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: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.

Fair enough, I was going off of memory.

Ratbarf wrote:

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.

Wait, wait wait. Richard the Lionheart and Kitchener were gay?

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."

JEB wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Emperor Hadrian

Wrong, I have never even heard of a possibility of this...you might be mistaking him for Commodus...

It's been suggested that Hadrian had a sexual relationship with this young man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous

I saw a documentary on it.

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.

Having mistresses and wives does not mean you are not homosexual...

This thread makes me facepalm and grin at the same time!
Hooray!

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.

Because Nationalism has never led to war?

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.

sebster wrote:

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!!!

sebster wrote: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.

The importance of never getting near it?

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.

Ah, that makes more sense.

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.

It does only list marriage between men and women as a right, though.

Nope, it only says that men and women are entitled to marriage. It does not say that they must marry each other.

Ah, you're right. It looks like we'll have to take this to You Make Da Call.

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...

"Beef Stew"

Rules as Written, or Rules as Intended? I'd be interested to see Gwar! figure that one out.

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.

But they may well have been Marius' personal view. I see nothing to indicate that this was standard procedure in the Roman Army.

Marius is pre imperial, but I do believe it was an actualy rule.

Why is that?

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...

"Beef Stew"

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?