things to deal with...for crying out loud!!
That the US has a civilian-controlled military is (or should be) common knowledge. It's part of the Constitution.
And the military is being told what to do by civilians in the case of DA, DT. The politicians are responding to what their constituents want.
That the US has a civilian-controlled military is (or should be) common knowledge. It's part of the Constitution.
And the military is being told what to do by civilians in the case of DA, DT. The politicians are responding to what their constituents want.
I understand that...However, I also understand how things in the military really work. It is up to the NCO's and Officer's to monitor all of it and I am just saying that they have other more important things to deal with.
And like I said before...it is very irresponsible to repeal 'dadt" without first examining the ramifications of it. And those ramifications are not going to be thoroughly understood by any civilian that has not served in the military. And I am not talking just about the social aspects of it. Many guidelines will have to be rewritten. All situations are going to have to be considered. It is a process...like I said before.
And sometimes "the people" are not always right...just take a look at our history.
The final words in the Powell quote are the operative words. I have posted several times that this is not a decision for the public-at-large to be making but one to be carefully considered and decided--and implemented, if/when the decision to repeal DADT is made--by those who know the situation best. That excludes 99% of the population.
The decision should be made based on its constitutional legitimacy. Since on the surface the DADT violates basic civil rights, the Supreme court should take action here. Whether the military brass and rank and file or the public and elected officials like it or not doesn't matter. What matters is the bill of rights and civil rights/liberties.
The decision should be made based on its constitutional legitimacy. Since on the surface the DADT violates basic civil rights, the Supreme court should take action here. Whether the military brass and rank and file or the public and elected officials like it or not doesn't matter. What matters is the bill of rights and civil rights/liberties.
There are many things in the constitution and bill of rights that don't apply to the military.
I understand that...However, I also understand how things in the military really work. It is up to the NCO's and Officer's to monitor all of it and I am just saying that they have other more important things to deal with.
And like I said before...it is very irresponsible to repeal 'dadt" without first examining the ramifications of it. And those ramifications are not going to be thoroughly understood by any civilian that has not served in the military. And I am not talking just about the social aspects of it. Many guidelines will have to be rewritten. All situations are going to have to be considered. It is a process...like I said before.
And sometimes "the people" are not always right...just take a look at our history.
Here's how things work.
The people elect politicians who reflect their political viewpoints.
The politicians then, some of the time, carry out the will of the people who elected them.
In this case, the people have spoken. DA, DT is in violation of some of the most basic human rights that we recognize as a country. It's a vile and despicable program that has no place in a civilized country. So the miltary's masters, the people who elect politicians, have spoken and said to get rid of it.
The military must obey. And the USA moves one step closer to being a better country.
Here's what I find so laughable about the bigots that support DA, DT with all their excuses and justifications and how they keep claiming this will hurt the military and studies need to be undertaken and blah, blah, blah...gay people are already serving with no ill effects. No studies need be undertaken, no special barracks created, no nothing. They are already in the military, serving proudly. They can just identify themselves for who they are.
What people who keep screaming about how terrible this is are really saying is how afraid and bigoted they are.
"Gen. Colin Powell, once one of the architects of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, said this morning that he is personally in favor of repealing the policy. "Things have changed. That was 17 years ago," Powell said when asked about his past support for the ban during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." Powell said that he is "personally of the view now that attitudes have changed," adding that it's "perfectly acceptable" to repeal the law so long as the voices of the men and women in charge of executing the policy are heard in the process."
And like I said before...it is very irresponsible to repeal 'dadt" without first examining the ramifications of it. And those ramifications are not going to be thoroughly understood by any civilian that has not served in the military. And I am not talking just about the social aspects of it. Many guidelines will have to be rewritten. All situations are going to have to be considered. It is a process...like I said before.
It's not exactly rocket-science to figure out how to handle living situations and benefits. There are already gays in the military, you know.
Here's what I find so laughable about the bigots that support DA, DT with all their excuses and justifications and how they keep claiming this will hurt the military and studies need to be undertaken and blah, blah, blah...gay people are already serving with no ill effects. No studies need be undertaken, no special barracks created, no nothing. They are already in the military, serving proudly.
..under the guidelines of DADT, so whats the problem?
"Bigot"?!? I find that when people resort to childish name calling it is because they are losing an argument. It really does nothing to further your point. Lets not go there, ok?
And..well, apparently you dont know a whole lot about the military (and i dont mean that in a mean way). And I dont believe I have said one way or another about what I "personally" feel about dadt, all I said is that more goes into it than just repealing it. I think you are letting your emotions override your logic, and I mean that sincerely. Just calm down. It is nothing personal against gay people. I have said that from the very beginning. And I am sorry, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree...I believe that the military knows best what is the right thing to do for the military...period.
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.
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.
