nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 This guy got to be a general? Yikes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dutch-fury-over-claim-gay-soldiers-to-blame-for-srebrenica/article1505662/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 This guy got to be a general? Yikes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dutch-fury-over-claim-gay-soldiers-to-blame-for-srebrenica/article1505662/ He's not the brightest bulb, is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 He's not the brightest bulb, is he? Which is troubling considering he became a general in the strongest military on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Which is troubling considering he became a general in the strongest military on the planet. Why? He is a retired flag officer who represents a widely held point of view for his generation. The reason for the hearings is to visit existing policy and law that bars certain homosexual and heterosexual behaviors in the US military (UCMJ). He would never have made flag rank if he voiced any official opinion counter to such policies and law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Which is troubling considering he became a general in the strongest military on the planet. Another complete non-story from nicky. He's a 70 year old retired general. How exactly is this even news? And the military's primary purpose is to kill people and break things. Not to sound soft and sweet on the social issues of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 This isn't about a disagreement on opinion. He made a claim, through a declarative sentence. It's up to him to prove it has merit. As, oh, I dunno...the truth, or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 This isn't about a disagreement on opinion. He made a claim, through a declarative sentence. It's up to him to prove it has merit. As, oh, I dunno...the truth, or something? He made the claim that the social engineering for the Dutch armed forces partly contributed to the situation. I'm not sure how one can prove or disprove that opinion. From what I've read, he blamed the massacre not on the troops because they were gay, but because they were poorly led, and insufficiently qualified to be in the postions they held at the time. He disagreed with the rush to promote gay soldiers, who weren't ready at that particular time, to handle the military responsibility they were being asked to serve. However, I'm sure some 15 years later, there isn't much of an issue regarding the caliber of gay men and women in the Dutch military. There's no need for any affirmative action promoting, because there's probably a wealth of qualified people to serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Oh, and the title of this thread doesn't at all say it all. It's a total mis-characterization of the situation. The General isn't blaming the massacre on the soldiers because they're gay. But unfortunately, that's what little nicky would like everyone to believe. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 He made the claim that the social engineering for the Dutch armed forces partly contributed to the situation. I'm not sure how one can prove or disprove that opinion. From what I've read, he blamed the massacre not on the troops because they were gay, but because they were poorly led, and insufficiently qualified to be in the postions they held at the time. He disagreed with the rush to promote gay soldiers, who weren't ready at that particular time, to handle the military responsibility they were being asked to serve. However, I'm sure some 15 years later, there isn't much of an issue regarding the caliber of gay men and women in the Dutch military. There's no need for any affirmative action promoting, because there's probably a wealth of qualified people to serve. It's an idiotic observation. What caused the disaster was the moronic rules of engagement that peacekeepers had in the Former Yugoslavia. I met a guy who was with a Canadian contingent over there during the Balkans War and what he had to say about how limited UN forces were was what convinced me that peacekeeping is for weak-kneed cowards who want to be seen doing something while not actually doing very much at all. If the rules of engagement allowed proper forward actions and full engagement, that disaster would never have happened. It had nothing to do with homosexuals are social engineering, and everything to do with the constant misuse of armed forces as targets, when they should be filling the enemy so full of lead you can see daylight through them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 The massacre had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with being cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 The massacre had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with being cowards. BS. The same thing happened in Rwanda for precisely the same reasons. Peacekeepers are sent in with ludicrously limited terms under which they can meet the enemy, which, from what I was told, basically amounted to "unless they shoot at you, you can do nothing." The one thing soldiers are taught more than anything else is to follow orders. To my mind if you're going to send soldiers into these hellholes and basically tell them they've got to protect people, but they can't really doing anything to forward that aim, then you shouldn't send in soldiers at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Wonder if we'll hear any more about this? If there's any truth to it? Levin, D-Mich., appeared incredulous. "Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" he asked. "Yes," Sheehan said. "They included that as part of the problem." He said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 BS. The same thing happened in Rwanda for precisely the same reasons. The same thing happened, but not the same reasons...this was an entire, armed Dutch battalion which lacked even dutch courage. They were not protecting an entire nation (rwanda)...just a town. By contrast....in 1993 a battalion of the PPCLI stood between Serbs and attacking croats in the Medak pocket, held their position under heavy artillery fire, retook the initiative and defeated the croats. 27 croayts were killed by the PPCLI. The PPCLI lost 3 men. The Dutch lost none. The only differnmce was courage and will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Oh, and the title of this thread doesn't at all say it all. It's a total mis-characterization of the situation. The General isn't blaming the massacre on the soldiers because they're gay. But unfortunately, that's what little nicky would like everyone to believe. :angry: Uhhh, yeah he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 The same thing happened, but not the same reasons...this was an entire, armed Dutch battalion which lacked even dutch courage. They were not protecting an entire nation (rwanda)...just a town. By contrast....in 1993 a battalion of the PPCLI stood between Serbs and attacking croats in the Medak pocket, held their position under heavy artillery fire, retook the initiative and defeated the croats. 27 croayts were killed by the PPCLI. The PPCLI lost 3 men. The Dutch lost none. The only differnmce was courage and will. A load of crap. Those Dutch soldiers were under extremely limited rules of engagement. They were under orders not to fully engage, so where exactly does that leave a soldier? Like I said, the problem there, and in Rwanda, was the sheer lack of political will to let soldiers do their jobs. The whole damned "peacekeeping" mission in the Balkans was a disaster, and it wasn't finally fully cleaned up until NATO bombed the bloody Serbs back to stop further atrocities against ethnic minorities in the region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 It's an idiotic observation. What caused the disaster was the moronic rules of engagement that peacekeepers had in the Former Yugoslavia. I met a guy who was with a Canadian contingent over there during the Balkans War and what he had to say about how limited UN forces were was what convinced me that peacekeeping is for weak-kneed cowards who want to be seen doing something while not actually doing very much at all. If the rules of engagement allowed proper forward actions and full engagement, that disaster would never have happened. It had nothing to do with homosexuals are social engineering, and everything to do with the constant misuse of armed forces as targets, when they should be filling the enemy so full of lead you can see daylight through them. The rules did....see medak pocket.... The Dutch government fell over this humiliation... Therefore it was with complete disbelief that many heard the news that the Dutch Government has awarded medals to the peacekeepers involved. When interviewed on Radio 4's Today Programme, Col Sir Bob Stuart (the first British Commander in Bosnia) said "If the Dutch had the courage to open fire just once it would have stopped the whole thing in my view". He also described the actions of the Dutch troops as supine and disgraceful. http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Itemid=71 http://www.straight.com/article-150998/dutch-dishonour-and-ghosts-srebrenica Cowardice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 It's obvious that some of the posters in this thread have a certain gay agenda they intend on pushing, whether the narrative of the story is applicable or not. It's the General's opinion. The last time I checked, everyone's entitled to one. If you don't like what he says, don't listen to him, protest him, or do whatever you deem fit. But he's not in the service anymore. He's been retired for several years, and has no impact on foreign policy, or military protocol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 It's obvious that some of the posters in this thread have a certain gay agenda they intend on pushing, whether the narrative of the story is applicable or not. It's the General's opinion. The last time I checked, everyone's entitled to one. If you don't like what he says, don't listen to him, protest him, or do whatever you deem fit. But he's not in the service anymore. He's been retired for several years, and has no impact on foreign policy, or military protocol. I think I'm keeping this for the next time you bring up a completely irrelevant topic that has very little bearing at all on anyone's life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) The rules did....see medak pocket.... The Dutch government fell over this humiliation... http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Itemid=71 http://www.straight.com/article-150998/dutch-dishonour-and-ghosts-srebrenica Cowardice... the dutch were a small lightly armed force and repeatedly denied promised air support by the UN, surrounded by a much larger Serbian Mechanized brigade with artillery... they were nearly defenseless and the UN/Nato allies left them to die... should we discuss Canadian cowardice in Rwanda? where a similarly outgunned out numbered Canadian General left a captive Belgium contingent of soldiers to be chopped up when the UN refused to send help? Edited March 19, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 The same thing happened, but not the same reasons...this was an entire, armed Dutch battalion which lacked even dutch courage. They were not protecting an entire nation (rwanda)...just a town. By contrast....in 1993 a battalion of the PPCLI stood between Serbs and attacking croats in the Medak pocket, held their position under heavy artillery fire, retook the initiative and defeated the croats. 27 croayts were killed by the PPCLI. The PPCLI lost 3 men. The Dutch lost none. The only differnmce was courage and will. the French were also there so to claim 27 were killed by Canadians alone is BS and PPCLI lost none and they saved no one, the massacres went on before they arrived and continued after they passed through...I've seen videos of the actual event as the Canadians were stopped at Croatian military roadblocks, the Canadians did absolutely nothing when faced with armoured forces they were only permitted to continue on once the massacres were completed and there was no one left to save...you jingoistic BS is right out of Hollywood fantasyland... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 should we discuss Canadian cowardice in Rwanda? where a similarly outgunned out numbered Canadian General left a captive Belgium contingent of soldiers to be chopped up when the UN refused to send help? Only if they were all "gay"....eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 Why? He is a retired flag officer who represents a widely held point of view for his generation. The reason for the hearings is to visit existing policy and law that bars certain homosexual and heterosexual behaviors in the US military (UCMJ). He would never have made flag rank if he voiced any official opinion counter to such policies and law. Why can't he have a justifiable point? Do we know he's being ridiculous? The Dutch troops did wilt under pressure. I remember one of our guys being chained to some probable air target by -- I believe -- the Serbs, and we weren't too aggressive, either. Who knows what the full story is? But what's wrong with an open mind? I know, for a fact, that having male and females fight side-by-side has lots of failures attributed to it, but it isn't politically correct to say so. We pretend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 should we discuss Canadian cowardice in Rwanda? where a similarly outgunned out numbered Canadian General left a captive Belgium contingent of soldiers to be chopped up when the UN refused to send help? Yes, we should. Is this what really happened? We heard only of the Belgium troops pulling out. And Romeo claims that he was calling for authorization to head tbis all off ... and was refused by white racists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 (edited) Yes, we should. Is this what really happened? We heard only of the Belgium troops pulling out. And Romeo claims that he was calling for authorization to head tbis all off ... and was refused by white racists! from an Hutu insider suppling the info Dallaire in his own book admitted he knew the genocide was coming, he knew Belgian soldiers were targeted as they were they most potent UN force and the Hutu's wanted them out of the country...he was even present where Belgian soldiers were held hostage and did nothing...Belgian soldiers withdrew from Rwanda two weeks later...what Dallaire did was inform the the Hutu leadership they had an informer in their midst... white racists? Kofi Annan and HIS boss, Boutros Boutros-Ghali...a Ghanaian and a Egyptian so why Dancer thinks it's just a matter of Dutch soldiers taking shots at Serbian tanks to stop genocide which he claims any Canadian would do, when it came down to that Canadians never fired a shot and 800,000 people were butchered...why? because the Un orders were fire only when fired upon... While going to a meeting Dallaire entered the camp and saw some of his UN soldiers lying dead on the ground. He was unable to act, since storming Camp Kigali was beyond the means of his force. Dallaire felt that the UN forces were woefully ill-equipped, outnumbered, and outgunned. He therefore forbade the Belgian troops from taking any action. For this reason, the Belgian troops started evacuating the Europeans in Rwanda and withdrew. cowardice according to Dancer, the remaining surviving Belgian soldiers were 20 meters away holed up in an office and Dallaire drove away...no doubt the Canadians were all gay... Edited March 25, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 BS. The same thing happened in Rwanda for precisely the same reasons. Peacekeepers are sent in with ludicrously limited terms under which they can meet the enemy, which, from what I was told, basically amounted to "unless they shoot at you, you can do nothing." The one thing soldiers are taught more than anything else is to follow orders. To my mind if you're going to send soldiers into these hellholes and basically tell them they've got to protect people, but they can't really doing anything to forward that aim, then you shouldn't send in soldiers at all. Dancer's not good with history so he tends to make things up as he goes.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.