Gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre

[grumbler]

Btw:

"Total nonsense," said General Henk van den Breemen, the Dutch chief of staff at the time. The Dutch embassy in Washington dismissed the US officer's argument as worthless, Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister said that it was not worth commenting on, and the Dutch defence ministry voiced incredulity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/gay-dutch-soldiers-srebrenica

So it's a fucking lie.

Boy, I sure didn't see that coming!

[Grallon]

More or less.  Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat.  It might be different.  It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.

And you're talking about gays as if they weren't people first and foremost; or about rural recruits as if they were such morons that they couldn't grasp the difference - or adapt with sufficient exposure.  It's probably all that's needed - to eat and shit and shower and possibly die next to guys they thought as 'evhul' - only to discover they're just like them.  You mentioned the severe segregation between blacks & whites in Vietnam...  What's left of that nowadays?  The institution has adapted and the individuals in it have adapted as well.  It won't be different in this case.

Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.

I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.

Now I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. 



G.

[Admiral Yi]

You mentioned the severe segregation between blacks & whites in Vietnam...  What's left of that nowadays?  The institution has adapted and the individuals in it have adapted as well.  It won't be different in this case.

As I already mentioned to Marty, having a disfunctional army for 20 years might not be good enough for some people.

You sure you don't want to give that education question a crack?

[crazy canuck]

So the cost-benefit analysis suggests you should make inflammatory rather than nuanced posts

You are actually trying to justify your posting history as a conscious rational effort?!?   

[Grallon]

You sure you don't want to give that education question a crack?

And I've answered you: exposure.  Little children are often afraid of the dark until you open the light and show them there's nothing hiding under the bed. 

In any case the US army is already full of gays so what's the difference?  I think a great many soldiers might be shocked to learn they've been messing and showering and sleeping with buddies who turn out to be 'knob-shiners' (one of my favorite slurs) after all...

Of course the difference is the hypocrisy hiding it all.  It doesn't exist if it's not mentioned or aknowledged yes?  Bahh!



G.

[Faeelin]

AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military.  One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact.  The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre.  I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either.  I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all.  But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion.  So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome.

That isn't the only piece of evidence. Even the RAND report, commissioned in 1993 to study the impact of gay sserving openly, said there would be no impact, and there have been several studies since then besides the one you quote.

[Martinus]

So the cost-benefit analysis suggests you should make inflammatory rather than nuanced posts

You are actually trying to justify your posting history as a conscious rational effort?!?   

Not really an effort, but rather an absence of it.

Flaming people and posting outrageously exaggerated shit is much easier than trying to maintain my cool and posting balanced, thought-through responses.

[Siege]

Oh, that old lifestyle = race line.  One of my favorite fallacies

Good point, we should be expelling people with undesirable lifestyles from the military.  I would start with conseratives and evangelicals.  The latter endanger our missions in Islamic countries and believe in nutty supersitions - they can't be trusted with complex technology and equipment.  The former say foolish things on chat boards and can expose the army to embarassment.

Really? If the Army were manned by a bunch of liberals we would never win one damn war. We need liberals to maintain the balance in society, but not in the Army. I want dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.

[Razgovory]

Won WWII.

[grumbler]

Won WWII.

And WW1.

But Siegie's people fought on the other side during those wars, so they don't like to think about them.

[Neil]

Plus, if people judge "gays" based on the behavior of just one of them, then they are kinda hopelessly closed-minded anyway.

Wrong.  I recommend you quit being such a child.

[FunkMonk]

Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.

I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.

Now I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. 

[viper37]

Really? If the Army were manned by a bunch of liberals we would never win one damn war. We need liberals to maintain the balance in society, but not in the Army. I want dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.

looking at recent US history, I can't see a correlation with that.
Looking at Israel's history, I can't see how these methods made you live in peace&security.

[The Minsky Moment]

Oh, that old lifestyle = race line.  One of my favorite fallacies

Good point, we should be expelling people with undesirable lifestyles from the military.  I would start with conseratives and evangelicals.  The latter endanger our missions in Islamic countries and believe in nutty supersitions - they can't be trusted with complex technology and equipment.  The former say foolish things on chat boards and can expose the army to embarassment.

Really?

No Siege, not really.  It is called being facetious.

want dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.

I would think gay men would be more than capable of putting other men into bondage and ignoring the complaints of women and children . . .

[Siege]

Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.

I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.

Now I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. 

What? Grallon called me Homo and nobody defended my honor?

[] I am very disapointed!   [/Gary Oldman]