Ron Paul: The Only White Male Republican to Vote For Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

[erowe1]

Wrong! They serve our country just like the rest of us do. Also, they bleed and die just like the rest of us serving this country.

How do they serve me? I didn't send them out there? I venture to say that, whether they say it or not, most people agree. Otherwise the funding of the military wouldn't depend on coercive taxation.

 

[MRoCkEd]

What does "serve your country" even mean? I always thought it was a stupid phrase.

 

[virgil47]

How do they serve me? I didn't send them out there? I venture to say that, whether they say it or not, most people agree. Otherwise the funding of the military wouldn't depend on coercive taxation.

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

 

[MelissaWV]

What does "serve your country" even mean? I always thought it was a stupid phrase.

A nation does have interests, though lately that's become synonymous with the Federal Government having interests. In case of invasion, one serves the country by defending its borders and people. In case of attack, one (theoretically) serves the country via retaliation against the responsible party/parties, and the bringing of culprits to justice. In case of attacks against an ally, one (theoretically) serves the country by rendering aid to that ally and, potentially, assists in offensives against the attacker. Those are basic scenarios.

Now, the reality is that the US is not likely to be invaded by a nation anytime soon, so the first scenario is out. Additionally, that function can be served by the militia and other domestic outfits rather than the huge number of troops our various branches of the military have.

The next reality is that the Government defines the attackers. Again, we are unlikely to be officially attacked by a nation. This is how we've gotten so deep in the "War on Terror"; we are battling a technique in several nations, and ignoring the nations of origin for some of the actual attackers.

The last scenario is, again, defined by the Government. Who is an ally worthy of shedding American blood? The People don't get to vote on that, and probably don't even think about it much. The conflicts are framed so neatly that most of the population would think it's the US's idea, and in our best interests. The US often assists its allies only to find them as enemies a decade later.

All of those things aside, though, the Government puts out these orders, acting on behalf of the People (allegedly), so to carry them out without regard for self is service on behalf of the country.

I do believe putting oneself in harm's way is a difficult thing, especially at the age these people are doing it. The orders aren't their fault, and many go through their tours without mowing down innocents or committing crimes of other sorts. They're just people. They grow up to be Gunny or Kokesh or Ron Paul or Dennis Franz or Elvis Presley (though I don't care for him and his stolen hits) or Jesse Ventura or any number of others.

I always liked this way of looking at it:

[P]atriotism... is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. ~Adlai Stevenson

We're the true Patriots "We" include those who've served, came home, and merged their views with the fight for Liberty at home.

 

[erowe1]

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

You might be surprised how many very young and very poorly educated people believe those things, particularly the old canard about how we'd be speaking German or Japanese if American taxpayers weren't forced against their wills to fund a global police force.

Let's say we did get invaded and I did request help from the military in defending me, my family, and my property, and let's say I willingly offered to pay my fair share in that. In that case it could fairly be said that the military was serving me. But if I am being forced against my will to pay for the military to do things that I wouldn't ever willingly pay for it to do, then I don't see how it could be said to be serving me in those cases.

 

[kylejack]

Germany didn't even have the assets to cross the English Channel. How would they have crossed the Atlantic and conquer a country as large as ours? Our military is mostly vestigial. I wouldn't mind cutting most of it off.

 

[RM918]

While I'm for bashing the pentagon and the government that allows it to run rampant, bashing individual soldiers is just letting your hate overcome your judgment. Many of them really joined to 'protect their country', and it's infinitely sad and unfortunate that they were lied to and sent to do just about the excact opposite for so long. Either way, the institution and its engagements need to be cut down to size to avoid any more needless loss of life.

 

[Depressed Liberator]

Mr. Paul doesnt learn anything from the Rand episode? Madcow, Bathhouse Olbermann, Bathhouse Bill Mayer, Jon Stewart and the co-creator of Daily Show, etc??

What did Jon Stewart do?

 

[virgil47]

You might be surprised how many very young and very poorly educated people believe those things, particularly the old canard about how we'd be speaking German or Japanese if American taxpayers weren't forced against their wills to fund a global police force.

Let's say we did get invaded and I did request help from the military in defending me, my family, and my property, and let's say I willingly offered to pay my fair share in that. In that case it could fairly be said that the military was serving me. But if I am being forced against my will to pay for the military to do things that I wouldn't ever willingly pay for it to do, then I don't see how it could be said to be serving me in those cases.

You labor under the misconception that a military force that can protect you in case of an invasion can be whistled up out of thin air. It's not a matter of paying them as if they were mowing your lawn. A great deal of work, training and preparation go into making a military capable of defending you when and if you should ever need it.

The old canard about which language we'd be speaking can't be answered because we won. I don't even want to think about how our lives would be if we'd lost WWII.

 

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul didn't say it was a fair policy, he said it was a "good policy", at least if we are talking about his debate appearance. And no, it was not a good or fair policy, and I am glad Ron is now paying attention and has reversed course.

Actually he didnt' say "fair" or "good". He said it was a "decent policy"

Here is what he said in the debates:

MR. SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.
Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?

REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

 

[erowe1]

You labor under the misconception that a military force that can protect you in case of an invasion can be whistled up out of thin air.

No I don't.

It's not a matter of paying them as if they were mowing your lawn.

Exactly. When I pay someone to mow my lawn, that person is serving me.

But when the Mafia forces a shop owner to pay them "taxes" in exchange for "protection," those are just euphemisms. The Mafia isn't really serving that shop owner.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I thought we were on the "far right"?

 

[seeker4sho]

You will be one of the first to scream for the military's protection when the war comes to America. Can you read? Can you vote? Do you speak the English language as opposed to say German or Japanese? If so then get down on your knees and thank the military. You are obviously too young and too poorly educated to understand these things. I sincerely hope you never have to learn about them the hard way.

Amen to that!

 

[Theocrat]

I Think You're Missing Some Things

I'd love to give Pete a hug, if only to watch in amusement as he tries to wash my contaminating gayness from himself for hours on end.

I also love the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed into the military (which, again, is an impossible standard to uphold, unless you have a scientific "gay" test) because of some moral objection. Of course, we only want the most moral of people killing innocents and guilty alike from afar with massive weaponry for the defense and obtaining of earthly, material possessions.

Sensing the sarcasm of your response, let me cover a few things you've touched on. I think you're arguing against a couple of strawmen there. Firstly, those of us who believe gays should not serve in the military do not also believe it's moral for a military to kill innocents in the effort of earthly, material possessions.

Secondly, I don't think a "scientific gay test" needs to be implemented to keep gays out of the military. The military via the Uniform Code of Military Justice could just enact a standard explaining that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in the military, and that would solve that issue.

Thirdly, you need to realize that we're speaking ideally when those of us argue against gays serving in the military. There are many other factors which would have to take place in our society before such a standard could be adopted. Examples of that would be the public having right views about the nature of homosexuality as well as the government withdrawing its support of homosexuality as a "civil right."

Undoubtedly, most here would find the view that gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the military to be extreme or absurd. But, ultimately, it will come down to worldviews and determining which one provides the basis for homosexual involvement in the military to be either moral or immoral over against the other worldviews.

 

[seeker4sho]

I am flabbergasted at the naivety of some people. Throughout history strong nations attacked and conquered weaker nations for their wealth. Today the US is attacking and bullying weaker countries to secure their natural resources and force them to do our will. Because of the huge American empire overseas the cost to our government is bankrupting the US. The dollar is heading for a collapse; when that occurs the US will become a weak third world nation. Our military and economic power will collapse. Unfortunately those of you that have had a free ride, as far as defending our country is concerned, will have a rude awakening, to put it mildly.

I am totally against funding the American empire overseas and meddling in the affairs of other counties but I am 100% for maintaining a strong military defense. Our military should be stationed within the borders of the Unites States, rested and well equipped to defend this country. In other words, the Federal government should adhere to the US Constitution. Unfortunately, this whole discussion may be a mute point whereas the Congress, and most of the people, are delusional -- they will not come to their senses until the day of reckoning.

 

[virgil47]

No I don't.



Exactly. When I pay someone to mow my lawn, that person is serving me.

But when the Mafia forces a shop owner to pay them "taxes" in exchange for "protection," those are just euphemisms. The Mafia isn't really serving that shop owner.

Ahh, so the military is equivalent to the Mafia! Well I don't seem to remember the Mafia fighting for our freedom in WWII or in any other war for that matter. You know if you really, really don't like paying for our country having a military then perhaps you should move to someplace that doesn't have one. Of course you may have a great deal of difficulty in finding a country that doesn't have a military as most countries want to be able to defend themselves if needed. You see paying for a military is needed if you and the society you live in wants to keep it's freedoms and way of life. The military is not coin operated my friend.

 

[Kojac]

I am amazed that there are some people that don't understand that our military is outlined by the Constitution for the protection of our nation and our freedoms. "Freedom isn't free" is not just a country music cliche. We must fiercely defend our way of life and our ideals in this world.

 

[MelissaWV]

Sensing the sarcasm of your response, let me cover a few things you've touched on. I think you're arguing against a couple of strawmen there. Firstly, those of us who believe gays should not serve in the military do not also believe it's moral for a military to kill innocents in the effort of earthly, material possessions.

Secondly, I don't think a "scientific gay test" needs to be implemented to keep gays out of the military. The military via the Uniform Code of Military Justice could just enact a standard explaining that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated in the military, and that would solve that issue.

Thirdly, you need to realize that we're speaking ideally when those of us argue against gays serving in the military. There are many other factors which would have to take place in our society before such a standard could be adopted. Examples of that would be the public having right views about the nature of homosexuality as well as the government withdrawing its support of homosexuality as a "civil right."

Undoubtedly, most here would find the view that gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the military to be extreme or absurd. But, ultimately, it will come down to worldviews and determining which one provides the basis for homosexual involvement in the military to be either moral or immoral over against the other worldviews.

1. The idea that only those who you deem morally pure should be pulling the trigger (regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person on the other end) will never be any less silly to me.

2. Is heterosexual behavior to be tolerated? Sex while on duty shouldn't be happening. I think what you are missing is that heterosexuals can talk about their girlfriend or wife back home, and homosexuals have to bite their tongue and not talk about the loved one they are worried they will never see again. That notion escapes a great deal of people who seem to view gay men as hedonistic, immature, and slaves to their sexual impulses. Of course, a Code of Conduct prevents all bad behavior from EVER taking place, right? That's why it's never, ever violated. Having that code in place will not keep gays out of the military. It will, once again, keep them quiet about being gay.

3. Thankfully, few people actually go so far as to desire my bedroom behavior be "corrected." In fact, few people care about it at all. What is your obsession with what people do or do not do with their private parts? What concern is it of yours? Perhaps your favored sexual positions and practices should be scrutinized by the public at large. Perhaps you have sex with the lights on which, as any good Amish woman will tell you, is perverted and wrong. For you to climb atop your high horse and pretend to be the authority on what's "right" for people to do in their bedrooms is laughable, but predictable.

4. See point #1. It is STILL laughable that we're discussing who is morally good enough to shoot at others based on unrelated activity on the homefront.

 

[Kojac]

Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

 

[MelissaWV]

Melissa. It has never been about who is morally superior, it has always been about not allowing sexuality to complicate or to put in jeopardy unit cohesion. Sex is already banned on deployment (for the USMC, at least) but that does not stop the accompanying emotions. If you want to see a unit break down, make sure there's a female that sleeps around in that unit. The ensuing rumors (or reported facts) will likely destroy cohesion and efficiency.

It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else.

Actually if you read Theocrat's post earlier, it IS about moral superiority Homosexuality is immoral and therefore shouldn't be allowed in the military. The irony there is still just as thick as it was when he first posted it. He also mentioned that society should think the "right" way on the subject, and so on. Perhaps you'd need to be more familiar with Theo's posts on the subject of homosexuality, but most of us can read between the lines with him on it.

I am far more of a fan of punishing the activity which, as you mentioned, is already banned. If someone has a crush on someone in their unit and can't perform their duties, then they should man up (or woman up?) and say so. Of course, asking for a transfer on that kind of ground now would get you booted. It's a pretty sick situation all around. If there are perverts and immature bundles of hormones in the unit, that's one thing. Firing someone for slipping up and saying they hope they make it home alive to see their partner again... that seems to be another thing altogether.

I am also of two minds on this because, while I hate the idiocy of the policy, I rather like it being in place because it is a great "out" in times of a draft. I don't think the Administration gives two figs about gays, and certainly "the gay vote" is offset by those who would vote against any Administration that would be seen as catering to gays. The timing of this, with so many wars and an exhausted military spread too thin, is suspect to me.