13 Comments Add your own

• 1. Dave Barrett  |  December 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

  The picture he paints of all men in military being repressed homosexuals having joined the military primarily to prove to \"others and themselves\" that they are not gay is indeed hilarious. Wouldn’t you think that most military men would find Lind\’s argument insulting — his argument that gays serving openly in the military would undermine the ability of all the closeted gays in the military (all the men other than the openly gay ones in Lind\’s view) to prove that they are real men simply by being in the military

• 2. echo4charlie  |  December 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  It’s silly. The “real man (or woman)” isn’t the one who fights to prove how tough he is. The “real man (or woman)” is the one who carries and cares for the injured (adult or child) to the combat hospital, who throws themselves on top of the grenade in attempt to spare his colleagues, the one who rides into hot zones and delivers food and supplies to the needy locals. The one who walks into buildings, clearing them room by room, the ones who stay up 24 hours straight sifting through intelligence, to find that one crucial piece of information that will help keep our troops alive. Everyone who takes, and honors, their oah of military service, be it Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Army, Army Reserve, National Guard, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy, Red Cross, any number of organizations.

  But, it doesn’t stop there. How about all of those folks who donate their time to feed the hungry and our elderly, shelter the homeless and our elderly, take their time to mentor children, fight our fires, police our streets, etc.

  I’d say William Lind is a bit short sighted and incontinent in his thought process.

  The homosexual individuals who have the true, burning desire to serve their country are. They just have to be discreet, and do what must be done to continue to serve.

  They ones who are complaining the loudest don’t really want to serve, and wouldn’t be the ones enlisting. Where there is a will, there is a way.

  And Black, White, Gay or straight, you have to count on the serviceman/woman next to you. You look out for them, they look out for you, and everyone has each other’s backs, no matter what.

  Why do some of the most skilled warriors (like the Mossad, Israeli Army, US, Britain, etc.) fight day after day? Some because they must, whether for their own sanctity, for the best interest of their people, of for those who can’t defend themselves.

  Very few soldiers, airmen, sailors, or Marines that I knew/know whent to fight because we/they craved it to prove our toughness.

  We did it because it was necessary, and we did what was necessary. I know people who wake with night terors 40 years (+) after they served, because of the things that they saw, had to do. Does that make them weak? Does having compassion make one weak?

  They did what they had to do, and made some very hard choices.

  The sad thing is, nobody will ever change someone like him, or his mind.

• 3. jake  |  December 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  Let’s see– if men join the military to prove they are not pansies, do the pansies join to prove they are not men?
  Maybe their motivation is the same as mine for wanting to join a sorority. (If I could only get away with it!)
  Maybe they have the same motives I had for joining: an adventure, a test of self, useful training and experience, and above all serving my country, the greatest human institution in the history of the world.
  The only trouble is, I know I would never have been able to study if I managed to get myself into a sorority. I don’t know how a gay woud do serving in the military, surrounded by distractions.
  As for women in combat–Why? Do they bring something to the table which we have been lacking all these years? Is our country so desparate for survival we would throw our women into battle?
  In my view, is ultimately our women for whom we fight. I want them home in safety, not next to me in the foxhole.
  some relative safety

• 4. Craig Knauss  |  December 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  Somehow I was not surprised when Lind’s biographical information failed to mention anything about his actually serving in the military. He was a legislative aid and that’s as close as he got.

  And somebody please tell Jake his comments about women in war are archaic at best. Tammy Duckworth is a perfect example. So is the Israeli Army. And I wonder if he’s ever heard of the Amazon warriers. And the Romans had a unit that was all homosexual men. They were some of the fiercest fighters that ever existed. As were the Amazons.

• 5. jake  |  December 9th, 2008 at 8:32 am

  Will some please explain to Craig Knuss (in monosylables) that MAJ Tammy Duckworth was not the only qualified person available to the Army for training as a helicopter pilot. There were plenty of men available.
  Israel is a nation that has been fighting for its existence ever since it was created. I doubt if Israel would choose combat roles for their women if they could avoid it. We can.
  So the Roman army had a homosexual unit. Tell me, would we dare “segregate” anyone, including gays, in our Army?
  Craig — never mind the Romans– you forgot the GREEKS! The only proper love object for the ancient Greek warrior was another Greek warrior. Women were only there to produce more warriors/love objects.
  The Amazons? — and you call my views “archaic”? You have reached beyond the mists of history into the fog of legend and myth. I’m sure those Amazons were tough cookies, capable of conquering the Sphinx, mauling the Minotaur, and defeating (and de-heading) the Hyrda.
  Perhaps you should read Robert Graves to learn about the Greek myths as an expression of the impact of the Hellenic patriarchial culture on the matriarchial Pre-hellenic traditions. Ironically, you may locate his book at Amazon.com. You will find it more enlightening and informative a source of information than Hollywood.

• 6. Milton Waddams  |  December 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am

  Well said Charlie.

• 7. Craig Knauss  |  December 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  Jake,

  I will try to use small words so you can grasp this. Okay?

  First, read Charlie’s comment (#2). This is from a real live veteran. Okay?

  Second, the people and groups I named were only examples. There are many, many more out there. Got it?

  Third, Tammy Duckworth was one of a number of women who were every bit as qualified as a man to fly a combat chopper. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be out there. Got it?

  Isreal isn’t the only country with women in its armed forces. Many countries have had them for some time. Women have even fought in our Revolutionary and Civil Wars in limited numbers. Got it?

  Homosexuals have served their countries for centuries. They’ve served this country for centuries. There are some gay men that I would trust in combat over some of the straights that I know. Some of the “macho” types are the first ones to fold when things get tough. And I believe that E4C said basically the same thing above. Got it?

  The Amazon warriors were legendary, but that does not make them mythical. There is some evidence out there that they really existed, whether you believe it or not. Got it?

  And nobody gives a crap about Robert Graves and his Greek myths, except you. Got it?

  During the 11 years I worked for the Army I don’t recall any Rambo-style super heros like yourself and William Lind. But then Lind didn’t serve. Did he?

  Oh, and this is the 21st Century, not the 19th. Got it?

• 8. jake  |  December 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  Craig:
  I had prepared a point-by-point reply to your last post, but i’m going to save time and replace it with this.
  You consistently either miss or ignore the points in my posts, substitute your own, and go off on a rant about what you want my post to have said.

  Tech Problems– posting in segments

• 9. jake  |  December 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  (continued)

  For example:

  My post said NOTHING about any female soldier lacking any
  kind of qualification. Nor did it, in any way, say or suggest that
  gays (or women) lack courage. That’s all your misconception.
  If you find that in my post, quote it to me.

  continued—

• 10. jake  |  December 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am

  (continued)

  I accept the principle that opinions expressed are subject to attack, and we should all be prepared to defend them. What I refuse to accept is dealing with a twisted version of my statements. If you can’t focus on what is said, there can be no discussion.

  continued–

• 11. jake  |  December 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am

  (continued)

  If you wish to have a discussion on this basis, I will be happy to reply. Otherwise, I can see no benefit to either of us. It would only be a waste of time

  Now with all that aside— Best wishes to you and yours for the holidays.

• 12. Milton Waddams  |  December 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  I get the same tech problems I think you are having. As a result, at the end of most of my posts, I simply copy the entire posting, so I can paste it in again if necessary.

• 13. jake  |  December 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am

  Milton W.:

  Thanks for the help. I’m far from being any kind of “techie”, but I’ll try it. It seems to occur with the non-current posts only.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed