Retired US general links gays to Srebrenica massacre

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... srebrenica (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/gay-dutch-soldiers-srebrenica)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gay ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html)

[Thai Dyed]

Maybe the Serbs just distracted the gay Dutch soldiers while they went about their nefarious activities behind their backs?
That's sounds like a more likely story to me.
[attachment=0:3hqs662f]Dutch gay soldiers getting distracted.jpg[/attachment:3hqs662f]

[Beachlover]

Bit sick to joke about this. It was horrific massacre of human beings.

The US General is a fuckstick. What a moron.

[Thai Dyed]

Bit sick to joke about this. It was horrific massacre of human beings.


There's always one horrific massacre or another going on. After all, Beachlover, it's a great business model. It's certainly the most profitable way to "add value" to use one of your favourite clich├йs, by virtue of the satanic marriage of the military-industrial complex, that sacred cow of the "developed" world whose asshole you are always licking.

The only industry in the world that can give it a run for its money is the global trade in illicit drugs which remains so profitable exactly because illicit drugs are intentionally kept illegal, so that many can profit from it, not the least of whom are the government drug agents themselves and those in the "corrections" industry who would have to otherwise go out and find gainful employment in far more labourious and taxing pursuits which may even require some basic training.

I would assume that both of these areas must rivet your attention as an astute businessman Beachlover.
You're rhetoric doesn't fool me for a split second.
[attachment=0:13lircck]Beachlover adds value.jpg[/attachment:13lircck]

The frightening thing about General Sheehan's allegation is not so much whether he was serious or not (he clearly was), but quite how totally ill-informed he was as a commander even about those troops he was actually commanding, and just how prepared he (and othes like him) are to twist anything to suit their own agenda.

General John Sheehan was a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) - basically the military commander of all NATO troops. He clearly stated to a Senate enquiry on permitting gays to serve in the US military that:

(After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991) "nations like Belgium, Luxembourg, the Dutch, et cetera, firmly believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries ... As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military. That includes the unionization of their militaries. It includes open homosexuality demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them."

The Dutch response that it was "unbelievable that a man of this rank is stating this nonsense" could not, verifiably, have been more true. The "peace dividend" of 1991 had nothing to do with the socialization or unionization of Europe's military, or permitting gays to serve openly in the military. Nothing. Holland had officially permitted gays to serve in the military since 1974, and practiced a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for years before that. Their military had been "unionized" and "socialized" for years, and it had been a standing joke for decades that if there was ever a Soviet invasion of Europe it would be over a weekend through the Dutch sector, when they would all be at home (no offence to the Dutch, that's simply how it was).

Blaming the Dutch solely for the massacre is totally unjustifiable - while they could have done more (OK, they could hardly have done less) they were undermanned (400 instead of a full strength of 600, as the Serbs had not allowed those troops going on leave to return overland to the enclave, and the UN had not given them air support to move them by air), vastly outnumbered by the entire VRS Drina Corps, had repeatedly had their requests for air support and air strikes refused by the then UN commander, and their mission and instructions were unclear. Basically, a typical UN military operation.

That there were gays serving openly in the Dutch battalion concerned had nothing whatsoever to do with their effectiveness or their operational ability - had they all been straight and 100% hetero, there is nothing to indicate that they would have performed any better (or any worse).

What is disappointing about the Senate enquiry in this particular instance is that they had the opportunity to ask General Sheehan to prove his point or to elaborate on it by asking him whether he felt that such comments applied equally to other Armed Forces that permit gays to serve openly, such as the British, Canadian and Australians who have traditionally supported the US, the Israelis, or any of the long term NATO member countries (except the USA and Turkey). They didn't, and instead they failed to ask him anything relevant at all.

The only valid argument against permitting gays to serve openly in the military is the same one that was used to stop women serving, first at all, then with some restrictions, then unrestricted and fully integrated. IThere are still some instances where such an argument holds good, but as women are (rightly or wrongly) fully integrated in all branches of the US military this is the one argument they cannot use, so instead they are forced to make up evidence that does not exist. Hardly the first time .....

[Art]

The frightening thing about General Sheehan's allegation is not so much whether he was serious or not (he clearly was), but quite how totally ill-informed he was as a commander even about those troops he was actually commanding, and just how prepared he (and othes like him) are to twist anything to suit their own agenda.
With a general like this, who needs an enemy? Indeed, John J. Sheehan (USMC, *1940) had one of the two strategic commands of NATO, but he was Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT, 1994-1997) in Norfolk, Virginia. It can only be speculated whether the other position as SACEUR in Mons and Commander of EUCOM in Stuttgart would have broadened his horizons.



Michael Flood --- Qualitative analysis among young men aged eighteen to twenty-six in Canberra, Australia, documents the homosocial organization of men's heterosexual relations. Homosociality organizes men's sociosexual relations in at least four ways. For some of these young men, male-male friendships take priority over male-female relations, and platonic friendships with women are dangerously feminizing. Sexual activity is a key path to masculine status, and other men are the audience, always imagined and sometimes real, for one's sexual activities. Heterosexual sex itself can be the medium through which male bonding is enacted. Men's sexual storytelling is shaped by homosocial masculine cultures. While these patterns were evident particularly among young men in the highly homosocial culture of a military academy, their presence also among other groups suggests the wider influence of homosociality on men's sexual and social relations.

splashy --- Sounds like the old guard of homophobes are slowly leaving the military, and those that are more liberal are seeing the waste of talent and energy.
As I have read, the rightists and their bigoted ways can only tap the breaks on our culture as we move toward a more liberal, tolerant and celebrating diversity in all it's variety type of culture. We all need to GROW UP and see that our strength lies in our diversity.

jay1975 --- Here is the problem I see. As a male Soldier am I allowed to be roomed with a female? Am I allowed to take a shower with a female? Am I allowed to co-occupy a tent with a female? The answers are no. Why is this? Because of the possibility of one party committing inappropriate actions (i.e. trying to start an unwanted relationship etc.). Now make the scenarios with a straight and and an openly homosexual Soldier. Would it be right for a homosexual Soldier to shower with a straight Soldier? If a male and female cannot because one may be sexually attracted to the other, why would it be okay for a homosexual and a straight to shower an cohabitate? Would the military have to create separate homosexual shower times on deployments like we have separate male and female shower times? Would every openly homosexual Soldier have to have their own room? The military frowns upon sexuality in general. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice still says that it is illegal to have sex in any other position than the "Missionary Position". There was an attempt to repeal that code of the UCMJ and it was shot down.

MsLiz --- If we reinstated the draft, would straight college Republicans pretend to be gay?

menumk2 --- The reason they don't want to let us gays serve openly is because if the feds let gays serve equally in the military then people will see that the military isn't going to implode as the anti "gay agenda" types keep preaching, once there lies and false witness becomes apparent to the society as a whole then these groups become marginalised and the millions of dollars these groups raise promoting their anti "gay agenda" dries up. Bigotry is big business in this country and as we gays obtain more equality the lies from the wingnuts become more transparent and the American people can understand that throwing our gay children on the alter of bigotry so some self righteous Neaderthal can hustle a buck is not something we should tolerate in our families.

chinohillster --- What matters is the PROFESSIONALISM and COMPETENCE of the service personnel - not their sexual orientation!

Colin Powell, a high-bred opportunist? http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/112604.html

There are currently 40 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 11 in the Army, 4 in the Marine Corps, 10 in the Navy, 14 in the Air Force, 1 in the Coast Guard, and 0 in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. (Wikipedia)

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/dr-strangelove-war-room.jpg
Stanley Kubrick: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964, 94 minutes)

Sexuality

From the opening scene of a "boom and receptacle" aerial refueling between a USAF KC-135 Stratotanker and a B-52 Stratofortress (set to an instrumental version of Harry M. Woods's "Try a Little Tenderness") to General Ripper's sexual dysfunction being at the root of the eventual apocalypse, sexual references appear throughout the film.

The character of Dr. Strangelove is laced with innuendo, even aside from his suggestive name. He is the character responsible for creating fantasies of a polygamous post-apocalyptic society with a ratio of "ten females to each male."

General Jack D. Ripper is named after Jack the Ripper, the infamous serial killer who murdered prostitutes in London in the late 1880s. General Ripper's primary concern about Communism is his assertion that water fluoridation is "a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," of which he was made aware when his "loss of essence" during "the physical act of love" fatigued him. Ripper's paranoia about water fluoridation is based on a conspiracy theory by the John Birch Society, which was prominent in conservative politics in the early 1960s.[31] He continues to explain that women "seek the life essence" and then says, "I do not avoid women but... I do deny them my essence." Here "essence" is used as a synonym or euphemism for semen.

Many characters' names involve sexual wordplay. Group Captain Lionel Mandrake's last name refers to the Mandrake plant, which has mythical fertility properties. The Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadesky is named for the Marquis de Sade, and Premier Dmitri Kisov's last name is pronounced "Kissoff," a pun on "kiss off." Major "King" Kong rides a phallic-looking H-bomb,[32] which explodes as he approaches the "target of opportunity," when they are unable to reach the primary target, Laputa (in Spanish: la puta means "the whore"), though the airborne island in Gulliver's Travels is also implied. President Merkin Muffley's first name, merkin, is a pubic wig, and his last name is a take on muff (a furry handwarmer, and also slang for the female genitalia). General Turgidson's name has as its root, "turgid" which euphemistically refers to the male erection. Colonel "Bat" Guano's name is a scatological (rather than sexual) play on words meaning bat feces which could echo the slang term bat-shit, meaning insanity.

The only female character in the film is General Turgidson's secretary (Tracy Reed) who appears in a sleek bedroom with twin beds and a sun lamp, wearing a bikini. Although she tells a caller they are working, there is a clear implication she and the general have a sexual relationship (in a later phone call, Turgidson tries to reassuringly say he will make her "Mrs. Buck Turgidson"). Reed is also shown as the Playboy centerfold being looked at by Major Kong.[4] In this photograph most of her bottom is hidden by the January 1963 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, hence Tracy Reed was billed as "Miss Foreign Affairs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Sheehan
http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/pro ... raight.pdf (http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/projects/Straight.pdf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Al ... r_Atlantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander_Atlantic)

Indeed, John J. Sheehan (USMC, *1940) had one of the two strategic commands of NATO, but he was Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT, 1994-1997) in Norfolk, Virginia.

Correct. After re-checking, both the original reference (The Guardian) and Wiki have it wrong. They show him as "Supreme Allied Commander NATO", a post he never held. The post only formally came into being in 2003, prior to which it was SACEUR's post, with SACLANT as a subordinate. Maybe NATO should be thankful for small mercies, and maybe he has some excuse for not knowing, for example, that the Dutch Army was still a conscript one at the time of the massacre which is far more relevant.

Some of your other points are (for a change!) also relevant:

jay1975 --- Here is the problem I see. As a male Soldier am I allowed to be roomed with a female? Am I allowed to take a shower with a female? Am I allowed to co-occupy a tent with a female? The answers are no. Why is this? Because of the possibility of one party committing inappropriate actions (i.e. trying to start an unwanted relationship etc.). Now make the scenarios with a straight and and an openly homosexual Soldier. Would it be right for a homosexual Soldier to shower with a straight Soldier? If a male and female cannot because one may be sexually attracted to the other, why would it be okay for a homosexual and a straight to shower an cohabitate?

Very fair, as long as male and female are rigidly divided. In practice, however, the boundaries are far more blurred in those armies where the sexes are mixed when deployed operationally (and women are far more integrated in combat arms in the American military than in many other Armies, including those where gays are allowed to serve). In the Dutch Army, for example, there is generally little or no segregation between sexes or ranks except at HQ level, and at company or battle group level messing, showers and toilet arrangements are totally communal; many believe that rather than breeding camaraderie it is a case of familarity breeding contempt and that watching your Commanding Officer take a dump (or worse) does nothing to breed respect.

Administratively, it is rather more complicated. Just as it would be inappropriate for a straight male PTI or one of the training staff to supervise a group of female recruits in the showers or changing rooms, or to shower or change with them, so logically it would not be appropriate for a gay male instructor to do the same with a group of male recruits (particularly if they were 15 or 16 year old boy soldiers/apprentices). What would be the appropriate response for a Company Commander joining a swimming period with recruits under his command if a 16 year old turned to him and said "Sir, you've got a great body", for example? It isn't as simple as it first appears and a couple of years ago a gay British Navy PTI was charged with having sexual relations with a male recruit he was training (just as he would have been had the recruit been female) and he was transferred to another unit.

menumk2 --- The reason they don't want to let us gays serve openly is because if the feds let gays serve equally in the military then people will see that the military isn't going to implode as the anti "gay agenda" types keep preaching

Very fair again, although again it isn't that simple. Allowing gays to serve openly had virtually no noticeable effect in any of the Armed Forces which had previously had a "No Gays" policy, not because gays were or had been accepted or rejected but because so few gays joined the military and those who did joined the Navy, the Air Force or the technical side of the Army which were equipment or technology orientated rather than the "teeth arms" (they were working primarily with equipment, not people). There was no rush by those who were openly gay to join the military nor, unsurprisingly, does it appear that the military is ever likely to be a "gay" profession (apart from the lesbian element, which is believed to have grown).

Despite the numbers of gays who may be thought to be serving in the military, at least in the UK, the real numbers appear to be negligible; the British Armed Forces gay website/forum( http://www.proud2serve.net ), which is open anonomously to all serving or retired gay members of the British military, the MOD Police, all UK police forces, and anyone gay thinking of joining the military or the police, has only a few hundred members making up a very small fraction of a percent of overall numbers.



Ending the ban on gays in the military may be seen as a massive achievement for the gay lobby, and as another step on the road to hell for the "self righteous Neaderthals", but the reality is that it will make little or no difference either to the military or to the gays who actually do and have served in it. Unless gay partnerships (marriage, if you must) are fully recognised, and pension rights, etc, included, then there is very little for those concerned to gain and possibly a good deal for them to lose. One of the advantages of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is that not only do you not have to tell, but you are also not allowed to ask; in armies where gays are now allowed to serve the policy can be reversed for "administrative" reasons and you can be obliged to tell - such an infringement of personal privacy seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory.

[Marsilius]

It isn't as simple as it first appears and a couple of years ago a gay British Navy PTI was charged with having sexual relations with a male recruit he was training (just as he would have been had the recruit been female) and he was transferred to another unit.

Not true, I'm afraid. An invention of The Sun, a British tabloid "newspaper".

See here http://stilgherrian.com/human-nature/ro ... t_gay_sex/ (http://stilgherrian.com/human-nature/royal_navy_first_gay_sex/) where the Royal Navy [not "British Navy"] physical training instructor in question responds to this spurrious allegation by pointing out that his naval superiors were actually supportive of him in these circumstances. He (a certain Sam Connell) writes as follows in the thread, as you can see:

"Well being the sailor in question it was nice to hear something that wasnt really тАШslaggingтАЩ me off for once! I dont get what all the big deal is? I had consensual sex with another lad! FFS its not the end of the world and please I would like to emphasise the Royal Navy big wigs have been very supportive of all of the тАШbad pressтАЩ that has been written. Oh and i have not lost my job as _The Sun_ seemed to suggest! I am still a physical trainer in the RN!!"

Not true, I'm afraid. An invention of The Sun, a British tabloid "newspaper".

100% true, correct and accurate, I'm afraid (as is the Sun report, which I had not read before, as far as it goes). If you had read a little further on in your own link you would have seen that Sam Connell also wrote "I am still waiting to see what punishment that i going to get for the тАЩscandalтАЩ i committed". The case was commented on at some length in Proud to Serve at the time where he wrote (and continued to write, although he left the Navy 2 years after the incident to become a "celebrity personal trainer") under the name navyguyuk1).

The facts of the case are that he was charged and he was transferred immediately from his training post at HMS Raleigh (as is also made clear a few lines further on in your link). Investigation of the case and a decision on what action to take took, unusually, a number of months before the charge was heard, he was found guilty and he was formally admonished; he did not return to his post at HMS Raleigh, or to training recruits at any time.

Similar disciplinary action would have been taken had it been with a female recruit, athough it would not have taken so long to be investigated or received so much publicity - my point was not that he was being unfairly singled out, or that it was particularly scandalous, but that it does complicate things and, whether you agree with it or not, it does add another level to the question of what is acceptable and practical when separating the sexes.

As an indicator of the numbers of openly gay servicemen, although it is only an indicator, he tried to raise a gay Navy football team to take on Stonewall FC: he managed to get three volunteers.




I am afraid, also, that while I am fully aware that it is formally "the Royal Navy" and not "the British Navy", it is both acceptable and common practice to refer to it as such to avoid confusion when the subject is other countries' armed forces, as it was here. Similarly the RAF would be referred to as "the British Air Force", not "the British Royal Air Force", and the Army would be "the British Army", not just "the Army" as is formally correct but totally confusing. Connell was also British, and a Navy PTI, thus also "a British Navy PTI". Sorry.

[Marsilius]

[quote="Gone Fishing"]
I am afraid, also, that while I am fully aware that it is formally "the Royal Navy" and not "the British Navy", it is both acceptable and common practice to refer to it as such to avoid confusion when the subject is other countries' armed forces, as it was here. Similarly the RAF would be referred to as "the British Air Force", not "the British Royal Air Force"[quote]

Au contraire, mon ami! You would need to refer to the "British navy" (with a lower case "n") in that case. There is no such thing as the "British Navy" or the "British Air Force" - though there certainly is a British navy and a British air force.

Au contraire, mon ami! You would need to refer to the "British navy" (with a lower case "n") in that case. There is no such thing as the "British Navy" or the "British Air Force" - though there certainly is a British navy and a British air force.

100% wrong yet again, Marsilius, mon vieux, (as you were with Sam Connell - lack of retraction duly noted).

The use of an upper case (capital) "N" or a lower case "n" is a standard but seldom necessary convention of Service Writing / Staff Duties used " when the subject is other countries' armed forces, as it was here," to differentiate between the British "Royal Navy" and the British "Naval Service". The former refers specifically and only to Royal Navy ships and to those service personnel cap badged to the Royal Navy. The latter refers to the complete naval element of the British Armed Forces including the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (MoD ships manned largely by civilians) and, occasionally, Marine Services (civilian ships contracted out to the MoD) and their respective personnel. Neither includes the Merchant Navy, which forms part of the "UK Naval Services" (made up of the Naval Service and the Merchant Navy).

Any use of a "lower case "n" as in "British navy" refers to the British Naval Service (the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, RFA, etc), while an upper case "N" as in "British Navy" refers specifically to the Royal Navy element only. As a number of those in the British navy (lower case "n") have never been subject to regulations governing discrimination on grounds of sexual preference, while those in the British Navy (upper case "N") have, and as Connell was cap badged Royal Navy and a Royal Naval PTI, the term British Navy was correct.

In the unlikely event anyone is still interested, and equally offtopic, the reason the British Army is not "Royal" while the other Services (RN and RAF) are is that although the British monarch is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, following the British Civil wars and the 1689 Bill of Rights the Army is constitutionally Parliament's army, not the monarch's.

While your use of English is correct generally, Marsilius, it is not only wrong in this context but it is a minor and rather boring point of interest only to those trained in Service Writing / Staff Duties, the forum "grammar police" or to the severely anally retentive. I am in the first category (not through choice); I expect you are in the last.