Dutch officials have rejected a retired US general's claim that its forces failed at Srebrenica because of poor morale over openly gay soldiers.
A defence ministry spokesman dismissed as "complete nonsense" the remarks by John Sheehan, a former Nato commander.
Gen Sheehan had been speaking at a US Senate hearing on allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military.
He said Dutch leaders had told him that the presence of gay soldiers had contributed to the Bosnian massacre.
Srebrenica was a UN safe haven under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers when, in 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran the town, killing some 8,000 Muslim men and boys.
Gen Sheehan said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him that the presence of openly gay soldiers in the Dutch peacekeeping force were seen as "part of the problem" which contributed to the fall of Srebrenica.
He argued that since the end of the Cold War, European militaries had changed and he concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability".
'Totally off-target'
This "socialisation" process, Gen Sheehan said, "included open homosexuality" and led to "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back".
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said in response.
"The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations.
"Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."
The Dutch ambassador to the US, Renee Jones-Bos, added in a statement on the embassy's website that she "couldn't disagree more" with the claims by the former general, who retired from the military in 1997.
In the US Senate itself, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told Gen Sheehan he was "totally off-target".
Several countries - including Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel - allow gay people to serve openly.
Srebrenica was declared a UN safezone due to the overwhelming humanitarian need of the situation, but the location was not sound (Canadian forces had left the region just days before, declaring it indefensible). The Dutch stepped in to provide troops, but provided too few and did not secure ready access to air support in case of emergency. It was believed the troops’ presence alone would be sufficient to deter attacks on the refugees, that an actual ability to defend the refugees wouldn’t be needed. When Serb forces came and began separating the men from the women, the UN did not interfere, largely because it had little ability to do so.
There were important lessons to be learned in the wake of Srebrenica. It is to the great credit of many involved that they could come forward and honestly discuss what happened and accept blame. If the Dutch forces had been given the strength to properly operate, the air support needed, and the operational orders to fight to protect civilians the massacre would not have happened. The cold reality is that deterrence by presence doesn’t work, you need operational strength with every deployment.
But for all that honest, meaningful debate on the issue, you get some wangrod claiming it was because the soldiers were upset about serving with gay people. Absolutely pathetic.
Sheehan also cited statistics from the Pentagon’s fiscal 2009 report on sexual assault that he said showed 7 percent of the 3,230 incidents recorded were male-on-male, though the actual figure in the report is closer to 5 percent. And in arguing that repeal of the military ban would undermine good order and discipline, he told the story of a male-on-male foxhole sexual assault in his unit during the Vietnam War, and its divisive impact.
Funny. This implies that, even with the ban, men (and not necessarily homosexual men) find ways to sexually assault one another. If we assume that all incidences of man-on-man sexual assault involve at least a single homosexual, then we're left with a scenario in which man-on-man sexual assaults would rise only if the number of enlisted homosexual would significantly increase. I don't think that would happen, for two reasons:
1: Homosexuals make are estimated to up 2-7% of the population, so any percentile increase in the number of homosexual enlisted men will be very small in terms of gross units.
2: Serving in the military as a homosexual is difficult, but feasible. Given that so few people enlist as is, it shouldn't be assumed that there will somehow be a surge of interest in the gay community.
Of course, sexual assault isn't necessarily an erotic act. Plenty of straight men have been convicted of sexually assaulting other men; many hazing incidents immediately come to mind. As such, its possible that the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" would cause an increase of man-man sexual assault involving only straight men, or involving straight men sexually assaulting a gay man.
I also find it amusing that Sheehan only discusses man-man instances of homosexuality as disruptive.
Given that the general comes from a tradition of homophobia simply due to his generation, one can easily assume that is the reason for his statements. I mean no insult to him, we are all formed by the environment in which we grow up.
Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.
Kilkrazy wrote:Given that the general comes from a tradition of homophobia simply due to his generation, one can easily assume that is the reason for his statements. I mean no insult to him, we are all formed by the environment in which we grow up.
Sure, and if it was some random dude making the comment it wouldn't be that ridiculous. But Srebrenica is a really important piece of modern military history, and for a General to ignore the real reasons it was allowed to occur, and instead go off on some wingbat theory is absurd. It's what he does for a living, homophobic upbringing or not how does he not know about what really happened?
I mean, if someone on the street said that we should return to trial by combat because the standard for a conviction is so high that no-one has been convicted of a crime in the last five years, you'd think he's crazy and go on with your day. But when if a Supreme Court Justice said the same thing?
This is so ridiculous it really lives far beyond words. I can honestly say the combo facepalm, at the beginning of the thread is as decent a response, as any could be.
General Sheehan, you sir, deserve a classy image. Let me see what I can scrap together...
I know im starting to sound like a broken record, but hear me out. I think there is more homophobia in many areas of the USA than in Western Europe as a whole. America is one of the most religious western nations, ranking only above Turkey with regards to the amount of Creationists residing there. All of the big 3 mono theisms practice open dislike of gay people (except the good old church of England branch!)So i put it to dakka that this guy is a practicing Christian, and there will be a proven link between open dislike of gays and religiousity. I shall look into his background, but i will be stunned if i am wrong. The fact is, a man of his rank and status has to be intelligent. That is not a rank gained easily, and what he has said is so stupid and irrational, he can only be a man of faith as It is the single thing that can cause people to forget everything they have learned and trust in the beliefs that they are hardwired to belief in after indoctrination as a child. One of my closest friends is a devout Christian and he is intelligent and well read, but when im arguing about religion with him, his common sense goes out the window for a moment, and i can only presume it is the same here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would point out KK, that older generation also tend to be more religious, which lends weight to my argument if you are talking about the guy coming from a generation that tends to dislike gay people. My generation is far less likely to be Religious, and funny thing, is far less likely to be homophobic. Indeed, i had no religious upbringing and im pretty much as gay friendly as you can be without playing with a guys nuts. :-)
@jp400: I can't remember what movie it's from. It is an epic expression though.
sebster wrote:
I mean, if someone on the street said that we should return to trial by combat because the standard for a conviction is so high that no-one has been convicted of a crime in the last five years, you'd think he's crazy and go on with your day. But when if a Supreme Court Justice said the same thing?
Matt, concerning your statement, why is it a bad thing that my religious convictions disagree with a gay lifestyle? I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you find it almost criminal to hold such beliefs, not even including your decidedly anti-Creationist sentiment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @EF: Yeah J. Black is right. That pic of Mr. Jones is from No Country For Old Men. A great film by all accounts, and one that you should see as soon as you possibly can.
I realize that I'm not the smartest man, but how does the presence of openly gay soldiers contribute to the events? You might as well blame global warming (well, it was hot, so they were more lethargic).
And I think it interesting that he's passing it off onto someone else. He didn't say it was the reason, he said that someone else said it was the reason. And I'm sure he wouldn't ever give up that name.
I don't think the apparent homophobia bothers me as much as the general stupidity of the statement.
Of course, somewhere, I'm sure there's some long dead US officer who blamed the failure to drive the Chinese out of North Korea because Truman de-segregated the military.
Matty, you absolutely do sound like a broken record.
As for the original topic:
dietrich wrote:Of course, somewhere, I'm sure there's some long dead US officer who blamed the failure to drive the Chinese out of North Korea because Truman de-segregated the military.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@EF: Yeah J. Black is right. That pic of Mr. Jones is from No Country For Old Men. A great film by all accounts, and one that you should see as soon as you possibly can.
Even if you've already seen the movie, you need to see it again. Then when it's over and you're thinking 'damn that's a good movie' the thing you most need to do is watch that movie again.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Matt, concerning your statement, why is it a bad thing that my religious convictions disagree with a gay lifestyle? I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you find it almost criminal to hold such beliefs
Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So yeah if you disagree with homosexuality publicly it could in fact be criminal.
corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.
corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.
The idea itself is not wrong its when you use the idea to treat gays as lesser people and don't treat them equal, i could care less if you think i'm immoral just don't mess with my rights.
You still lack clarity of definition with that. What rights does a gay person have vs a straight person? What are defined as rights? How are rights decided? For example I don't consider marriage a right, but many gays would disagree. More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle. That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.
corpsesarefun wrote:Funnily enough over in the good old united kingdom it is highly frowned upon to be homophobic and there are several laws against the abuse of homosexuals (violent or verbal).
So how do you define homophobic? Would the Rt. Rev. Sentamu, Bishop of York, be considered homophobic for stating that homosexuality is wrong? The problem with saying, "This idea is illegal" is that is ill defined, and frankly quite stupid.
Yep saying homosexuality is wrong is the deffinition of homophobia.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You still lack clarity of definition with that. What rights does a gay person have vs a straight person? What are defined as rights? How are rights decided? For example I don't consider marriage a right, but many gays would disagree. More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle. That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.
I believe in equivalent rights so I should be treated as your equal in the eyes of the state. So a married gay couple should be allowed the same rights as straight spouses. (ability to see each other in the hospital etc.) I don't believe i should retrieve special treatment but treated the same. someone could speak ill of me all they want they can be critical if they like, the moment it becomes illegal is when they prevent homosexuals from being treated as equals. same way that neo-nazis can hold all the rallies they want and say that whites are the master race but they can'y actively do anything to enforce their ideologies. Rights are what is defined by state and federal law. so on the topic of marriage it can be called the something else if you want but in the eyes of the state it should be seen the same as a heterosexual marriage.
If the Dutch forces had been given the strength to properly operate, the air support needed, and the operational orders to fight to protect civilians the massacre would not have happened. The cold reality is that deterrence by presence doesn’t work, you need operational strength with every deployment.
If they had the WILL to fight they could have made a difference. They used the excuse of no orders and no air support to stand by and allow the masacre. They had enough troops that they could have done something. And if they were in heavy contact and taking casualties they would have forced NATOs hand and gotten support.
CptJake wrote:If they had the WILL to fight they could have made a difference. They used the excuse of no orders and no air support to stand by and allow the masacre. They had enough troops that they could have done something. And if they were in heavy contact and taking casualties they would have forced NATOs hand and gotten support.
200 troops with no supporting gear, operating from an historical fort with or no defensive value, against an enemy several thousand strong with armour support. And you want them to launch an attack in the hope that air support would come, without any established lines of communication to immediately access that air support, with no pre-planning as to what that air support might consist of. When there were strong political reasons for the French general to deny further air support (to ensure the release of French UN troops).
And remember they were so badly outmatched they couldn't even properly patrol the area to see what was happening - they couldn't confirm the killings were happening.
What you've said is so far from the situation I can guess you've read nothing on the topic and are basically making it up as you go.
It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
You're trying to use the issue to make a vaguer, general issue on whether or not there should be peacekeeping at all*. The actual failure of Srebrenica is that troops were put in the field without the authorisation nor capability to perform their mission, on the hope that their presence alone would be valuable. The lesson to be learned is that if you put troops in the field, then you damn well put enough troops into the field give them the capability to operate as needed.
*And the answer is, and always will be that is an absolute dodge to say 'oh this is just something they've always done' - they were executing captive teenagers, who simply hadn't been alive long enough to part of any cycle of violence. They were just kids born to the side with less guns, and anyone with any power owes it to them to make sure they don't get murdered. Peacekeeping is simply a thing that has to be done, the only issue is how it can be done well.
@Seb: Pointless suicide missions are the proving grounds of a patriot, right?
corpsesarefun wrote:
Yep saying homosexuality is wrong is the deffinition of homophobia.
Homophobia is being threatened by the existence of homosexuals. Believing that it's wrong or that people become that way of their own choice isn't the same remotely. I'm saying this as someone who used to believe it was wrong but had his mind changed after experiencing some gay feelings of his own. So quite frankly, no.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
You're trying to use the issue to make a vaguer, general issue on whether or not there should be peacekeeping at all*. The actual failure of Srebrenica is that troops were put in the field without the authorisation nor capability to perform their mission, on the hope that their presence alone would be valuable. The lesson to be learned is that if you put troops in the field, then you damn well put enough troops into the field give them the capability to operate as needed.
Is that what I was doing? Oh, thanks for reminding me. I believe history is littered with military actions that weren't given enough support. Peacekeeping historically has almost always been under supplied or choked by rules. I'm all for peacekeeping. I think an MEU or the 82nd in Darfur would solve a fair few problems. I think the Philippines are the perfect example of what Western nations can do to help smaller nations fight the gaks in their countries.
*And the answer is, and always will be that is an absolute dodge to say 'oh this is just something they've always done' - they were executing captive teenagers, who simply hadn't been alive long enough to part of any cycle of violence. They were just kids born to the side with less guns, and anyone with any power owes it to them to make sure they don't get murdered. Peacekeeping is simply a thing that has to be done, the only issue is how it can be done well.
Well I was stating it as fact, not using it as an excuse. People will always kill people for no reason at all. I mean look at us, unless your Australian Aboriginal you and I both speak english and are more than likely white, other than accents what is the difference between us? Nothing, besides where we grew up, but I guarantee you will find vast differences in between us, in spite of the fact they are fabricated by nationalist ideals.
If you do happen to be an Australian Aboriginal keep on keeping on.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You still lack clarity of definition with that. What rights does a gay person have vs a straight person? What are defined as rights? How are rights decided? For example I don't consider marriage a right, but many gays would disagree. More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle. That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.
Unfortunately, for your point, that's bull.
What is illegal, is to do it in a way which can promote violence against homosexuals.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
All soldiers want to get home to their families. That isn't the issue here.
The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
All soldiers want to get home to their families. That isn't the issue here.
The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks.
Amusingly enough his argument actually suggests gays may be the best choice of soldiers as they would be less likely to have the same level of family interest.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
All soldiers want to get home to their families. That isn't the issue here.
The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks.
Seriously, does anyone consider it to be a real issue at all? Unless they are involved in relationships with those in their unit, which is forbidden even between males and females, does it matter? The answer is no, as long as everyone remains professional.
efarrer wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
sebster wrote:
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
All soldiers want to get home to their families. That isn't the issue here.
The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks.
Amusingly enough his argument actually suggests gays may be the best choice of soldiers as they would generally lack the same level of family interest.
So gay people don't have families? Where do they come from? Gay factorys
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It was more important for the Dutch soldiers to go home to their families than stop centuries old religious feuding. At the same time it sucks people die, and genocide is never good, but I would bet my left nut if the people who claimed they wouldve done something about it had been there they'd have done the same thing as the soldiers.
No, the Dutch troops weren't just watching by, thinking 'geeze it'd be good to stop those teenage kids being executed but I don't want to get shot at'. The reality is that 200 troops with small arms and no operational support can't achieve much against a modern opponent with armoured support.
Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
All soldiers want to get home to their families. That isn't the issue here.
The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks.
Yeh, Sebster, KK. There's no need to rubbish Marshal2Crusaders's point. It's perfectly valid. Demoralisation on the basis that they feared they would lose, and therefore possibly die on an individual level, sounds more credible than demoralisation due to gay comrades to me.
Killkrazy wrote:"The issue is whether the Dutch troops had the capability to take effective action but didn't because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay soldiers among their ranks."
^ Your description of "the issue."
Marshal2Crusaders's point that they were demoralised by fear of loss is "not germane to the topic" how?
I don't think fear of loss immediately translates to an issue with their being gay soldiers in their ranks. Unless the suggestion is that gay soldiers are far less willing to put their lives at stake (i.e. pussies) than manly boob loving men.
Which frankly... is just bs right out of the gate.
I had taken Marshal2Crusaders's theory to be that they feared loss excessively due to having gay soldiers in the unit. In other words, that the gay soldiers had lower courage than the straight soldiers.
If he was saying that any unit, even composed entirely of the most un-gay troops, would have done the same thing in the same situation because everyone has a similar apprehension of danger whatever their sexual orientation, then I agree with him and withdraw my objection.
1. the were demoralised because of fighting alongside homosexuals
2. the were demoralised due to the likely possibility they might lose, die etc. etc.
"I don't think fear of loss immediately translates to an issue with their being gay soldiers in their ranks."
wtf?
The problem is that in your example is that 2 does not require 1 at all. You'd be forced to prove that having homosexuals in the unit demoralized them and then that was the sole reason they didn't fight as opposed to the many other reasons they might have decided that fighting was pointless.
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point.
I had taken Marshal2Crusaders's theory to be that they feared loss excessively due to having gay soldiers in the unit. In other words, that the gay soldiers had lower courage than the straight soldiers.
If he was saying that any unit, even composed entirely of the most un-gay troops, would have done the same thing in the same situation because everyone has a similar apprehension of danger whatever their sexual orientation, then I agree with him and withdraw my objection.
Ok, well now I understand the confusion.
I can't see where he implied the former.
As I said before, he makes a good theory that Srebrenica happened because of low morale. Not due to fighting alongside gay soldiers, nor due to believing said gayu soldiers meant they were a weaker force therfore they were going to lose etc.
But plainly because, they feared loss, feared death etc. irelevant of anyones sexual preferences.
Makes more sence that general gubbins' theory in the op.
Tyyr wrote:
whatwhat wrote:What are you on about?
Two reasons they weren't capable
1. the were demoralised because of fighting alongside homosexuals
2. the were demoralised due to the likely possibility they might lose, die etc. etc.
"I don't think fear of loss immediately translates to an issue with their being gay soldiers in their ranks."
wtf?
The problem is that in your example is that 2 does not require 1 at all. You'd be forced to prove that having homosexuals in the unit demoralized them and then that was the sole reason they didn't fight as opposed to the many other reasons they might have decided that fighting was pointless.
That;s not a preoblem, that's fully intentional. Since point 2 has nothing to do with the troop's sexuality.
JEB_Stuart wrote:That is stupid and infringes on what is universally agreed upon basic rights: speech, expression and religion.
Those aren't universally agreed upon. Nothing is universally agreed upon. You shouldn't make a point about subjective judgment, and then make another about broad 'truth'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Yep saying homosexuality is wrong is the deffinition of homophobia.
Homophobia is a bad word. Most people use it as a description for anyone that doesn't like homosexuality. However, from a linguistic standpoint, the word should indicate an irrational fear of homosexuality. You don't have to be afraid of homosexuality in order to believe that its wrong. The element of fear comes in when that belief produces a desire to constrain, as it does in the majority of people who believe that marriage, as a state institution, should be denied to same-sex couples.
The people that say they aren't homophobic, while also claiming that homosexual marriage endangers marriage/the country/families without attaching a rational justification, and thereby indicating irrational fear, are idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
200 troops with no supporting gear, operating from an historical fort with or no defensive value, against an enemy several thousand strong with armour support.
400, actually, not that its significant. The opposing force, when including civilians, was estimated to be roughly 20,000 strong.
Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.
Could you please give a few examples? The only one that comes to mind is Alexander the Great.
More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle.
That isn't true, you cannot incite hatred upon someone else based upon their religious beleifs, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or handycappedness.
As for the OP, I could see it happening, he won't release the source because then the source can deny it whether he said it or not. Yet the fact that the men could possibly demoralised by the presence of homosexuals in the unit is entirely true. It could also be entirely plausible that that is what a Dutch General told General Sheehan, as an earlier statement pointed out there is probably an American officer somewhere who thinks that they didn't push the Chinese out of Korea because of desgragation. The General that General Sheehan was talking to could have indeed told him this, and thus he was simply relaying what he had been told.
dogma wrote:Homophobia is a bad word. Most people use it as a description for anyone that doesn't like homosexuality. However, from a linguistic standpoint, the word should indicate an irrational fear of homosexuality.
Or an irrational fear of things being the same. It is a doubly bad word. Just about anything would be better, even if the runner up is something like "gaycism".
Ratbarf wrote:
More to the point though, in Canada for example, you cannot even print anything that is critical of or condemns a homosexual lifestyle.
That isn't true, you cannot incite hatred upon someone else based upon their religious beliefs, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or handycappedness.
So you can say that homosexuality is an active choice made by people overcome by their own lust, that hurts society, undermines the institution of a loving family, and is an affront to God and nature, so long as no one could see this as a reason to hate gay people?
It sounds like what JEB said is functionally true, if the inciting of hatred is the only requirement for censorship.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Oh gak! At what point did I say that. Quote me. I said they wanted to get home to there families, moving out against the enemy you describe without support would've prevented them from going home. Because they would've been killed.
You said the issue was for the Dutch troops to go home or to stop religious feuding, presuming the Dutch had such a choice open to them. No such choice existed, the options were to take casualties against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent on the assumption that massacres were occurring (and being very unlikely to actually establish such), or to hold firm and continue to request greater support.
Is that what I was doing? Oh, thanks for reminding me. I believe history is littered with military actions that weren't given enough support. Peacekeeping historically has almost always been under supplied or choked by rules. I'm all for peacekeeping. I think an MEU or the 82nd in Darfur would solve a fair few problems. I think the Philippines are the perfect example of what Western nations can do to help smaller nations fight the gaks in their countries.
Yes, and while the rules of engagement will always be a tricky issue, there is nothing stopping peacekeeping missions from being made with proper deployment, a clear mission, and sufficient and well defined levels of support.
Well I was stating it as fact, not using it as an excuse. People will always kill people for no reason at all. I mean look at us, unless your Australian Aboriginal you and I both speak english and are more than likely white, other than accents what is the difference between us? Nothing, besides where we grew up, but I guarantee you will find vast differences in between us, in spite of the fact they are fabricated by nationalist ideals.
Sure, but those differences don't amount to killing people.
If you do happen to be an Australian Aboriginal keep on keeping on.
I'm not, no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:400, actually, not that its significant. The opposing force, when including civilians, was estimated to be roughly 20,000 strong.
Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.
Could you please give a few examples? The only one that comes to mind is Alexander the Great.
Julius Caesar
The Emperor Hadrian
Richard the Lionheart
Takeda Shingen
Frederick the Great
Lord Kitchener
Field Marshal Montgomery
These are ones for which we have good evidence. Considering the difficulty of gathering evidence due to historical and geographical distance, and the taboo subject, there are probably more.
dogma wrote:Those aren't universally agreed upon. Nothing is universally agreed upon. You shouldn't make a point about subjective judgment, and then make another about broad 'truth'.
Traditionally yes, I would agree with you, but those rights are recognized by the UN and its members. I would think of that as the closest thing you could possibly find to a definition of "universally agreed upon." There may be a few dissenters, but the vast majority of the world at least nominally follows that standard.
Ratbarf wrote:Could you please give a few examples? The only one that comes to mind is Alexander the Great.
Who wasn't truly homosexual, as his promiscuity was well documented with both genders...
Kilkrazy wrote:Julius Caesar
Wrong. Caesar has a well documented history of mistresses and wives. He was only ever referred to as a homosexual by his enemies.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Emperor Hadrian
Wrong, I have never even heard of a possibility of this...you might be mistaking him for Commodus...
Kilkrazy wrote:Richard the Lionheart
I find this to be decidedly false and revisionist. I have read over many primary and secondary sources concerning Richard I. None of them point to homosexuality in the slightest, they do however list practices that were common in the Middle Ages, as they represented powerful symbolism and ideas, that have been grossly misinterpreted by modern day historians.
Kilkrazy wrote:Takeda Shingen
Wrong, I have never read nor heard of any source or academic that promotes any such idea.
Kilkrazy wrote:Frederick the Great
Highly likely, gotta give you this one.
Kilkrazy wrote:Lord Kitchener
Argued by some, but mostly disregarded. It is a possibility, but many, many historians find it to be absolute rubbish.
Kilkrazy wrote:Field Marshal Montgomery
Absolutely not. The idea is propagated by very few historians. I mean the man was vehemently anti-homosexual and referred to the legalization of homosexuality as a, "charter for buggery." This leads to one of his more amusing quotes, "this sort of thing may be tolerated by the French, but we're British — thank God."
There are various sources of evidence for the supposition that these people were homosexual, if not actively, then at least in terms of some sexual inclinations. As with many historical sources, they are debatable especially the older they are.
Kitchener for instance is supposed to have suppressed his homosexuality probably because it was illegal at the time and he was religious. (Gordon is another contemporary example.)
If people prefer to call someone bisexual because they married and produced children, that is fair comment. Oscar Wilde married and had children, yet was homosexual.
They were just heterosexual men who had sex with other heterosexual men.
You said the issue was for the Dutch troops to go home or to stop religious feuding, presuming the Dutch had such a choice open to them. No such choice existed, the options were to take casualties against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent on the assumption that massacres were occurring (and being very unlikely to actually establish such), or to hold firm and continue to request greater support.
No amount of soldiers can ever stop religious feuding. Ever.
Yes, and while the rules of engagement will always be a tricky issue, there is nothing stopping peacekeeping missions from being made with proper deployment, a clear mission, and sufficient and well defined levels of support.
True, but have you ever heard of one?
Sure, but those differences don't amount to killing people.
Sure, but those differences don't amount to killing people.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:No amount of soldiers can ever stop religious feuding. Ever.
They can control a situation until a lasting peace can be established. The alternative is let people kill civilians en masse, which is a pretty crappy alternative.
And it needs to be remembered the ethnic fighting was all but dead in the region, it was whipped up again by former communists looking to maintain control as the USSR collapsed.
True, but have you ever heard of one?
Completely, 100% satisfactory? No. But then no military operation is ever completely perfect, but some are a lot better than others.
Because Nationalism has never led to war?
It sure has, but you compared the difference in Americans and Australians. I don't think there's enough there to start any ethnic cleansing anytime soon. There might be a time down the road where we have to invade you to teach you the importance of vegemite, but that's for your own good.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:No amount of soldiers can ever stop religious feuding. Ever.
They can control a situation until a lasting peace can be established. The alternative is let people kill civilians en masse, which is a pretty crappy alternative.
And it needs to be remembered the ethnic fighting was all but dead in the region, it was whipped up again by former communists looking to maintain control as the USSR collapsed.
True, but have you ever heard of one?
Completely, 100% satisfactory? No. But then no military operation is ever completely perfect, but some are a lot better than others.
Because Nationalism has never led to war?
It sure has, but you compared the difference in Americans and Australians. I don't think there's enough there to start any ethnic cleansing anytime soon. There might be a time down the road where we have to invade you to teach you the importance of vegemite, but that's for your own good.
Agreed! Hey, a mature and reasoned outcome!!!! GO SEBSTER AND M2C!!!
So you can say that homosexuality is an active choice made by people overcome by their own lust, that hurts society, undermines the institution of a loving family, and is an affront to God and nature, so long as no one could see this as a reason to hate gay people?
Sorry, I probably misrepresented that, by inciting hatred we mean telling someone to go a punch a Gay person because they are gay and God hates them. Thats illegal, telling people that God Hates Gays , is completely legal. I guess I mean to say that by inciting hatred we mean telling or suggesting to others that they should go and abuse someone else either physically or verbally.
As for Julius Caesar being Gay, he might have been Bi, which might have been possible but is unlikely, he was an acclaimed ladies man. There is even an instance when he recieved a letter in the Senate and Cato the Younger made him expose it because he thought it was sensitive information to a plot, instead it was a love letter from Cato's married sister.
As for the presence of Gay men bringing down morale, I beleive Marius (might have been Scipio but I don't have my book here with me) had his own cousin executed while on campaign for attempting to have a homosexual affair.
Ratbarf wrote:As for the presence of Gay men bringing down morale, I beleive Marius (might have been Scipio but I don't have my book here with me) had his own cousin executed while on campaign for attempting to have a homosexual affair.
That was Marius. I believe it was while he was on campaign against Jugurtha in Africa. His cousin tried to bugger a soldier and Marius had him executed. And Rome was far from homophobic...
Weren't there times in Roman history, when homosexual lifestyles were looked down upon? I was under the impression that it wasn't always considered acceptable, at least for certain periods of Roman history.
Ratbarf wrote:Sorry, I probably misrepresented that, by inciting hatred we mean telling someone to go a punch a Gay person because they are gay and God hates them. Thats illegal, telling people that God Hates Fags, is completely legal.
Sorry for the slow reply JEB, i tend to get leathered all weekend and i dont get much done.
Why is homosexuality wrong then? You said you think it is wrong, but i just dont see it. What is a sensible reason for saying that it is wrong?
The reason i feel this way is because i am straight. I find the idea of shagging a man utterly repellant, and yet this same point is what makes me so friendly and affable towards gay people, because what is entirely obvious to me as a result of my own sexuality, is that you dont CHOOSE anything.
The word sexual preference is a misnomer in my opinion. Its not a preference, its a simple thing that you are hardwired to be ..well.. whatever you are.
I dont find men sexually attractive, i dont have any choice in the matter. So to me, hating gay people is utterly irrational. Its like hating people for having black hair or blue eyes, because you dont get to choose them either. And no amount of Religious zealots crowing on about "lifestyle choices" will ever make me change my mind, because i like women by some biological hardwiring in my brain, i dont just choose to like them, I HAVE to.
Wrexasaur wrote:Weren't there times in Roman history, when homosexual lifestyles were looked down upon? I was under the impression that it wasn't always considered acceptable, at least for certain periods of Roman history.
True enough, but the vast majority of Roman history displays at least a casual indifference to homosexuality.
mattyrm wrote:Sorry for the slow reply JEB, i tend to get leathered all weekend and i don't get much done.
No problem, I would expect nothing less.
mattyrm wrote:Why is homosexuality wrong then? You said you think it is wrong, but i just don't see it. What is a sensible reason for saying that it is wrong?
I have no answer that you would find reasonable, but my convictions are not measured along humanities standards. I have heard some argue that it is unnatural, but these are usually Darwinists in the extreme. I believe it is wrong for religious reasons, but that doesn't make me a homophobe. I have gay friends, but that is their choice. As St. Paul wrote, "Judge not the unbelievers for they have already been judged by God." So in my mind, I don't need to push morality down someone else's throat because that is none of my business. I don't HAVE to like their lifestyle, but on the same token I WON'T tell them how to live their lifestyle. I am not afraid to share my opinion, but on the same token, I don't feel the need to rationalize it to meet man's approval.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Traditionally yes, I would agree with you, but those rights are recognized by the UN and its members. I would think of that as the closest thing you could possibly find to a definition of "universally agreed upon." There may be a few dissenters, but the vast majority of the world at least nominally follows that standard.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists marriage as a right. If you do not believe marriage is a right, you should not cite it.
As always Jeb, if all religious men were as rational and pleasant as you are, then i wouldnt have anything to complain about.
At least you are honest and admit your distaste is due to religious reasons, as always, you are entirely entitled to your opinion, and knowing you like i do, i know you wouldnt harrass someone who was gay. But i have still to hear a really good logical reason for having a dislike for gay men, and i doubt i will ever hear a good reason.
Regards gay soldiers, there was only one guy in my commando unit who was known to be gay, but nobody really talked about it much. He was a really good proffesional bloke, well liked by everyone and extremely fit. I would certainly say he was a very fine soldier and his sexuality in no way undermined his abilities.
An amusing bit of story here though, his name was Stuart, and naval slang for a gay man is a "Beefer" or if someone is behaving like a woman you can say that person is "Beef"
Anyway, when it came out that Stu was gay, his nickname was...
That was Marius. I believe it was while he was on campaign against Jugurtha in Africa. His cousin tried to bugger a soldier and Marius had him executed. And Rome was far from homophobic...
Yes but the point I was attempting to illustrate was that the Romans, who were arguably one of the greatest militarists in history, had a rule that prohibited openly gay expressions and relationships in the army while on campaign.
mattyrm wrote:
An amusing bit of story here though, his name was Stuart, and naval slang for a gay man is a "Beefer" or if someone is behaving like a woman you can say that person is "Beef"
Anyway, when it came out that Stu was gay, his nickname was...
dogma wrote:The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists marriage as a right. If you do not believe marriage is a right, you should not cite it.
Ah, but you will notice I said I personally don't believe it is a right. I never made any such claim that that is how it is widely recognized. I was merely illustrating that point for effect. True enough, it is in conflict with the UDHR, but I agree with some of their points and disagree with others, as it is with all things.
mattyrm wrote:As always Jeb, if all religious men were as rational and pleasant as you are, then i wouldnt have anything to complain about.
You give me entirely to much credit, but many thanks.
mattyrm wrote:At least you are honest and admit your distaste is due to religious reasons, as always, you are entirely entitled to your opinion, and knowing you like i do, i know you wouldnt harrass someone who was gay. But i have still to hear a really good logical reason for having a dislike for gay men, and i doubt i will ever hear a good reason.
I have my own reasons that are separate from my religious convictions, but I do not have the desire to maintain a rigorous defense of them on an internet thread, so I will leave it at that.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Why is that?
The Roman Republic was incredibly different from the Imperial era. Cicero, among others, often wrote of how the Greek influence on Rome was a bad thing in that it emasculated the men of Rome. They saw homosexuality without a degree of discretion as a bad thing. Marius' relation also tried to bugger the man violently, and in a very non-acceptable manner. The attempted rape aside, it was widely recognized that any homosexual acts would be completely devoid of sodomy, and it was usually carried out with teenage boys, not grown men. It was widely believed that sodomizing another man was the height of humiliation for the "catcher" as it were. I am not going into further detail, but I believe you get the picture eh?
Wrexasaur wrote:Weren't there times in Roman history, when homosexual lifestyles were looked down upon? I was under the impression that it wasn't always considered acceptable, at least for certain periods of Roman history.
True enough, but the vast majority of Roman history displays at least a casual indifference to homosexuality.
mattyrm wrote:Sorry for the slow reply JEB, i tend to get leathered all weekend and i don't get much done.
No problem, I would expect nothing less.
mattyrm wrote:Why is homosexuality wrong then? You said you think it is wrong, but i just don't see it. What is a sensible reason for saying that it is wrong?
I have no answer that you would find reasonable, but my convictions are not measured along humanities standards. I have heard some argue that it is unnatural, but these are usually Darwinists in the extreme. I believe it is wrong for religious reasons, but that doesn't make me a homophobe. I have gay friends, but that is their choice. As St. Paul wrote, "Judge not the unbelievers for they have already been judged by God." So in my mind, I don't need to push morality down someone else's throat because that is none of my business. I don't HAVE to like their lifestyle, but on the same token I WON'T tell them how to live their lifestyle. I am not afraid to share my opinion, but on the same token, I don't feel the need to rationalize it to meet man's approval.
See your one of the sensib;e one's. You can hate something as much as you want yet you leave the judgment to god, and i applaud you for it.
We failed. But please do grind that knife in a bit further, we haven't forgotten about it. That general is just trying to poke a finger at something to draw attention to his own personal crusade, removal of gays in the US armed forces.
Actually we did use this to riff on my Dutch friend, we would frequently have arguments over which country has the better military history, the Netherlands or Britain, and this thing always came up. He would get really angry and storm off for a while to calm down...
Ratbarf wrote:Actually we did use this to riff on my Dutch friend, we would frequently have arguments over which country has the better military history, the Netherlands or Britain
WHAT?!!? You actually had an argument about that? There is absolutely no contest. The Dutch have a fairly poor military history compared to us.
You should go check out Dutch history, they actually got some pretty good stuff back in the day. They sailed up the Tames and burned the English fleet at port in the 17th century, that takes some balls. Or maybe just massive amounts of weed.
After that raid, fortresses were built on both sides of the Thames which had a great chain strung between them. This was wound up tight to block the river when there was danger of an attack.
Ratbarf wrote:You should go check out Dutch history, they actually got some pretty good stuff back in the day. They sailed up the Tames and burned the English fleet at port in the 17th century, that takes some balls. Or maybe just massive amounts of weed.
Yeah, I'm not saying they were totally useless or anything - but their record just doesn't stand up to ours. Not many people's does - that's Britain: good at war, terrible at cooking!
Apparently these days British home cooking has improved (a recent study suggested that the average British home cook spends longer preparing meals & does a more diverse range of meals than the average French home cook).
We're great at queueing, too!
In these civilised days, though, "good at war" can be a drawback, as a wander through any council estate or football match can show.
Beign gay has nothing with the massarce that happened at Srebrenica which is located some 400km from my home.Serbs were idiots who blindly followed orders form Milošević.
Damm and we were doing so well. 4 pages in and Goodwin's law had yet to be invoked.
And its so obvious that a having gay squad mates decreases morale. I mean look at the Spartans and their 'Warrior bond'. They ran away 'all' the time. (/sarcasm)
Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, were any of the Dutch soldiers gay at all? (What I mean is, has the general somehow gone around and asked...or something.)
The Dutch deployment was their first after reforms of their military, which included contraversial new policies such as allowing gay soldiers. So from there anyone who's looking for evidence that gay people ruin armies will look at the timing of the events, run it through an underpants gnome filter and come out with the conclusion that the reason the Dutch didn't fight was that they were sad because some of their comerades were gay.
So what is the likelihood that a good portion of the 200 to 400 Dutch soldiers were gay? Or is thw General arguing that they were sad that gays were allowed in at all?
Thats my point, if Sherman was afraid of Liechtenstein you know its the land of Mordor. next we'll find out Zhukov wanted to keep going into Western Europe, but Stalin stopped him for fear the Leichtensteinians would hear of the idea.
So what is the likelihood that a good portion of the 200 to 400 Dutch soldiers were gay? Or is thw General arguing that they were sad that gays were allowed in at all?
I never actually considered that point, it might be a point in the right direction. The soldiers could all have been, "What the hell happened to this army...?"
What I'm trying to ask is, is the General arguing that the soldiers were demoralised becuase there were actual gays in the 400 men present? Or is the General arguing that the troops were demoralised becuase the army let gays in at all?
Not that it really matters all that much, it's a dumb argument either way to say that the troops would be demoralised in any substantial way just by the policy of the army regarding sexual preferences.
After some deeper research the gay soldiers were used as an example to express reservations about including progressive social ideals and acceptance in the Dutch Military. Much of what else the US general was talking about was the relaxed substance use policy, the effects of same sex relationships on morale, and apparently the Dutch Soldiers could unionize. Which is waaaaay the feth out there.
I still fail to see how such elements had any massive effect when it came to the front line and possible action such as Srebrenica.
There has to have been a different/another factor. Such as the their actual incapibility to win a fight, rather than thier reluctance to do so. (As some have already pointed out.)
Emperors Faithful wrote:I still fail to see how such elements had any massive effect when it came to the front line and possible action such as Srebrenica.
There has to have been a different/another factor. Such as the their actual incapibility to win a fight, rather than thier reluctance to do so. (As some have already pointed out.)
The General wasnt blaming the massacre on their inaction, but using their organization as an example. The report is online somewhere.
An example of what?
I thought the whole point of this thread was that the General blamed Sebrenica, in part, on the allowance of gays into the Dutch military?
The OP was slightly incorrect. He was (and I dont agree with it totally) blaming the Dutch Military for over socialization leading to mistakes, such as not giving the peace keepers the forces to do their job. His argument was its a landslide. Gay people didnt cause the massacre, over socialization is causing European Armies everywhere to lose their edge. That was his argument. I dont agree with it, but its what he said. I think Europe has a longstanding tradition of having well trained and disciplined militaries with lackluster government backing.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The OP was slightly incorrect. He was (and I dont agree with it totally) blaming the Dutch Military for over socialization leading to mistakes, such as not giving the peace keepers the forces to do their job. His argument was its a landslide. Gay people didnt cause the massacre, over socialization is causing European Armies everywhere to lose their edge. That was his argument. I dont agree with it, but its what he said. I think Europe has a longstanding tradition of having well trained and disciplined militaries with lackluster government backing.
Excuse me, I was not blaming anyone or anything. I was just reporting a news story.
Frazzled wrote:He was wrong, it wasn't that they were gay. Its that they were all wearing wooden shoes and no one would take the seriously, like Al Gore.
One of their troopers before deployement. Note the old school camo pattern military blouse.
Gay people didnt cause the massacre, over socialization is causing European Armies everywhere to lose their edge. That was his argument. I dont agree with it, but its what he said. I think Europe has a longstanding tradition of having well trained and disciplined militaries with lackluster government backing.
Did you know that the German soldiers in Afghanistan get (I beleive I heard this correctly) free beer? And that on average they have drunken some 22 gallons of it each since the beginning of the conflict?
Gay people didnt cause the massacre, over socialization is causing European Armies everywhere to lose their edge. That was his argument. I dont agree with it, but its what he said. I think Europe has a longstanding tradition of having well trained and disciplined militaries with lackluster government backing.
Did you know that the German soldiers in Afghanistan get (I beleive I heard this correctly) free beer? And that on average they have drunken some 22 gallons of it each since the beginning of the conflict?
And how is this a bad thing? Batter Pain Tolerance is a good thing for Soldiers and it also improves Morale.
And Europeans are naturally better beer drinkers, having the entire history of human kind to develop a tolerance. America was founded by the prudes you guys kicked out for being so prudish.
Gay people didnt cause the massacre, over socialization is causing European Armies everywhere to lose their edge. That was his argument. I dont agree with it, but its what he said. I think Europe has a longstanding tradition of having well trained and disciplined militaries with lackluster government backing.
Did you know that the German soldiers in Afghanistan get (I beleive I heard this correctly) free beer? And that on average they have drunken some 22 gallons of it each since the beginning of the conflict?
Ratbarf wrote:Dont' worry Soladrin, it's all about placement. As long as it isn't at the end of the sentence or in sentance form it's not the Canadian usage.
It is an epic expression though. 
Bad, mattrym, bad!
