Quick Fact: Wash. Times, Fox News' North advance claim that repealing DADT is a harmful "social experiment"
The Washington Times and Fox News host Oliver North advanced the baseless claim that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" amounts to a "social experiment" and "social engineering" that would be detrimental to the military and "military readiness." In fact, those claims are heavily undermined by the fact that other countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, and many have said it has not created problems.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox News' North, Washington Times advance claim that repealing ban is a "social experiment" that affects "military readiness"
North: Obama is treating military "like lab rats in a radical social experiment." Oliver North, host of Fox News' War Stories, said on the February 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is a "stunning assault" on the military and that Obama "now intends to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment." He also said, "[T]his isn't about rights. This isn't about fairness. It's all about national security. And, apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it." Later, North said of repealing "don't ask, don't tell": "Now, here's what's next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?" North added that repealing DADT "affects readiness and recruiting and retention."
Washington Times quotes veterans groups saying Obama is using military as "social experiment" and "social engineering." A February 5 Washington Times article uncritically quoted two veterans groups saying that repealing the ban would be a "social experiment" and "social engineering." It quoted the American Legion as saying, "Now is not the time to engage in a social experiment that can disrupt and potentially have serious impact on the conduct of forces engaged in combat," and Veterans of Foreign Wars as saying changing the law would amount to using the military as "a control group for social engineering." The article also advanced false claims that allowing openly gay servicemen and women to serve would affect "military readiness," reporting: "[S]pokesmen for the VFW and the Legion told The Washington Times on Wednesday their groups do not want to see military readiness disrupted while the armed forces are fighting two wars."
FACT: Other countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly without problems
At least 25 nations -- including many U.S. allies -- allow military service by openly gay people. According to the Palm Center, as of June 2009, 25 nations allowed military service by openly gay people, including North America Treaty Organization member countries Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
GAO: Other countries say allowing gays to serve openly "has not created problems in the military." In a June 1993 report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied four countries that allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military -- Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- and found that military officials said "the presence of homosexuals has not created problems in the military because homosexuality is not an issue in the military or in society at large." It also found that "[m]ilitary officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale." GAO wrote that it chose those four countries to study because they "generally reflect Western cultural values yet still provide a range of ethnic diversity" and have similarly sized militaries.
None of the 104 experts interviewed for studies believed decisions to lift gay bans in U.K., Canada, Israel, or Australia undermined military readiness, recruiting, or cohesion. In a 2003 article for Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Aaron Belkin, a University of California at Santa Barbara professor who specializes in sexuality and the military, wrote that the university's Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military had conducted studies of the impact of the decisions to lift bans on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military in the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, and Australia, and found: "Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops." According to Belkin: "To prepare the case studies, every identifiable pro-gay and anti-gay expert on the policy change in each country was interviewed, including officers and enlisted personnel, ministry representatives, academics, veterans, politicians, and nongovernmental observers. During each interview, experts were asked to recommend additional contacts, all of whom were contacted."
How do you think Al Qaeda will use the gay aspect in their propaganda machine against US policy?
The Obama administration is ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct show trials to show the world how great life is in America.
And here they are again catering to special interests.
Who cares what al Qaeda thinks? Are you seriously suggesting we form our policies around their prejudices?
Somehow, though, I don't think it's their prejudices that are really behind your post.
Or how they react NOW, since NOW there are currently gays serving - if having gays serving is a problem (which it's not), then we're already HAVING that problem, since gays are there NOW!
And of course it's not his true concerns about what Al Qaeda will do that are behind his post.
Maybe they have something like the 'dowsing rods' some guy sold to the Iraqi Army to 'detect bombs'. A kind of 'gay-dar'.
GMAFB
I care about fighting to win.
I could care less if some gay soldier has to remain in the closet to keep America safe.
I could care less what the terrorists think of it except how they can use it as propaganda against us.
I admit I'll get mildly annoyed if I get held up in traffic by a gay pride parade but that happens with most any parade.
I am comfortable with gays in most places and the military is not one of them.
What the hell does that mean? So you would be comfortable with a gay doctor treating you, but not a soldier? Or a gay firefighter or a policeman rescuing you from a dangerous situation, but not a soldier? That is ridiculous and makes no sense. But even if it is true, so what. Your personal feelings about your discomfort around gay military personnel is also irrelevant. You should be uncomfortable around anyone that does not respect you as an individual and treats you accordingly, regardless of their sexual orientation.
When one looks at WHO should be removed from military service, it's not the gays - it's those bigots and homophobes who cause the problems.
Several jokes come to mind as does the profanity filter. Dangit!!
We have gay soldiers there now, you dunce.
Gay soldiers aren't going to suddenly wear pink uniforms when they 'come out of the closet'. They'll look the same as when they were under the DADT rules, so no one will 'know', and no one will be treated any differently than they're treated right now!
Too bad you were hiding in the closet when God handed out logic and reasoning skills.
I could care less what the terrorists think of it except how they can use it as propaganda against us.
What possible relevance does one's sexual orientation have to those whom they are defending and fighting for? Do you think those whose hearts and minds we are trying to win over are going to care, or know, or even consider for one brief second who the soldier sleeps with? It makes no sense, has no relevance and is perplexing to even fathom. It sounds like a little grasping at straws to me, find any reason, ANY REASON, to oppose letting gay people serve in the military.
You will have to do better than that.
I watched Bill Clinton say that in order to win in Afghanistan we will need to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
While you may not like it, it is a fact that Muslims find homosexuality offensive. If we have openly gay soldiers in Afghanistan, it is going to damage our mission there.
Personally, I would like to withdraw from Afghanistan and shut off their money supply by ending Prohibition.
You still have not answered why the issue of one's sexual orientation would ever even be a relevant point in any context of protecting Afghan citizens. So what, they are going to ask the soldier, or they can tell by the way they dress, or act, or speak, or what? And if you are talking about the policy itself, or how the Afghan people will suddenly shun our entire presence there because of it, well that is just silly. We don't make military policy that way, and we shouldn't.
Besides, Muslims have a far different view of women as well, do you think we should ban women from serving simply because they may find that offensive. Your argument does not hold water.
As a matter of policy, I weigh the benefits against the costs and I conclude that openly gay soldiers are more of a liability than an asset.
Forcing someone to lie is incompatible with military service, period.
After all, Al Qaeda can TELL when it's a female soldier. Not only can't they tell when it's a gay male soldier, so it's different, but we have gay soldiers over there now, and so allowing them to serve opening doesn't change that there are already gays there, you dunce.
Like I said above, you were the one hiding in the closet when they handed out brains.
We already train soldiers to be aware that some behavior acceptable in some places is not acceptable in others!
So, given that two soldiers will NOT exhibit that kind of behavior in a country where it would be really offensive (since gays CAN control their libido just like straight guys can), a female soldier is going to be much more worrisome than a gay soldier who is indistinguishable from a straight male soldier.
You did NOTHING to refute my argument. In fact, YOUR point is pointless, since it addresses behavior, not sexual orientation!
Bigotry always has to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to justify itself. It has to operate with different standards and apply them however it suits whatever argument they try and make. Because when cornered about applying them equally to everyone, the bigotry always rises to the top and is exposed. Can't have that.
I haven't asked, but I doubt they will like it any more or less than they like any foreign military "patrolling their neighborhood."
How do you think Al Qaeda will use the gay aspect in their propaganda machine against US policy?
About like Fox News commentators - innuendo, distortion, and lies.
The Obama administration is ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct show trials to show the world how great life is in America.
I don't understand your point.
And here they are again catering to special interests.
Yes, Mr. Murdoch's crew is hard at work shaping opinions for some purpose.
"And here they are again catering to special interests." - jose
Right. Because the special interests we should be worried about are al Qaeda and the religious fanatics in Afghanistan. Classic Becker material.
And the terrorists are unlikely to understand the term "dear" since most wont speak english
Most of the people on this site disagree with me and I am challenged on every level. There are times when I find common ground and when I do, I celebrate that I found something with which we can agree.
How am I ever going to keep on living with such a blow.
America doesn't have mojo to do what Israel does.
The idea that America doesn't have the "mojo" to accept gays in our military seems more anti-American and anti-military than anything I've ever heard from a liberal.
The only thing that stinks is your insults to the NATO partners in Afghanistan. You realize the Brits, you know the big partners in the "coalition of the willing" allow gays in the military. And you know they are in Afghanistan, right? They seem to be able to function with the local population too.
And to help the slow witted, the part in blue is a link to a story about a gay British soldier in Afghanistan.
Look, you have stated that this decision to repeal DADT would cause problems for US soldiers in Afghanistan. I have now shown you, that for the Brits (and from what I understand another 15 out of the 28 NATO countries as well), who are there right now with openly gay soldiers, it doesn't appear to be affecting their ability to win hearts and minds of the local population.
So, what exactly is your point?
If I wanted Obama to fail I would be encouraging him to deploy as many gays as he can to Afghanistan. The war is already over 3000 days old with significant troop buildups imminent.
Realistically it probably doesn't matter. This is going to be worse than the Viet Nam War.
Really? You wouldn't lie, would you? I mean it's not like we cant' scroll up to your very 1st post with this bit...
And as far as this goes...
What fuel to what fire? I have repeatedly pointed out to you that several of the US NATO allies (16 out of 28 in fact) already allow gays to serve openly.
But am I surprised? No I am not. You are clearly homophobic.
While your name calling may work on others, it will not work on me.
And way to go, once again dodging your own contradictions. We all can now see that you are a homophobe AND a liar.
Look, why don't you just come out and say you don't like gays and you don't want them in the military for that reason alone. You are entitled to hold that opinion. Instead of saying your objection is because the Afghan people may find it morally wrong, or some such nonsense.
This is what is so frustrating about your argument, because you are being disingenuous and inconsistent by not holding women or minorities to the same standards. Or accepting Old Benjamin's point about Britian's army. Which means you are not being honest about your objections to gays in the military. Which also means you have no intention of having a legitimate discussion on it, only to fake your argument because you are too weak or unsure of putting your real opinions and arguments out there.
That is sad.
Gays make a choice despite some that claim otherwise.
That is the difference.
Ding ding ding! We end up just exactly where I thought we would--"them-thar ho-mo-seck-shuls choose to be ho-mo-seck-shul, and all they need to do to be straight is to pray hard enough to Jayzus and they'll be normal again!
At least you admit your open bigotry, josepadilla2. Now take it and yourself back to the First Bahble-Beatin' Baptist Church where it belongs...
You probably became gay when you were unable to find a mate or perhaps you reacted to a biological instinct that told you not to reproduce because of some genetic defect.
Anyways, I think this topic has worn itself out. See you on the next topic.
And if you can't do that, because you never made a 'choice', then what makes you think that gays make a choice?
Hey, it's that convicted Reagan-era felon!