Useful

**alib** · 21-03-2010, 18:00

Originally Posted by inbredyokel666

...
It's very short sighted to assume that because some bloke does the reverse cowboy anal charleston with his mate who picks up tulips in the springtime, that these two soft furnishing obsessed Daphnes can't be steely eyed deliverers of death.

Albeit clad in a pink taffata and feather boa.

Just the skills needed to infiltrate Qods Force.

**Fred_Karno** · 21-03-2010, 22:57

Originally Posted by Noir

Originally Posted by Excognito

Originally Posted by Noir

Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to.

Do gays have to prove they're gay before they get this right? Does this take the form of a "shower test" with the SMO?

Do straight men have this right as well if they begin to get suspicious about how often their neighbour drops his soap?

Presumably the good General must have thought the whole of the Allied armies and politicians were total panty-waists for letting Belsen happen?

What if the General is right and gay-friendly armies are weak?

Luckily he's not. Ever heard of:

The Theban Sacred Band?
Alexander The Great and The Companions?
The Spartans?
Frederick The Great?
Lawrence of Arabia?

To name but a few. All more than a little bit light on their loafers, yet handy chaps to have around in a scrap.

**Noir** · 22-03-2010, 01:00

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

Luckily he's not. Ever heard of:

The Theban Sacred Band?
Alexander The Great and The Companions?
The Spartans?
Frederick The Great?
Lawrence of Arabia?

To name but a few. All more than a little bit light on their loafers, yet handy chaps to have around in a scrap.

I think he refers to current Western environment where gay is culture code for soft and hedonist. It said Montgomery too had "obsucre" sexuality, that's not the point.

**HectortheInspector** · 22-03-2010, 10:31

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

Originally Posted by Noir

Originally Posted by Excognito

Originally Posted by Noir

Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to.

Do gays have to prove they're gay before they get this right? Does this take the form of a "shower test" with the SMO?

Do straight men have this right as well if they begin to get suspicious about how often their neighbour drops his soap?

Presumably the good General must have thought the whole of the Allied armies and politicians were total panty-waists for letting Belsen happen?

What if the General is right and gay-friendly armies are weak?

Luckily he's not. Ever heard of:

The Theban Sacred Band?
Alexander The Great and The Companions?
The Spartans?
Frederick The Great?
Lawrence of Arabia?

To name but a few. All more than a little bit light on their loafers, yet handy chaps to have around in a scrap.

If he wants to include those who swing both ways, Richard the Lionheart was apparently fond of a mixture of rape, pillage and pageboys.
Mind you, being prone to the massacre of Muslim prisoners might make him sound, well, almost Serbian...

**Charm_City** · 22-03-2010, 15:15

Originally Posted by cpunk

Originally Posted by Charm_City

I must say, I always wonder why people in institutions like the military and church seem to obsess about homosexuality - don't they have important stuff to worry about?

C_C

In the case of religion, I would suggest it's because religions often maintain their power over individuals by creating doubt and anxiety about serious fundamental issues like sex. See Roman Catholicism, Islam and a wide range of other fundamentalist groupings for details.

Yeah - but even a religion as 'unfundamental' as the CoE seems to expend a huge amount of time and debate on the topic of homosexuality, and of course to the even more burning issue of women preists and bishops. All very strange in my book.

On the original topic, I notice that 20% of respondents to the poll 'absolutely agree' with Gen Sheehan, yet there are few if any posts actually supporting his contention that allowing gays to serve directly results in poor military performance.

C_C

**Noir** · 22-03-2010, 15:45

Originally Posted by Charm_City

On the original topic, I notice that 20% of respondents to the poll 'absolutely agree' with Gen Sheehan, yet there are few if any posts actually supporting his contention that allowing gays to serve directly results in poor military performance.

C_C

I was close to understand his meaning. I don't think he implys to gays per-se but more on the liberal lefty environment.

**hackle** · 22-03-2010, 19:05

Originally Posted by Noir

Originally Posted by Charm_City

To be fair to Gen Sheehan, his prepared testimony was that European militaries had become peacekeeping not warfighting organisations as a result of post Cold War social engineering, including liberalisation, unionisation, open homosexuality, etc and as a result lacked the ethos and will to deal with events in the Balkans. It was questioning by Levin (the committee chairman) that led him down the path of stating that senior Dutch officials had told him that homosexuality in the Dutch forces had been a factor at Srebrenica.

The general obviously believes that allowing gays to openly serve would destroy the effectiveness of the US military in the same way it has that of UK forces

- but in trying to 'prove' this by claiming a direct causal link between homosexuality and the performance of DUTCHBAT he has perhaps allowed himself to speak too hastily on the public record and done his cause more harm than good. It is, in any case, a lost cause. At some point DADT (a real fudge) will go, gays will be able serve openly in the US military, and folk will wonder what all the fuss was about.

I must say, I always wonder why people in institutions like the military and church seem to obsess about homosexuality - don't they have important stuff to worry about?

C_C

...

I was close to understand his meaning. I don't think he implys to gays per-se but more on the liberal lefty environment...

No. Gen Sheehan certainly did digress about unions, post Cold War ethos etc - and got some of his facts wrong on those points too, eg the fact is that the Dutch armed forces have had unions for more than 110 years - but his evidence was supposed to be specifically about gays in the military.

The bit about gays was no incidental aside to his evidence:

He made his comments during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday on the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gay people from openly serving in uniform.

**whitecity** · 22-03-2010, 23:54

Originally Posted by hackle

No. Gen Sheehan certainly did digress about unions, post Cold War ethos etc - and got some of his facts wrong on those points too, eg the fact is that the Dutch armed forces have had unions for more than 110 years - but his evidence was supposed to be specifically about gays in the military.

The bit about gays was no incidental aside to his evidence:

He made his comments during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday on the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gay people from openly serving in uniform.

Agree entirely.

The Senate Hearing was about gays in the military. His diversions into other areas of social policy were just that, diversions. His points on gays in European militaries was calculated and deliberate.

To use Srebrenica as an example of his opinion beggars belief. You wonder how he made it to the rank that he did if his intellect is that low. Unless of course, he knows perfectly well that there is no link and assumes that the audiance is just too dumb to realise. Srebrenica was a stain on the entire international comununity, but blaming it upon gayness in the Dutch military seems a convenient way for US policymakers to wash their hands and move on. If defending the Muslims in Srebrenica was so important, why were the 20,000 US 'peacekeepers' still at home? How combat effective is a force which is only allowed to deploy after a peace deal has been signed? Gen Sheehan, were all your Marines in 1995 so poofy that they are only able to deploy after the firing had stopped?

Either Gen Sheehan has lost his marbles, or he thinks his audiance is too stupid to realise he's spouting drivel and will thus be taken in by the simple connection he has made: poofs in military = genocide.

You choose.

**Fat_Cav** · 31-03-2010, 07:11

Seems as if the Good General has had a dose of smelling salts and/or a quiet word in his shell-like.

Comedy General Apologises

US general 'sorry' for Dutch gay soldier remark

Gen Sheehan is a former Nato Supreme Allied Commander
A retired US general has apologised for suggesting that Dutch troops failed to stop the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia in 1995 because some of them were gay.

Gen John Sheehan acknowledged that his views had been wrong, after the Dutch general he cited as his source denied having said anything of the kind.

He made the claim at a Senate hearing on whether openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the US military.

**KGB_resident** · 31-03-2010, 08:27

Today I drive my car on the way to my office and hear on BBC-Russian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/institu..._apology.shtml

Translation:

After the capture of the Muslim enclave on a territory of self-proclaimed Serbian republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than seven thousands of male Bosnians, including boys below 18 yo, were driven out by lorries into unknown direction. Later it was established that they were shot dead and their bodies were secretly burried in unknown mass graves.

I was surprised by such shameless lies. The Bosnians formed armed column and attempted to break Serbian position. They were shelled and many died during the fighting. But BBC-Russian present it as cold-blooded killing.

Yes, such a Pravda-style journalism is untypical for BBC but it happens.