[vundy33]

[quote=vundy33]


I AM against them serving openly because of the reason I have outlined twice. And MY problem with it is that it was rammed down the armed services throats over the objections of the Joint Chiefs. It was singularly a civilian left wing, liberal, plot to push forward one of their looney toons wierd agenda top 10ers.

The point of my view on it is that the force, for the most part, and every services leader except Marine Commandant, General Conway, was indifferent to getting rid of DADT. And we have a very, very conservative military, naturally. If you are a vet, or AD, you should know by now that we don't go on ethics. We go on what we are forced to go on by a few civilians, with input from our commanders, but when it comes down to it, their word means little.

If Pres. Obama or any other politician hadn't mentioned getting rid of DADT, it wouldn't be close to a subject, and it would go back most Americans not even know what DADT means.

Again, we, the military, are indifferent to it for the most part. Live and let live. Our job is to take the lives of the people who want to hurt us, and we do it good, whether you like penis or vagina. Who am I, or you, to judge?

When it comes down to it, they'll be judged by one ultimately. Whatever happens happens.