The Barney Frank Squadron shows you how it’s done. Or how it will will be done in the future. Because things are going to be different in this man’s army from now on.
Combat boots are out. Knee-high suede Tory Burch Connell Boots are in.
Camouflage is out. Puce is in.
Generals are out. Privates are in.
Care to add any others?
This post was last modified on December 30, 2010
View Comments (54)
Oh, I just thought of something really sinister, think about this; when the need for enlarging military ranks in a hurry occurs and no one steps up and volunteers and congress initiates a general draft, what happens? Previous drafts usually occurred during or after periods of prolonged neglect; our nation has never been particularly grateful to it's veterans and each conscription period occurred during a beaurocratic ejaculation of conflicting needs and requirements. In other words, there was plenty of room for smoke-filled back room political brawling during which a lot of stuff got overlooked, sometimes for the length of the hostilities. Training was traditionally one of those areas that was neglected initially and then brought up to par when other seemingly more pressing issues got ironed out. That used to have its benefits because training was left to the professionalized NCO training cadre and as the "Backbone" of the services their training proceeded professionally and deligently until about the mid 1990's. At about this time O ranks (officer ranks) started calling themselves the trainers and the NCO's started to be put out to pasture, so to speak. Essentially you had a bunch of military beaurocrats take over. In my world, everything a beaurocrat touches turns to shi*t in short order. The beaurocrat, for the most part, hasn't a lick of common sense and therefore can't pass any along. I found them to always be agendized. Now to my point. I'm not the only person in the Army who knows this and if I were of high enough rank to effect training and my allegiances were of such a nature that a one world government under the guidance of the UN and the Haague sounded like my cup of tea, I could inflict all sorts of damage by being at the very first choke point in the military procurement cycle--basic military training. Why I could get my hands on hundreds of thousands of young minds full of mush and do some serious damage to this country. I could drill into their pliable minds that the UCMJ only showed a soldier what the military could or would do to him/her, that soldiers have no rights, that you will never question orders from your superiors, that if you are told to shoot someone, even if that person is your brother, mother, father, you are to shoot them -- no questions asked, that the military has always had a nation building and peace keeping role, that foreign officers have the right and ability to give you orders, that the UN plays a legitimate role in US military affairs here and abroad. Oh hey, you know what--this sh*t is already going on right now, right here in 'River City.' Ask around, it's not all that secret.
I have a question, isn't fraternization a violation of armed forces rules?
Don't most definitions of fraternization include sex, gay, straight or otherwise?
I don't see a bunch of openly gay guys living, fighting and showering together practicing abstinence and saving them selves for the end of their hitch.
Fraternization usually mean officers with enlisted, although it can also mean relations with someone in your direct chain of command or in other situations like student/instructor. These are all prohibited for obvious reasons. The real issue will be public display of affection (PDA), which is allowed with heterosexuals but anything that distracts from the order and professionalism of an NCO or Officer can (and should) be punished. This is just a stupid idea, and anyone who compares it with racial integration is just plain stupid. You have VERY limited civil rights in the military, if you're too fat, too skinny, too short or tall you cannot serve. I foresee some real beatings and perhaps killings to follow. So much for the military values some of us lived by for decades as we served. Change you can believe in. Obama and your ass kissing senior military staff can go recruit Do-No-Van and his ilk to be the new military, along with limp wristed Barney Frank types.
So, it would seem that DADT is just another ploy by the liberals to weaken the military. Sounds plausible to me, since they love the idea of a weak military.
No, I never served in the military. I graduated High School in 1975, just as a lot of people were coming out of Vietnam and trying like hell to fit back into society here at home, so the military wasn't real aggressive about recruiting at the time. I tried to join, but was told I would be limited to desk duty, since I had done some serious damage to my leg in my teen years. No active duty, no join. I'm not flying a desk for anybody. But I DO listen closely to those who have been there, and know what it is they speak of.
With all due respect to all of you and your great posts, I have a take you may be interested in hearing. I'm a twenty two plus year career soldier, now retired. I'm not an expert on gays in the military though I knew a few and found them to be competent, well trained individuals on the most part. However, whatever you or I may think of their lifestyle preference, this whole DADT repeal isn't about how nice or deserving poofers are and how mean and nasty those of us who don't partake are, it's about money. Stuff like BAQ, (Bachelor Allowance for Quarters), VHA (variable housing allowance), quarters assignments, who gets what when a soldier dies in battle etc. Follow the money. We didn't make all that much but my wife would have received $200,000 plus in benefits from my SGLI (Servicemans Group Life Insurance) policy had I been killed. This is a congressional and presidential payoff to an extremely small portion of the total military. The queers and steers population of the active military is probably less than 3%, if that, of the total force, so why all the pandering? This is what I see, (bear with me a moment while I flesh this thought out), me being the conspiracy kook that I am...how do you reduce force effectiveness while looking like you're really concerned about the rights of "minority" soldiers? First you need to understand a percentage ratio that is pretty consistent with our military and that is 25/75. This number represents the number of soldiers who are the tip of the sword versus those who make sure they are supplied in the field, fed, bandaged, etc. The soldiers who tend to the needs of the war fighters tend to be socially liberal, pro-social engineering and the war fighters tend to the socially conservative and anti-social engineering. Why? Socialism kills! A full 75% of these conservative soldiers don't want to know who the pansies are and if they did they'd harass them out of their units, and if forced to bunk, mess, shower, and train with openly gay soldiers a good 45% of that 75% would shorten their enlistments and the other 30% would decline to reenlist. What you have done with the stroke of a pen and all that pandering to the base flourish is reduce active military numbers by 15% to 20%. That's not so bad is it? Well nothing a recruiting blitz can't fix...maybe. Wrong again. The remaining military forces aren't trained to be war fighters and probably have no desire to become war fighters...not really. I don't know how many times I heard a soldier tell me he or she had only joined the Army for the college benefits...sad huh? Damn liberals. Now you force the remaining 75% to take the tough jobs...and there exits, stage left, another large percentage of your remaining forces, queers and all. Now you have effectively put the military into a manning tailspin...enter, stage left again, the draft. With an all draft army versus an all volunteer army my money is on the all volunteer army every time. I'm old enough to have served in both. Now that you have innocently ruined the best trained and most capable fighting forces this planet has ever seen you can always tell the American people that ruining their very ability to defend themselves was never your intention...but then I'm just a cynic.
Great to have a perspective from those who have walked-the-walk.
You brought several significant points to the front. The grand evacuation of officers and enlisted due to myriad intricacies that could crop up if this turns into allowing openly gay personnel into the forces. Certainly there are many capable people that could serve our country proudly and maintain the sexual preference they have without putting their issue up for all to deal with. But if this becomes a he said-he said back and forth where the new line gets the benefit of the doubt, the conscription of our young people into the armed forces will be the next step since most of those who would otherwise volunteer won't, leaving a high tech military that needs fewer people than any other woefully understaffed. This deterioration will compound further since the volunteer tends to have a higher capacity for abstract and detailed thought, while the tendency of someone forced into a situation they do not want to participate in is to neglect duties, not to mention a lack of proficiency.
Don't ask by Clinton was a giant boost for him personally, but as with many of Billy's tricks, a setup for a future knockdown.
"i think you’ll find that 99% of all breaches of security are not done by homosexuals, they are done by heterosexuals…"
Thats because 99% of milatary people arn't gay.
Thats like saying "most accidents happen within ten miles of home". that doesn't mean its more dangerous withing a ten mile radius of your house, it means most driving is within that 10 miles.
great analogy...well said.
it's statistically even. to associate all gays with a man who breached security and happens to be gay, is as ignorant as saying scooter libby outed a CIA agent, therefore all VP advisors shouldn't be trusted because they are at risk of outing a CIA agent. it's an ignorant generalization that doesn't apply to reality.
"its statistically even"
According to what source?
donavan's libstistics are fraught with these circular jerkular stats.
Homosexuality has been permeating the ranks of the military forever. The U.S. branches have always ousted those who were unable to keep it - or chose not to, under the radar. Even with DADT there were many cases of lost commissions or discharge from service if it was brought out. Worse, the cases of hazing or beating, even to death, were the primary means by which the servicemen influenced homosexuality to maintain a very low profile.
If this is a new freedom for the homosexual military complex to assume they may venture to depravity with impunity, there will be a drastic change in the makeup of the people that choose to serve because they do not want Neil and Bob eyeballing their junk in the showers with some verbal accompaniment regarding same, possibly resulting in fragging of the homosexuals, which was certainly a common practice, or many heterosexuals will choose a different career path to avoid having to deal with open homosexual harassment.
Prior to DADT the problem for homos in the military were just that - problems for homos. If the new U.S. military standard is to allow openly poofter activity with no recourse available for the heteros, our military will become quite the laughing stock, for the 3 to 5 years it takes before USA will be the old acronym for the new Chinese territories.
I had the fortune or re-watching Full Metal Jacket a few days before all this started and now I can't help but laugh at the whole thing because I keep thinking of R. Lee Ermey.
Gunny: Do you suck dicks?
Cowboy:Sir No Sir!
Gunny: Are you a peter puffer?
Cowboy: Sir No Sir!
Lol, watch from 3:45 to about 4:30, it cracks me up thinking about this story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o7oKQECBjs
I dont recognize the show... what is the name of the show? that was funny. It seemed very Monthy Pythony.
Looks like the new San Francisco Brigade.
Slogan, "F*ck with us and we'll hit you with our purses."
"Yo, Alice. Take the point!"
Gotta love those lovable Monty Python players. What is your quest?