Check out the story. Its worth reading.
"I in no way want to degrade our military on the basis of disability or equality rights," he said. "But, with the support that I have received from both civilians and military personnel as well as what I have learned from my research, I am convinced that there is a noncombat position that I can do in the military without harming our armed forces' effectiveness and readiness."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/21/deaf-rotc-auditor-fights-to-join-army/#ixzz1Vgy1w2Ko
He'd be perfect for artillary.
ReplyDeleteHe'd be perfect to watch artillery.
ReplyDeleteWhen sending some steel down range, there is a lot of communication and verifications happening in a very short time. When the call comes down the gunline, we were expected to have a round fired within 30 seconds.
In that 30 seconds, you have to grab whichever round is called for, fuze it for either airburst or, point detonating, etc, ram the round into the bore, add the powder charge, close the breach and hook the lanyard.
Meanwhile, the gunner is setting the deflection while the AG raises the tube.
Section chief verifys the gunner's sight picture and level bubbles then, verifys the AG numbers before calling "Fire".
Not a lot of room for miscommunications.
Why not? They're letting in homos and probably cross dressers and transgendered next. The military is under attack by this regime.
ReplyDelete10th - one of the things that I toyed with after my tour with the Recruit Training Regiment in San Diego was that we needed to do a better job funneling Marines into the right jobs. We train each and everyone as if they are all going to be grunts like you and me. But then some spend their time as geeks, mechanics, and administrators of one flavor or another.
ReplyDeleteCertainly when the proverbial enemy is in the wire - everyone has to be a rifleman - and ultimately that is probably the right answer. If you can't serve as a member of a team, in combat then we probably don't need you. Further, if you can't hear a warning - you are probably a danger to yourself and others.
I like the guy's motivation - but I think he should find another line of work.
Sepp,
ReplyDeleteHow do you know all that about artillery? Did you fire artillery in the peace corps?
Lacithedog says woof!
Gunny,
ReplyDeleteThis guy should be way in front of all the homos. Disgusting how sorry the world has become.
CS,
ReplyDeleteI agree he could be a liability in combat, but he could fill a non-deployable role and make a contribution like the WAVES and the Women's Marine Auxiliary. "Free a man to fight" so to speak. I know I'll catch shit from Mud and his minions for that one.
LoL no, it was the Salvation Army's artillery corps!
ReplyDeleteCarefull of Spacey, he claims to have served in the worst areas of Ulster for 6 years in the 1970's and, then went on to win the Falkland war for qween and country.
Sepp,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading his comments, I assumed he was a queen. Was she standing on a corner in Ulster?
I guess until we see the brit version of a dd214, we can assume he was on his knees on a street corner.
ReplyDeleteAs for the deaf guy, I hope he gets in and finds his spot to excell.
ReplyDeleteAlright-----I guess I'll jump in the frying pan with this one. Do you guys really feel that way about homos in the military.....I mean, think about this. You're fighting in a war. You're doing whatever you do during war. You are part of platton, or group of about 15 guys. You become good buddies with 1 of them because you're from the same area. You guys are in utter hell. You "Spill the same blood in the same Mud". Years later you are discharged, you go back home, to civilian life. You run into this guy and find out he's gay............
ReplyDeleteAre you really going to think less of him?
Btw----I wish this kid the best of luck. But how would bootcamp work?
J.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteUnder your scenario, the guy wasn't "gay" while in the service. What you describe is don't ask, don't tell. The new rules are that guys can be openly queer. They can make advances on men that don't want that crap. If sexual harassment is "creepy" and creates an uncomfortable work environment, how would it work with homos hitting on straights?
I'm sorry to be such a bigot, but I think in combat you cannot afford to have a gay platoon sergeant tell someone to charge an enemy position because that someone didn't like the guy's advances. In case you are wondering, I use the exact same argument for keeping women out of combat units. Combat ain't beanbag, as Teddy Kennedy liked to say. About everything but combat.
TGP is correct on this one since the guy was either not gay at the time or, decided to do his job as a soldier while not making it an issue.
ReplyDelete20 years later seeing the guy, I'd still be happy to see him.
DADT wasn't a bad program since gay's main complaint was not being able to serve or, do their patriotic duty for our country.
It kept something that most people still see as repugnant behavior where it belongs...private.
I don't ask you because it isn't my business and, you don't tell me because nobody needs to know about your off duty bedroom preferences.
J.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that service of homosexuals comes up in a discussion of service by a person with a disability. I might repost this comment on your blog as you address homosexuality there.
I don’t think that any of my fellows here would dispute that we have served with homosexuals without incident during our service without knowing that person was a homosexual. However I suspect that we all feel that openly homosexual members would be disruptive. Military service isn’t about individuals, but rather what is best for the organization. It isn’t “me, me, me” as in today’s liberal (progressive, democrat, socialist, whatever) culture but rather “us, us, us.”
Restrictions on service are designed to build unit cohesion and limit problems in a variety of ways. We can all think of an instance when having a midget in the outfit would have come in handy, but when the unit saddles up, puts 90 pounds of gear on their backs to march 25 miles, that midget all of a sudden becomes a liability. It isn’t about the midget’s rights but rather it has to do with the efficiency and combat readiness of the overall organization. No one has the “right” to be a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine – or policeman, firefighter, EMT, school teacher, etc. for that matter either. There are specific qualifications or more importantly disqualifiers in each case.
There are a wide variety of behaviors which make a person unsuitable for military service. Drug use, alcoholism, chronic criminal activity, excessive tattoos, and membership in the Communist Party or al Qaeda would all prevent service. I actually had a Marine who was extremely sexually active and could not be convinced to practice safe sex. He was always being treated for one sexually transmitted disease or another and we processed him for discharge. Again – it isn’t about the individual but rather the health of the unit as a whole.
We limit the numbers of people who enter that haven’t graduated from high school or score low on mental aptitude tests as our experience shows that these people become problems and don’t complete their service in higher proportion than others who have completed high school. Having a recruit who can successfully navigate recruit training, learn a valuable skill, contribute for his or her entire enlistment, and transition out and into the civilian world is essential to keep costs low and not overburden military organizations with unnecessary discipline or administrative burdens.
(to be continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that service of homosexuals comes up in a discussion of service by a person with a disability. I might repost this comment on your blog as you address homosexuality there.
I don’t think that any of my fellows here would dispute that we have served with homosexuals without incident during our service without knowing that person was a homosexual. However I suspect that we all feel that openly homosexual members would be disruptive. Military service isn’t about individuals, but rather what is best for the organization. It isn’t “me, me, me” as in today’s liberal (progressive, democrat, socialist, whatever) culture but rather “us, us, us.”
Restrictions on service are designed to build unit cohesion and limit problems in a variety of ways. We can all think of an instance when having a midget in the outfit would have come in handy, but when the unit saddles up, puts 90 pounds of gear on their backs to march 25 miles, that midget all of a sudden becomes a liability. It isn’t about the midget’s rights but rather it has to do with the efficiency and combat readiness of the overall organization. No one has the “right” to be a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine – or policeman, firefighter, EMT, school teacher, etc. for that matter either. There are specific qualifications or more importantly disqualifiers in each case.
There are a wide variety of behaviors which make a person unsuitable for military service. Drug use, alcoholism, chronic criminal activity, excessive tattoos, and membership in the Communist Party or al Qaeda would all prevent service. I actually had a Marine who was extremely sexually active and could not be convinced to practice safe sex. He was always being treated for one sexually transmitted disease or another and we processed him for discharge. Again – it isn’t about the individual but rather the health of the unit as a whole.
We limit the numbers of people who enter that haven’t graduated from high school or score low on mental aptitude tests as our experience shows that these people become problems and don’t complete their service in higher proportion than others who have completed high school. Having a recruit who can successfully navigate recruit training, learn a valuable skill, contribute for his or her entire enlistment, and transition out and into the civilian world is essential to keep costs low and not overburden military organizations with unnecessary discipline or administrative burdens.
(to be continued)
(Continued from above)
ReplyDeleteNo one knows how many homosexuals are serving at any given time within the military. Since military service is voluntary and candidates for military service are self-screened to a degree, the number is probably not high for two reasons: (1) There aren’t that many homosexuals around, and (2) I suspect that to the more flamboyant or extreme (think San Francisco homosexual) military service is hardly appealing. If a homosexual isn’t politically or otherwise motivated to make an issue of their homosexuality then a satisfactory enlistment or term of service is entirely possible. If anything (family, the health of a loved one, a relationship, or running the family business) overwhelms any military person such that they can’t perform their duties – then they owe it to the Nation, the taxpayers, their fellow service members, and themselves to leave or not enlist in the first place. Remember, the military is one of the only places where a guy will actually warp his body around an enemy hand grenade to protect his buddies. This isn’t flipping burgers at McDonalds.
Our experience indicates that homosexuals don’t do well in military service. Many expose themselves in order to escape the rigors of recruit training or secure an early discharge. Those that are discovered are normally found as a result of illegal sexual activity or coercion. I was never aware of any effort to uncover homosexuals except at two different training commands where predatory lesbian rings were rumored and eventually uncovered. Coercion or predatory sexual activity is illegal regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, but in my experience the only times that sex “rings” or “cabals” have been uncovered, they were oddly enough lesbians.
Military “service” isn’t like any other job and shouldn’t be treated as such. This isn’t about “fairness” or “rights” but rather about what is best for the military service and the country.
Well stated CS!
ReplyDeleteTGP, Sepp, CS(Sir)- That's cool, so then I can assume that none of you have a problem with homosexuals, you just don't like the openess that is allowed in today's military? I'm cool with that. Besides, I don't think the Elton Johns of the world are to interested in serving in any military.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, that when it comes to the morale of a group of men in charge of protecting my freedoms, I want it as high as possible.
J.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for the others - but I wouldn't characterize my position that way. I think that it is best to discourage the recruitment and retention of homosexuals. For the most part that would eliminate an entire body of disciplinary, administrative, and medical problems.
The pre-Clinton policy was just fine and worked well. Clinton wasn't fixing a problem, he was paying off a constituency just as Obama is attempting to do. Not having homosexuals in your United States Military does not cause any problems, does not reduce combat effectiveness, nor does it create any shortfalls in readiness.
There is no down side to not having them while there is no upside to adding them. Removing the ban on homosexuals in the military is Chicago-style crony politics applied to the most important function of the government - your safety and the defense of the Nation.
J.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that I don't have any problem with gays. I made the analogy once comparing "gay" to "alcoholism". When I was a raging drunk, no one argued that I was leading an "alternative" lifestyle. Everyone, including some of my favorite bartenders, begged me to quit my aberrant behavior. I do not agree that being "gay" is something you are born with, nor do I believe alcoholism is a disease like diabetes, an analogy made a lot in substance abuse treatment. Being gay is a behavior that people engage in because they like the way it makes them feel, just like skid row junkies like the high heroin gives them. Most junkies, and I assume most gays, feel guilty about their behavior. Some make attempts to control it. Others throw decorum out the window and become the San Fransicko version of gay - revolting. If both examples, gay and alcie, are "genetic" or "diseases" or are otherwise not controllable, then why aren't alcoholics given special rights under the law? Alcoholics are, in fact, persecuted under the law, something this great nation is not supposed to do.
I guess its all in how you look at things. I am repulsed by people who are flamboyantly gay, but I am also repulsed by blatant heterosexuals. I believe that everyone should make efforts to control themselves. I am not saying that gayness is the most horrible thing. The man that video-taped my Mama's memorial service is a gay man, and he refused to charge me anything for his work, or for the 75 copies he made for us to send to distant friends and relatives. I can never repay him for that kindness, but I still don't want to see him kissing his "partner".