VOTE today

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the fact that Israel exists that's a problem. Perhaps you share
Iran's nutcase president's views on that issue?

If you really think that Israel playing nice is the answer, I'd
suggest looking at what happened when Israel pulled out of lots of the
occupied land (hint - it included thousands of rockets fired into
Isreali civilian centers).

Simple question: what is the rational basis for the USA's unwavering
support of the State of Israel? Where is it in our national self
interest? Do the negatives (understandable Muslim hostility toward the
US) outweigh the positives (are there any positives, in reality?).

Our support is for a democratic, "western-style" democracy that was
formed by UN mandate in the 40's. We'd also support Singapore if it
came under attack from Malaysia. Our national self-interest lies in a
world of interconnected democracies who are more interested in
furthering their aims via commerce than conflict.

The "Palestinian issue" is just smoke and mirrors - it would be
ridiculously simple for the Arab states in the area to create a
Palestinian state - but only if that were the real issue. Instead,
they "supported" the Palestinians by making them part of an attempted
invasion of Israel, and then turning their backs on them when they got
routed by the smaller Isreali forces.

The Palestinians were offered almost everything they ever asked for
back when Clinton was trying to broker a deal - and they walked away
from the table. It's not a matter of working out peaceful
co-existence - it's a simple matter of Israel's existence.

Besides, if you really think that if Israel packed up and left the
area would "fix the problem", you haven't read up on the Al Qaida
charter. They'll stop only when the entire planet is converted to a
Taliban-style caliphate. I'm betting you'd have a problem with
that...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

RonSonic said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
>> to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
>> only things that will turn the tide in the middle east (hence, the
>> huge amount of resistance to that success by the same group that
>> attacked us many times prior to the Iraq war).
>
>Mission creep. Why did we invade? Threat to the US(and I agree,
>premptive attacks to protect the US is a good policy). Threat gone,
>Saddam gone, time for us to be gone. Just because Bush decided to
>nationbuild, doesn't mean we stay. 300,000+ Iraqi security forces, Iraq
>leaders want to US to 'allow' them to clean the place up, which they
>say thet'll do in 6 months(today's newspaper), I say let 'em.

I couldn't agree more. It's more than time for the Iraqis to step up
and handle almost all of the insurgency, and for us to fall back to a
diminishing support role.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What is this "insurgency" nonsense? The root of the problem is Iraq was
illegally invaded and occupied by a foreign country. Tradition and
international law have legitimized attacks by irregular indigenous
forces against occupying foreign military forces.

Your whole view of this is wrong. American soldiers are attacked but rarely and
in small numbers relative to the Iraqis being attacked and killed.

So, when the Free French attacked the forces, interests and
infrastructure of the Vichy Government, they weren't resisting the Nazi
invasion and occupation of their country, they were just radical French
Christian Fundamentalists attacking a legitimate government, right?

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't agree more. It's more than time for the Iraqis to step up
and handle almost all of the insurgency, and for us to fall back to a
diminishing support role.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What is this "insurgency" nonsense? The root of the problem is Iraq was
illegally invaded and occupied by a foreign country. Tradition and
international law have legitimized attacks by irregular indigenous
forces against occupying foreign military forces.

So you are suggesting that there's no foreign content in the
insurgency, and that all the foreigners killed and captured in the
fighting were tourists? ;-)

Quoted message said:

The era of people accepting colonial rule ended a half-century ago. It
is long past time to end the double standard of approving of US
interference in the internal affairs of other countries, while showing
outrage at even the merest hint of another country affecting US
politics. No one outside the US buys into the myth of "American
Exceptionalism".

C'mon... if the Iraqis want the US out, it's a simple formula. Quit
fighting and we leave. It's not exactly a secret that the US wants to
leave Iraq. Our forces could have been reduced to a small support and
logistics contingent by now had the infighting between the sects and
the insurgency not been so pervasive.

Besides, while it's technically correct to call the US presence an
"occupation" (at least until the Iraqi government was elected), we
have a long history of benign "occupation", ala Germany and Japan for
example. Compare this to the occupation of France by Germany.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the fact that Israel exists that's a problem. Perhaps you share
Iran's nutcase president's views on that issue?

If you really think that Israel playing nice is the answer, I'd
suggest looking at what happened when Israel pulled out of lots of the
occupied land (hint - it included thousands of rockets fired into
Isreali civilian centers).

Simple question: what is the rational basis for the USA's unwavering
support of the State of Israel? Where is it in our national self
interest? Do the negatives (understandable Muslim hostility toward the
US) outweigh the positives (are there any positives, in reality?).

Our support is for a democratic, "western-style" democracy that was
formed by UN mandate in the 40's. We'd also support Singapore if it
came under attack from Malaysia. Our national self-interest lies in a
world of interconnected democracies who are more interested in
furthering their aims via commerce than conflict.

Yeah, the US supports "free elections" and "democracy" as long as those
elections yield the results the US approves of. But if you vote in a
free election and elect Hamas or Ortega, watch out.

Do you eat "American Pie" for breakfast?

Tom Ace said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.

Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
we need for no good reason.

England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
gay personnel serving openly in their armed
forces, and it works well in each case.

"Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
that gay people are second class. It should be
done away with.

Tom Ace

I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
openly gay people assigned to ships underway.

Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
punishable offense.

Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.

The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
your civilian experiences in the 'office'.

Mark Hickey said:

...
The Palestinians were offered almost everything they ever asked for
back when Clinton was trying to broker a deal - and they walked away
from the table. It's not a matter of working out peaceful
co-existence - it's a simple matter of Israel's existence....

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

The repetition of lies from the extreme Zionist lobby (which the
mainstream media is happy to parrot). Ehud Barak offered approximately
22% of the area historically considered Palestine as a sort of client
state that would not be fully independent of Israel. If Arafat had
accepted the offer, the Palestinian's would have revolted against him.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Mark Hickey said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the fact that Israel exists that's a problem. Perhaps you
share Iran's nutcase president's views on that issue?

If you really think that Israel playing nice is the answer, I'd
suggest looking at what happened when Israel pulled out of lots of
the occupied land (hint - it included thousands of rockets fired
into Isreali civilian centers).

Simple question: what is the rational basis for the USA's unwavering
support of the State of Israel? Where is it in our national self
interest? Do the negatives (understandable Muslim hostility toward
the US) outweigh the positives (are there any positives, in
reality?).

Our support is for a democratic, "western-style" democracy that was
formed by UN mandate in the 40's. We'd also support Singapore if it
came under attack from Malaysia. Our national self-interest lies in a
world of interconnected democracies who are more interested in
furthering their aims via commerce than conflict.

The "Palestinian issue" is just smoke and mirrors - it would be
ridiculously simple for the Arab states in the area to create a
Palestinian state - but only if that were the real issue. Instead,
they "supported" the Palestinians by making them part of an attempted
invasion of Israel, and then turning their backs on them when they got
routed by the smaller Isreali forces.

The Palestinians were offered almost everything they ever asked for
back when Clinton was trying to broker a deal - and they walked away
from the table. It's not a matter of working out peaceful
co-existence - it's a simple matter of Israel's existence.

Besides, if you really think that if Israel packed up and left the
area would "fix the problem", you haven't read up on the Al Qaida
charter. They'll stop only when the entire planet is converted to a
Taliban-style caliphate. I'm betting you'd have a problem with
that...

Don't be so sure.

BS (umm, well...)

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
overboard.

Are you saying the service can't get beyond that way of operating?

Quoted message said:

US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
openly gay people assigned to ships underway.

You doubt it-- but you're wrong.
Google for "Royal Navy" and gay.

Quoted message said:

If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.

My idea is to try what has worked for most of our allies.
I just don't buy that the US is so exceptional that it can't
do what other countries have done with respect to
letting gay people serve openly.

Tom Ace

RonSonic who? said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
>> to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
>> only things that will turn the tide in the middle east (hence, the
>> huge amount of resistance to that success by the same group that
>> attacked us many times prior to the Iraq war).
>
>Mission creep. Why did we invade? Threat to the US(and I agree,
>premptive attacks to protect the US is a good policy). Threat gone,
>Saddam gone, time for us to be gone. Just because Bush decided to
>nationbuild, doesn't mean we stay. 300,000+ Iraqi security forces, Iraq
>leaders want to US to 'allow' them to clean the place up, which they
>say thet'll do in 6 months(today's newspaper), I say let 'em.

I couldn't agree more. It's more than time for the Iraqis to step up
and handle almost all of the insurgency, and for us to fall back to a
diminishing support role.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What is this "insurgency" nonsense? The root of the problem is Iraq was
illegally invaded and occupied by a foreign country. Tradition and
international law have legitimized attacks by irregular indigenous
forces against occupying foreign military forces.

Your whole view of this is wrong. American soldiers are attacked but rarely and
in small numbers relative to the Iraqis being attacked and killed.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

There are dozens of attacks per day on US forces, but these are
generally under-reported in the press [1] for "morale reasons". Note
that the term insurgency was being falsely used as far back as the
"Mission Accomplished", "Major combat operations have ended" and "Bring
em on" days of late spring and summer 2003.

Much of the current violence between Iraqis is being carried out by
"security" forces under the control of Shia ministers in conflict with
Sunni and Kurdish group, and conflicts in the mixed Arab/Kurdish areas
between all parties. These localized conflicts between dozens of
militias qualify as a civil war, but not an insurgency against a
legitimate government.

[1] Not in the sense of publishing false information, but hiding the
reports (e.g. small paragraph in the back of the news section) or not
reporting them at all.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Johnny Sunset said:

There are dozens of attacks per day on US forces, but these are
generally under-reported in the press [1] for "morale reasons".

You're absolutely wrong (or just lying through your teeth). Ever watch
cable news? They report EVERY DAY on US troop deaths, complete with their
montly/yearly "tote boards".

Of course, now that the election is over they may tone it down a bit, but
don't count on it.

Quoted message said:

[1] Not in the sense of publishing false information, but hiding the
reports (e.g. small paragraph in the back of the news section) or not
reporting them at all.

The press was practically panting with anticipation when the October tally
topped 100. You're delusional, Johnny.

Billy Moonrise

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't agree more. It's more than time for the Iraqis to step up
and handle almost all of the insurgency, and for us to fall back to a
diminishing support role.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What is this "insurgency" nonsense? The root of the problem is Iraq was
illegally invaded and occupied by a foreign country. Tradition and
international law have legitimized attacks by irregular indigenous
forces against occupying foreign military forces.

So you are suggesting that there's no foreign content in the
insurgency, and that all the foreigners killed and captured in the
fighting were tourists? ;-)

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What insurgency? More that two dozen groups with contrary objectives
constitutes a civil war, not an insurgency against a legitimate
government.

"All the foreigners" is a misleading phrase, since they are dwarfed in
number by members of indigenous Iraqi resistance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The era of people accepting colonial rule ended a half-century ago. It
is long past time to end the double standard of approving of US
interference in the internal affairs of other countries, while showing
outrage at even the merest hint of another country affecting US
politics. No one outside the US buys into the myth of "American
Exceptionalism".

C'mon... if the Iraqis want the US out, it's a simple formula. Quit
fighting and we leave. It's not exactly a secret that the US wants to
leave Iraq. Our forces could have been reduced to a small support and
logistics contingent by now had the infighting between the sects and
the insurgency not been so pervasive.

Why is the US building four (4) huge "enduring" military bases with
permanent installations if the US will leave once the fighting stops?
Why does George W. Bush REFUSE TO STATE IN UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US
will withdraw ALL MILITARY FORCES if the fighting stops? Why is the US
building an embassy complex completely out of proportion to population
size (relative to US embassies in other countries)?

To paraphrase a 14 year old campaign slogan, "It's the OIL, stupid".

Quoted message said:

Besides, while it's technically correct to call the US presence an
"occupation" (at least until the Iraqi government was elected), we
have a long history of benign "occupation", ala Germany and Japan for
example. Compare this to the occupation of France by Germany.

Such as the colonial occupation of the Philippines by the US where at
least hundreds of thousands to possibly more than one million
(1,000,000) Filipinos died trying to achieve independence?

If the Iraqi government told the US to leave, it would be declared a
failure and removed by the US (as may happen anyhow). The Iraqi
government is NOT sovereign, as US military forces act solely under US
command (imagine foreign military forces in the US, under foreign
command, carrying out operations against US targets).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

RonSonic who? said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Tom Ace said:

RonSonic wrote:

> >> Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> >
> >Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> >we need for no good reason.
>
> We don't "need" anybody whose [censored] is controlling him to that extent. You'll
> notice that includes straight men with a zipper problem as well.

Give me a break. To admit that you're gay,
e.g. to say you have a boyfriend at home even,
is being controlled by one's [censored]?

A straight soldier can say he has a girlfriend or wife,
but a gay soldier has to shut up. Real fair, huh.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

Why is the unwritten assumption present in this discussion that only
men in the military have strong sexual feelings?

There isn't. The assumption is that in most walks of life one's sexual feelings
are generally not disruptive. In environments were you have dozens of men
sharing quarters and facilities it is another matter.

Why has only men's sexual behavior been mentioned by the other posters?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Peter Chisholm said:

Tom Ace said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.

Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
we need for no good reason.

England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
gay personnel serving openly in their armed
forces, and it works well in each case.

"Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
that gay people are second class. It should be
done away with.

Tom Ace

I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
openly gay people assigned to ships underway.

Peter,

Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?

Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?

Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?

Quoted message said:

Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
punishable offense.

Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
these circumstances?

Quoted message said:

Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.

Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
be a non-discriminatory solution.

Quoted message said:

The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
your civilian experiences in the 'office'.

Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
and break things" are fit for elective office?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

RonSonic said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Ace said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.

Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
we need for no good reason.

England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
gay personnel serving openly in their armed
forces, and it works well in each case.

"Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
that gay people are second class. It should be
done away with.

It's also a security problem -- if some of our military has to keep a
secret or risk getting kicked out, they can be taken advantage of.

Never lived 40 to a room have ya.

I did about five days a week for two months.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

There are dozens of attacks per day on US forces, but these are
generally under-reported in the press [1] for "morale reasons".

You're absolutely wrong (or just lying through your teeth). Ever watch
cable news? They report EVERY DAY on US troop deaths, complete with their
montly/yearly "tote boards".

They're still underreported. We don't hear about the soliders who
lose legs, or arms or their eyesight. We get the number killed, or
vague phrases like "injured" which makes me think of road rash and the
average American think of maybe a broken leg -- when the reality is
sometimes far more horrific -- like losing a limb or being blinded.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:22:30 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't agree more. It's more than time for the Iraqis to step up
and handle almost all of the insurgency, and for us to fall back to a
diminishing support role.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

What is this "insurgency" nonsense? The root of the problem is Iraq was
illegally invaded and occupied by a foreign country. Tradition and
international law have legitimized attacks by irregular indigenous
forces against occupying foreign military forces.

So you are suggesting that there's no foreign content in the
insurgency, and that all the foreigners killed and captured in the
fighting were tourists? ;-)

No, he's suggesting the *root* cause was the invasion. Are you stupid
or do you think you're being clever by twisting what he said?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Mark Hickey said:

Our support is for a democratic, "western-style" democracy that was
formed by UN mandate in the 40's.

Israel is a theocratic state and hardly 'western style' in the sense
that western democracies are mostly if not all secular.

Our support for Israel has more to do with political realities here in
the US than any government style. Besides, when has the US supported a
government based on its style? What we have are interests, not friends.

Paul Cassel said:

Mark Hickey said:

Our support is for a democratic, "western-style" democracy that was
formed by UN mandate in the 40's.

Israel is a theocratic state and hardly 'western style' in the sense
that western democracies are mostly if not all secular.

Funny thing: an Islamic theocratic state is a No-No, but a Jewish
theocratic state is A-OK!

Quoted message said:

Our support for Israel has more to do with political realities here in
the US than any government style.

Exactly. It is a reflection of the power of the pro-Israel forces
(manifesting as "the Jewish vote"😉 in US politics.

Quoted message said:

Besides, when has the US supported a
government based on its style? What we have are interests, not friends.

Just look at the US position re:Pakistan, a country run under a
military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected
government. Oh, and that *actually did* spread WMDs (that's how the
North Koreans "got the bomb", folks. They traded their missle designs
for Pakastani nuke designs).

In article
<[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Tom Ace said:

RonSonic wrote:

> >> Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> >
> >Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> >we need for no good reason.
>
> We don't "need" anybody whose [censored] is controlling him to that extent. You'll
> notice that includes straight men with a zipper problem as well.

Give me a break. To admit that you're gay,
e.g. to say you have a boyfriend at home even,
is being controlled by one's [censored]?

A straight soldier can say he has a girlfriend or wife,
but a gay soldier has to shut up. Real fair, huh.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

Why is the unwritten assumption present in this discussion that only
men in the military have strong sexual feelings?

There isn't. The assumption is that in most walks of life one's sexual feelings
are generally not disruptive. In environments were you have dozens of men
sharing quarters and facilities it is another matter.

The only difficulty with being around men is
aggression, managing mine and diverting theirs.

--
Michael Press

Tom Ace said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
overboard.

Are you saying the service can't get beyond that way of operating?

It's not the 'way the service is operating'. it's not policy. I'm just
telling you what happened.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
openly gay people assigned to ships underway.

You doubt it-- but you're wrong.
Google for "Royal Navy" and gay.

Quoted message said:

If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.

My idea is to try what has worked for most of our allies.
I just don't buy that the US is so exceptional that it can't
do what other countries have done with respect to
letting gay people serve openly.

Women have had a detrimental effect on good order and discipline, no
doubt about it. Having gays be 'open' does nothing to advance war
fighting skils.