DADT: Meetings at the White House, Promise from Pelosi, And What You Can Do To Help


Good Luck.
Push it big before the midterms.
I've got my fingers and toes crossed. It's about damn time!
Okay, is it just me, or has this been happening a lot with the Obama administration?

Health care: It's's going's dead...holy shit, when did that pass?

Financial reform package: It's going...momentum is won't be voted on before the recess...the Senate passed what? (Yes, I know a final version hasn't been cleared yet, but still. The Senate vote was a big hurdle.)

I'm hoping that a DADT repeal is on the same trajectory. It looked like it was gaining speed, then it was dead. Hopefully now it is back in UNSTOPPABLE ZOMBIE FORM.

Of course, implementation would be delayed by seven months, but unless something truly unforeseen happens, passage of this provision would make a final repeal all but inevitable. I also imagine that most military personnel would be pretty lax about enforcement once a repeal was on the books (if not yet implemented).

But, well, this is all conjecture on my part.
@1: Who are you kidding, Alleged? The fag-haters already vote GOP. Expanding individual freedoms while strengthening our military is only going to garner support amongst liberals and moderates.
Here are the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where we are still two votes shy. Most crucial are Jim Webb and Scott Brown. If you live in VA or MA, please call today:
Jim Webb, 202-224-4024
Scott Brown, 202-224-4543
It's all about motivating the base, Jr.
Nothing gets Real Americans out to the polls like the prospect of polluting the services with deviants and perverts.
And; "strengthening our military is only going to garner support amongst liberals..."?
you funny boy!
Everyone knows Liberals don't give a SHIT about the military.
@4 Agreed. That was pathetic, even for a troll. Unlike same-sex marriage, where the public are pretty evenly split with a small majority opposing, repealing DADT has a large majority in favour. The GOP really don't want this fight. They'd alienate moderates and independents by wheeling out the hardcore social conservatism, and all the Dems need to do is make some ads saying "how can we turn away able-bodied soldiers in a time of war?" and the like.

At least, I hope that's how they play it. It'd be seriously sweet for Democrats to have a turn beating Republicans with the patriotism stick, since the GOP have been spraying McCarthyesque poison in all directions since 9/11. Pass the popcorn :D
You have a point-
"We're mired up to our asses in Afghanistan and are desperate for manpower pleeeease let us enlist Faggots" is a very compelling slogan.

go for it!
@7 You obviously haven't read a Texas "History" Textbook lately. McCarthy is a hero, and Thomas Jefferson never happened...
@6 So allowing gays to serve openly is 'polluting' the army, but what is lowering fitness and IQ requirements and allowing petty criminals to sign up doing to it exactly? And of course I make the obvious point that the British army has allowed homosexuals to serve openly for a decade now with no loss to morale or operational effectiveness
@10 asked, "what is lowering fitness and IQ requirements and allowing petty criminals to sign up doing to it exactly?"

Encouraging people like the troll to sign up.
@11 The IQ and fitness requirements aren't low enough for your average troll. Not yet anyway...

Maybe that should be the GOPs new slogan, Fatties before Fags. I'm sure that'll work out great.

Friday, 01 May 2009
Britain's homosexual army
I came across a story broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV the other day which, although rather disgusting, is quite revealing of the kind of people you will find in the British army.
A group of five British paratroopers are on trial for allegedly indecently assaulting a young soldier – also British – in Afghanistan.

The paratroopers, all believed to be in their 20s, "humiliated" a 19-year-old soldier, stripping him naked, handcuffing him, holding him down and then sexually molesting him while other soldiers looked on. They also filmed and photographed the incident. (Paratroopers 'humiliated' soldier)

The assailants included one paratrooper, Lance Corporal Peter McKinley, who had been awarded the Military Cross for alleged "bravery" in Afghanistan.

It is interesting that the perpetrators of the alleged assault chose a homosexual act to entertain themselves. According to the Channel 4 TV report, which contained more details of the alleged assault than the report posted on the Channel 4 News website, they took off their trousers and underpants and rubbed their genitals against the face of the young handcuffed soldier .

This may seem bewildering to some, because the typical British soldier is often seen – and likes to portray himself – as the ultimate macho lady killer. However, the reality seems quite the opposite. As lots of former British servicemen will tell you, homosexuality among allegedly heterosexual men in the British army is rife.

Relating her experience in the British army, a former female soldier once told me that, when her male colleagues got drunk and couldn't find a woman to have sex with, they would often indulge in homosexual acts with one another. This wasn't confined to the public school-educated officers, for whom homosexuality was second nature, but was prevalent among ordinary "squaddies" – the lumpen, poorly-educated, half-brained "macho" soldiers.

So, another myth is debunked. The "squaddy" who commits aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only not a hero, but is also likely to be as queer as a nine bob note.
10 how do you know?

from The Independent

Army morale drops as 14,000 quit in a year
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

More than 14,000 soldiers left the Army last year, Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures have revealed, raising fears that low morale and "overstretch" in Iraq and Afghanistan is leading to an exodus from the armed forces.

The MoD put the best gloss possible on its latest recruitment figures, indicating that numbers joining had increased. But the figures also showed that the Army shrank last year by 1,500 soldiers.

The campaign group Military Families Against the War said the haemorrhage of troops - coupled with increasing numbers going "absent without leave" - was caused by the stress of service after the "illegal war" in Iraq. Sally Keys, mother of Tom, a redcap who was killed in an uprising because his platoon had no working phones to call for back-up, revealed her second son, Richard, 21, was one of those leaving the Army. "He's leaving because of parental pressure," she said. "We asked him to leave because we have lost one son and we don't want to lose another. We get people ringing us anonymously to say they have done three or four tours and they don't want to go back to Iraq."

Recruits fell short of the Army's overall target figure by more than 1,000 soldiers

Mark Harper, the Conservative defence spokesman, said: "Retention is still poor, with more than 14,000 leaving the Army in the past year outstripping the recruitment. With ever increasing commitments and a shrinking Army, the effects of overstretch are just going to get worse."

The figures show that 13,740 soldiers left the Army last year. An MoD spokesman said that 740 troops were currently "on the run" but had not been dismissed from the service.
from The Telegraph

Morale is damaged, head of Army is told

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Published: 1:06PM GMT 15 Nov 2008

GeGeneral Sir Richard Dannatt has been told that thousands of soldiers are falling into poverty while many more are struggling to provide a basic standing of living for their families.
The report also reveals that many soldiers were found not to be eating properly "because they had run out of money by the end of the month".
More than 1,000 single-income soldiers with families now receive tax credits, but the report tells Gen Dannatt that "many junior soldiers feel that they are being forced to leave because they cannot afford to raise a family on current pay".
Entitled the Chief of the General Staff's Briefing Team Report, the document adds that soldiers are suffering from "complaint fatigue", a "frenetic" pace of life and increasing amounts of "nugatory" bureaucracy when they should be training for war.
um @13?

It is my understanding that sexual assault of men by men is usually committed by heterosexual men "proving" their lack of gayness by forcing homosexual acts on another.

In other words it is a form of gay bashing - even when directed against heterosexual men.

Make sense? Not really. But sexual assault is more about the violence and the power and control than it is about the sex.
from The Independent

The Big Question: Why is morale in the British military so low, and is the mood justified?
By Kim Sengupta
Friday, 11 July 2008

A survey to assess attitudes across the armed forces has shown that almost half of all military personnel are ready to leave the services. The report highlights the sheer pressure on family life because of continuous deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, with many returning for second or even third tours.

The extremely high figures of those disillusioned comes in the background of senior commanders repeatedly warning about overstretch caused by fighting wars on two fronts and the lack of some essential equipment. The Prime Minister, however, has chosen this moment to open up what appears to be a third front – giving the Nigerian government military assistance in fighting the rebels in the oil producing Niger Delta.

This was done without consulting the military, and Major General Julian Thompson, the former commander of the Royal Marines, and an influential figure in the military establishment, described Gordon Brown's proposal last night as "crackers, completely unrealistic".

Are there too many deployments abroad?

Britain's armed forces, at a total number of 196,650, are comparatively small and, say military analysts, were simply not designed to be engaged in prolonged conflicts abroad. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of Defence Staff, warned the Government last month: "We are not structured or resourced to two of these things [Iraq and Afghanistan] on this scale on an enduring basis, but we have been doing it on an enduring basis for years. Until we get to the stage when one of them comes down to small scale, we will be stretched beyond the capability we have."

The numbers in Iraq, around 4.500, are due be reduced in the coming months, but the commitment in Afghanistan is expected to grow and the forces are expected to be there for at least a decade.

So how bad is morale?

The survey showed that in the Army 59 per cent thought level of morale was "low" or "very low"; in the Royal Navy it was 64 per cent; and the Royal Marines 38 per cent. The worst perception of morale was in the RAF, with 72 per cent saying morale was low.

The figures make stark reading and will be a source of great discomfort to the Ministry of Defence. Much of it is due to what is perceived by many as lack of support for what they are doing – low pay and poor accommodation being among the main reasons as well as the numbers of tours abroad. Many service personnel simply feel unloved and unappreciated.

There have been incidents, albeit only a few, of soldiers in uniform being insulted in the street because of their association with what is seen as a dubious campaign in Iraq. They were considered so damaging that the Government might bring in legislation that would make insulting soldiers a "hate crime".


From The Sunday Times
February 28, 2010

Top general says Afghanistan army in morale crisis

THE head of the army has warned that British troops are facing a crisis of deteriorating morale on the home front that risks undermining the war in Afghanistan.

In a confidential draft memo prepared for ministers, General Sir David Richards, chief of the general staff (CGS), said that recent cuts to the defence budget are having a “cumulative and corrosive effect on our soldiers and their families”.

Cuts to housing, shortages of training equipment and even the cancellation of sports events between soldiers’ tours of duty were making them and their families feel “undervalued”, the army chief wrote.

The leaked memo will be seized on by the Tories as opening a new front in the tussle between army chiefs and ministers over the politically sensitive issue of defence cuts.

In the memo to the defence board, which comprises ministers and service chiefs, Richards shifts the focus of criticism from the war effort in Afghanistan to the treatment of troops on their return home.

While there had been “significant progress” on the front line, Richards said, the treatment of soldiers when they returned for 24 months between tours is so poor that it is threatening to undermine the war effort.

Marked “restricted”, the memo reports a summary of an internal “poll” of 5,000 soldiers and their families at units in Britain, Germany and Cyprus over the past four months.

The survey was discussed at the executive committee of the army board this month. Its results appear to be so alarming that Richards decided to alert ministers to its key findings.

“My greatest concern ... is the deteriorating experience of soldiers and their families ... between tours which, the [survey] team reports, is disaffecting attitudes, damaging morale and risks undermining our ability to sustain the campaign . . .” he wrote.
British troop morale at home risk to Afghan effort - Army chief
Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:43pm GMT

(Reuters) - A lack of support for British soldiers between deployments is damaging morale and risks undermining the army's ability to sustain its campaign in Afghanistan over the coming years, the head of the army said.


In a memo to the Defence Ministry published in the Sunday Times, General Sir David Richards said that while improvements had been made to operational resources, the treatment of soldiers on their return home could have a long term impact on retention.

"The deteriorating experience of soldiers and their families in the period between disaffecting attitudes, damaging morale and risks undermining our ability to sustain the campaign over the next years," he said.

"We need our soldiers to be ready, mentally and physically, to endure repeated tours in Afghanistan in a harsh environment, with the real prospect of significant casualties each time."

Rising British casualties in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan have brought criticism that Britain's armed forces are poorly equipped and underfunded.
@17 Do you even read the articles?

Having gays in the service isn't cited as a cause of their low moral. Fighting two wars without enough money to do so is considered the cause. Also lack of support back home for the two wars is also causing a break in moral.

Gays have nothing to do with the moral problem in the British Military. Pointless wars do.
now now-
Titty Brit said British forces had suffered no loss of morale etc.
Staggeringly false.
the Wreckage is Heartbreaking, in fact.....
@21 And they have suffered no loss of morale because of having gays in the military.

The fact is, gays aren't the problem, support back home is. I realize you're a troll, but get some sense.
Why has support from the home folks dried up?
What has changed?
Let's see......
Thank you for posting this information, and please keep reposting it, as it has already aged out of the first page scroll. This calling needs to happen ALL WEEK LONG until the vote in the Senate.
@23: What, you mean how people are growing weary of some rather fruitless and somewhat pointless wars fought for other people?
When is Obama going to end the fruitless and somewhat pointless wars?
@23 We joined in two illegal wars that the populace didn't want our troops sent into?

I'm so sorry my country doesn't hate homosexuals enough for your approval. Maybe you should go snuggle up to Malawi or Jamaica.

How many troops does Britain have in
Iraq that has wrought this devastating loss of morale?

(those are both former British colonies, no?)
@28: WTF?
By the way, Iraq was never a British colony. It had a British-supported government put in power between the World Wars, but it was ostensibly independent.
@30: Durr. My WTF stands. The fact that they were once British possessions is entirely irrelevant to any argument you might be presenting.
@31 apparently because colonial Britain was homophobic means modern day Britain should be too. Man Too Lazy to Register apparently doesn't believe in improving yourself
improvement is good.
degeneration not so much.
@33 Tolerance is an improvement, never a degeneration. Since you've never improved yourself I'm sure you wouldn't understand though :)
some things are intolerable.
tolerating them is a vice.
wise up.
@35: Yes, and people like you used to say that being Jewish was one of them. Scum of your ilk are proof positive against intelligent design.


we can't help but notice that you appear very pained.

have you considered asking your partner to use lubricant?