• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

NoJingoLingo said:
Just once I'd like to see some asshat call someone gay, a ***** or pansy, only to have them get their ass handed to them.

YouTube- Гопник против гомосексуала, малая садовая / Chav Vs Homosexual
Click to expand...

I saw it a couple times. I used to date this guy...he was a little guy, too. I think he was 5'6" at most, worked as a butcher in a slaughter house, mean as a hornet.

We were walking home from this dive bar one night and he made the rare display of public affection walking cutting through campus and this guy yelled "faggots" at us. Well Jason stormed off to him and said "There's two things in this world I like to do and that's fight and **** and you just found yourself on the wrong end of that choice, you little bitch."

He beat the immortified hell out of that guy for a good 5 minutes before I finally got him off of him. It's those little short ones you have to watch out for.
 
Gina said:
Could you clarify that?

I provided statements from Dutch sources which deny homosexual soldiers contributed to their failure.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting how you opened your last post:

He insulted an ally. The Dutch are infuriated at his comments. The general makes us look a nation of homophobes.
Click to expand...

I ask again, why are you mad at an American general for repeating something that was told to him by the chief of staff of the Dutch Army?
 
texmaster said:
I ask again, why are you mad at an American general for repeating something that was told to him by the chief of staff of the Dutch Army?
Click to expand...

Because he should know it's ****ing stupid and insane?
 
texmaster said:
So the soldiers he talked to were lying?

I believe he simply said it was a contributing factor not the sole reason.
Click to expand...

Or more likely simply mistaken. The number one, bar none top contributing factor to unit morale and cohesion is leadership. No other factor is even close. When a unit has poor leadership, it tends to look for excuses as to why things go wrong. This is part of why investigations into why things go wrong tend to be external.
 
texmaster said:
Or perhaps you are wrong. He said he discussed this with fellow soldiers. Unless you can prove he is lying, this is his opinion based on real world discussions with fellow soldiers.

And again, he said this was one factor not the entire reason for the decline.
Click to expand...

You are aware of the value of hearsay evidence(or lack thereof), especially in relation to something like this, right?
 
Gina said:
“The whole operation in Srebrenica and the drama that took place over there was thoroughly investigated by Dutch and international authorities and none of these investigations has ever concluded or suggested a link between homosexual military personnel and the things that happened over there. I do not know on what facts this is based, but for us it is total nonsense.

"Every man or woman that meets the criteria physically and mentally is welcome to serve in our Armed Forces regardless of (religious) belief, sexual preference or whatever.” [/INDENT]
Click to expand...

You would think this would be the end of it. General talks to embarrassed officer who blames teh gays instead of poor performance and believes it over the actual investigation into the facts. End story.
 
Partisan said:
That's why they were pwned......:lol:
Click to expand...

It's funny to you that soldiers were killed? How about the 19 Americans that were "pwned" in Mogadishu in 1993? Pretty funny **** there too, huh?

I'm pretty disgusted that anyone would make a comment like yours in a lame attempt to score political points.
 
Partisan said:
That's why they were pwned......:lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, they where "pwned" most likely because it's the Dutch military. They are not particularly experienced or comparatively skilled. This was true before they let gays serve, and is true after.

In fact, you could and should compare militaries before and after allowing gays to serve as an indicator as to whether gays in the military has a positive, negative or neutral impact.
 
Moon said:
It's funny to you that soldiers were killed? How about the 19 Americans that were "pwned" in Mogadishu in 1993? Pretty funny **** there too, huh?

I'm pretty disgusted that anyone would make a comment like yours in a lame attempt to score political points.
Click to expand...

It must have been teh gays in Mogadishu.
 
From the newspaper accounts on the testimony (no electronic transcript was posted at the Armed Services Committee's website), General Sheehan provided no direct evidence of any kind, much less evidence that was credible, to support his sweeping assertions. Moreover, his reference to information he received from Dutch leaders may well be inaccurate, given the Dutch Government's swift condemnation of his testimony and not a single Dutch military official coming forward to corroborate his account.

IMO, the Senate Committee should contact the relevant Dutch officials to inquire into the veracity of the General's claim with respect to senior Dutch military leaders and examine the findings of any Dutch investigations into the performance of Dutch forces leading up to the massacre. At a minimum, I believe the prudent course for the Senate would be to strike General Sheehan's testimony from the record as it appears to be little more than wild personal speculation without any supporting evidence.
 
Redress said:
Or more likely simply mistaken.
Click to expand...

That theory should be easy for you to prove.

Please provide the statement from the former chief of staff of the Dutch army disputing the statement.

If he was where is The number one, bar none top contributing factor to unit morale and cohesion is leadership. No other factor is even close.
Click to expand...

What facts are you basing this opinion on?

When a unit has poor leadership, it tends to look for excuses as to why things go wrong. This is part of why investigations into why things go wrong tend to be external.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support that was his reason?
 
Redress said:
You are aware of the value of hearsay evidence(or lack thereof), especially in relation to something like this, right?
Click to expand...

This isn't a court of law. This was said in a Senate Arms Committee. Once again you confuse what was said and where it was said.

I take it since you cannot dispute the statement nor can you find the former chief of staff of the Dutch army disputing the claim you have nothing to base your disbelief on other than your opinion.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
So only if people believe the way you do they are smart?
Click to expand...

Didn't say anything about me. People who believe that gays caused the massacre are irrational. Sometimes you just have to call it like it is.
 
misterman said:
Didn't say anything about me. People who believe that gays caused the massacre are irrational. Sometimes you just have to call it like it is.
Click to expand...

You talk about brains but you don't even read what he said.

He was told it was a contributing factor but not the only factor.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From the newspaper accounts on the testimony (no electronic transcript was posted at the Armed Services Committee's website), General Sheehan provided no direct evidence of any kind, much less evidence that was credible, to support his sweeping assertions. Moreover, his reference to information he received from Dutch leaders may well be inaccurate, given the Dutch Government's swift condemnation of his testimony and not a single Dutch military official coming forward to corroborate his account.

IMO, the Senate Committee should contact the relevant Dutch officials to inquire into the veracity of the General's claim with respect to senior Dutch military leaders and examine the findings of any Dutch investigations into the performance of Dutch forces leading up to the massacre. At a minimum, I believe the prudent course for the Senate would be to strike General Sheehan's testimony from the record as it appears to be little more than wild personal speculation without any supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Are you calling him a liar? Do you have any evidence he fabricated what he was told in any way?
 
texmaster said:
You talk about brains but you don't even read what he said.

He was told it was a contributing factor but not the only factor.
Click to expand...

Wow, big difference.
 
texmaster said:
Are you calling him a liar? Do you have any evidence he fabricated what he was told in any way?
Click to expand...

this may be totally unrelated. But could you change your Signature, its lagging out my screen when I'm scrolling up and down.

to say whether or not the Dutch Chief of Staff said it or not is irellevant, since it doesnt nessecarily make him right. If all the evaluations of that day say there was no link between gays and defeat then I am drawn to conclude that must be correct. But hey, don't quote facts unless it suits you sir.

I mean during that war there were countless instances where European army units were either overun or simply abandoned there posts (the French did on Numerous occasions)

I don't know what gays in the military status was like at the time for Canada but I'd like to cite the battle of the Medak Pocket where the Canadians held their ground against a full out Croation assault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom