Another thing I want to mention. All you liberals do is make an issue about social injustice. Really, who cares? Western forces are effective as they are, and the cost of public discontent is not worth the benefits gays can offer. Come up with a pragmatic argument that is worth the public discontent, military discontent, and administrative costs etc or stfu. The world has no place for social justice.

"and WFS ignores the entire argument afterwards also."

No, you fail to concentrate on the main facts of my first post, wich is about gays supposedly performing less than a straight soldier to a degree it kept them from preventing a genocide. Or at least that was that moron Sheehan's opinion.

I'm not a liberal Justinian.

"Western forces are effective as they are, and the cost of public discontent is not worth the benefits gays can offer. Come up with a pragmatic argument that is worth the public discontent, military discontent, and administrative costs etc or stfu. The world has no place for social justice."

Glad we can agree on that. Gay people are part of that same force, but they're not allowed to talk about it. I don't see how being able to take part of it but not being allowed to tell even strengthens the military force. As I have said before (but this seems to have gone unnoticed) I believe it'd even benefit a platoon's cohesion if the gay part of it is allowed to express them fully.

my point, mr flint, is that the fact gays have more std's because of anal bleeding, is absolute bullshit. a more logical reason for gay people to have more std's than straight people is that they don't sell proper protection for homosexual sex in the USA because they are too narrow minded.

however, all of this is not the point of this thread.
in the original post some narrow minded american general claims sebrenica was lost because of homosexuals being allowed in the dutch army. i would really like to see some proof to back that up. are there any pictures showing one man anally pleasuring his fellow soldier by sticking his gun in?
are there even any medical files of people being out sick with STD's? I sincerely doubt there are, making the statement completly rediculous, and slanderous.
In fact, what I would really like, is for the dutch government to demand an apology from this moron, and the american army, who was represented by this person. In case they reject, holland should instantly recall all dutch forces currently aiding american troops whereever in the world.

NATO as a whole is a degraded fighting force, and rules of engagement are just a symptom as is homosexual integration in the ranks.

NATO militaries, with the exception of a few elite outfits, are not killing machines.

Sbrenica could have happened to the armies of any NATO country.  We weakened the infantry, gave them weaker rifles, told them to rely on artillery, company mortars, air support, armored transport to conquer through the intensity of firepower.  Infantry slow enemy formations and do spotting for support arms.  That's what they're trained to do.

Then we give them missions from the old days, when infantry decided battles.  150 years ago [heck 60 years ago] a battlion of Dutch troops would have fought a thousand Serbs all day until relieved.  They would have engaged them at distance with lethal aimed fire.  They would have lost 1 man in 10 without breaking.

Today you take a NATO soldier, give him a rifle that isn't lethal beyond 600m, train him to shoot fast and often to make the enemy duck, train him to count on mobility and fire support...and then stick him in the middle of nowhere, with limited ammunition, to defend a fixed point against superior numbers, and refuse him air support, artillery, tanks, mortars on the grounds that it would "escalate" the mission, and make sure his officers know the government will fall if there are casualties in Yugoslavia.

That NATO soldier will fail to kill, and will duck a fight that his great-great-great-grandfathers would have celebrated.    Because NATO armies are many things for many reasons; but they are mostly, not killers.

i must admit that my knowledge of homosexual sex protection is fairly limited, but i believe there are special condoms for it, that are more thick and don't rip as easily.

i don't know if the average gay man have more sexual partners than straight men, however shouldn't you be banning people with a lot of sexual partners rather than gay men? considering the sexual partners is what creates the risk, and there still are a lot of homosexuals that are monogamous.

That system isn't any different flint, it just ignores them and demands them to shut up. If it isn't a problem now, I don't see how it'd be a problem when they're allowed to talk about it..
As for costs, I'm sure your gay troopers would happily pay for their own condoms if they're allowed to stay in the military.

What that moron said though is a different thing. He claimed that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military as a whole as they're poor soldiers, according to him. He doesn't even back the current policy of the military, he's just plain homophobic.
After all, all the arguments of extra costs and extra chances to get an STD and such apply to any business. But they're not allowed to kick employees out if they're found out to be homosexuals, are they? The sole reason that remains is that the army is opposing it out of homo-stereotypes and/or homophobia...

Aren't most businesses the ones who pay the health insurance of their employees? I assume they pay more for homosexuals due to the fact they're more likely to contract an STD. At the same time, they also have the higher risk of those employees to call in sick because of that. Thus private compagnies have similar "extra costs" as it were.
And if a compagny is allowed to fire an employee on the sole basis of that person being gay, Obama has quite some work left to do

You'll find that a "load of cock" means "bullshit" in England, I thought it was a common expression.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

yeah the Brits actually speak very bad english

epic xDDDDDD

just epic

WFS: The generals premises

1: That since I am an american male that all males think the same as me adn have the smae belief system
2: That hetrosexual males are homophobic
3: That unit cohesiveness is what makes a good solider
4: That non-gay soliders will be more worried about being raped by the gay soliders than fighting
5: That it isn't right to ban non-gay soliders just because they are distracted by gay soliders
6: All missions that go wrong have to be the fault of gays

Conclusion: Gays in the army meant that the army is bad and gays should be removed.

i also love the complete stupidity of americans and their lack of knowledge of homosexuality.

that is good that you acknowledge that i am the expert and you know teh nothings