Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, the Dutch made the tactical error of building their fortress in a valley, so they were unable to deploy their heavy weapons at full strength.

Thats what happens when you listen to the Leichtensteinians. just add it to their list of evil.

"No way am I marching my army there. Thats Leichtenstein!"
-William Tecumsah Sherman.

Well Fraz, what do you expect the biggest donkey cave the Union had fighting for it so say? I mean, he was a damn, dirty yankee after 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...?"

And good God Fraz....

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.

Now 'Funny Hat Day' on the other hand...

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.

He=General

Gwar!'s a General?!?

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.

Okay, that's at least one gay Dutch soldier.

Yes, that much has been established. But, was this soldier present at Srebrenica?

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:

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.

Ratbarf wrote:

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?

1 Question.

Do they accept Foreigners?

German foreign legion sign up sheet

Question 1: do you like beer

Question 2: can you drink alot of beer

If you answered yes to both, congratulations you're in

Incidentally, I wonder if that nutty, homophobic old fuddy-duddy US general also assumes British soldiers are cowards:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-very-modern-military-partnership-1928748.html

Personally I think it rather cowardly to be scared of gay people... what is the general's fear, exactly? That he'll catch gayness from them?

Go my country? Though our politicians suck...


edit:

Just realised im drinking beer while readon this..... guess I really am European eh?

No you're attempting to be Canadian, stop using our catchphrase.

I like the ring to it

youbedead wrote:German foreign legion sign up sheet

Question 1: do you like beer

Question 2: can you drink alot of beer

If you answered yes to both, congratulations you're in

It is proven! Drinking improves your aim!

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.

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.

Don't know what yer gettin at eh.

It's British, not Canadian.


Hate to break it to you.

He said he was sorry, though I think he had his fingers crossed.