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.

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.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:@Seb: Pointless suicide missions are the proving grounds of a patriot, right?

The heroism of soldiers is often used to deflect the failings of generals, that's true.

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.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.

Truth.

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.

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 be less likely to have the same level of family interest.

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.

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

This thread is about a US general who said the Dutch were useless at Srebenica because they had been demoralised by the presence of gay troops.

Clearly he thinks it is an issue, unless he is making things up for lulz.

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.

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.

I'm not rubbishing his point, I am pointing out that his point not germane to the topic.

So debating the proper reasons why it happened is not close enough for the topic for you? Funny you never brought Sebster up on doing the same thing.

I don't understand. What is the debate?

I've just told you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Ha, so gay troops have -1 LD. Surely they get a bonus to balance back out or a lower points cost

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ha, so gay troops have -1 LD. Surely they get a bonus to balance back out or a lower points cost

BTW, efarrer's point made me smile to.

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.

I can only begin to imagine how terrifying a situation like that could be. I also watched "Shake hands with the devil" last night, though...

I see it close to being charged by a raging elephant. Bad times...

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Or an irrational fear of things being the same.

We should start calling WYSIWYG people homos.

I like it!

I'm glad something has come of this thread.

Ratbarf wrote:

Some of history's toughest and most successful fighters have been gay.

Could you please give a few examples?

Well Sparta encouraged soldiers to be familiar with each other, so Gerard Butler.