Military

Gay Dutch Genocidaires: A Warning From the Recent Past

|

Not much one can say in response to this Joseph Heller-like exercise in military leadership. In front of a Senate committee looking into "don't ask, don't tell," former NATO commander Gen. John Sheehan told a baffled Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) that the massacre in Srebrenica was allowed to happen because the soldiers defending the town were too Dutch and too gay. The Telegraph reports:

Gen. Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability."

He said this process included "open homosexuality" which resulted in "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."

"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said, referring to the UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.

"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them."

Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pressed him to clarify his comments.

"Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" asked an incredulous Levin.

"Yes," Sheehan said and added: "They included that as part of the problem."

Reason on gays in the military.

Advertisement

NEXT: David Brooks Surveys Economic Wreckage, Redoubles Patriotic Battle Against the "surge in vehement libertarianism"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. um…yeah…’understrength and poorly led’ must’ve been teh gayz……did they even have guns?

    1. Actually they probably didn’t. It’s not uncommon for UN “peacekeeping” forces to be unarmed, or to have guns but no ammo. Unarmed people can’t do much to stop a massacre.

      1. The build up was far from quick. There was a failure to act from the top to the bottom by the Dutch. They were even warned that the action was going to happen.

        The Dutch were an armed military force operating from a defensive position.

        1. Acting in a defensive position with a solitary understrength battalion. Yeah, the Dutch military screwed the pooch on that one.

          1. Per Wikipedia:

            On the morning of 10 July 1995, the situation in Srebrenica was tense. Residents crowded the streets. The Dutch UNPROFOR troops fired warning shots over the attacking Serbs’ heads and their mortars fired flares but they never fired directly on any Serb units. Lieutenant-Colonel Karremans sent many urgent requests for NATO air support to defend the town, but no assistance was forthcoming until around 2:30PM on 11 July 1995, when 2 Dutch F-16’s guided by British SAS bombed VRS tanks advancing towards the town. NATO planes also attempted to bomb VRS artillery positions overlooking the town, but had to abort the operation due to poor visibility. NATO plans to continue the air strikes were abandoned following the Serb Army’s threats to kill Dutch troops and French pilots being held hostage in the custody of the VRS, as well as shell the UN Poto?ari compound on the outside of the town, and surrounding areas where 20,000 to 30,000 civilians had fled.

            What a terrible display of confusion.

            1. What I mean is, their tactics sound mediocre at best. The Dutch Army doesn’t sound very mobile in that situation, either.

              1. They don’t sound gay but they sound like a bunch of fags.

      2. Real men don’t need guns!!! The Governator or Rambo could have dealt with those pesky Serbians with a plastic fork. 😉

  2. Nothing like a good facepalm to start the afternoon.

    1. this is the marvelous post and I would provide a 5 from five rating to this.
      Need more articles like this to be done. Many thanks and looking for associated
      with this kind

  3. Gen. Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded “there was no longer a need for an active combat capability.”

    OK, I’m willing to believe that the Euros thought a pussified tranzi military shouldn’t really be about killing people and blowing stuff up.

    He said this process included “open homosexuality”

    Wait, what? I think the good General needs a refresher course on correlation and causation.

    1. That’s ’cause we’re their “active combat capability.”

    2. Read or listen to his testimony. The General didn’t make a causation correlation mistake. The reporting did.

  4. no link to full article?

    1. I think the real reason is because the dutch allow pot. All their soldiers, gay or not were stoned. This is why our miltary drug tests free bets

  5. May be they were trained by French surrender monkeys?

  6. Maybe he meant ‘ghey’ rather than ‘gay’

  7. “a focus on peacekeeping operations”

    Which aside from a few months of ‘accomplishing the mission’ is all the US Military has been used for over the last few years. (Including KFOR
    http://www.nato.int/KFOR/)

    “The battalion was understrength, poorly led,… “

    Maybe that had something to do with it? Instead of teh ghey?

    to the telephone polls,
    Wow, never knew Ramussen’s rightward bias was so bad to implicate them in genocide.

  8. Dutch soldiers ride loud Harleys? What?!?

    1. Hey, nobody called them fags.

  9. The obvious compromise is a “tops only” policy.

    “Get up against this pole.”
    “NO, YOU.”

  10. Good, bad, or indifferent and agree or disagree at least take the time to see what was said in whole before mounting up the PC unicorn posse to run off for a lynching. He’s for DODT, but this exchange is his response to a question about a third party, which he names by name.

    testimony

  11. Gay Dutch Soldier’s Union responds

    while the head of the gay soldiers’ group SHK called his comments “the ridiculous convulsion of a loner”.

  12. This same general, when asked a desegregation question, said he commanded blacks, whites, hispanics, and “orientals”. Old fashioned thinking all around-he looked like grandma complaining about “negros” in her neighborhood. A bad defense of a policy is worse than no defense at all; the pro-DADT faction just looks silly at this point.

    (Also, it appears the actual reason this happened was because the force strengths were 450 Dutch vs. 25,000 Serbs.)

    1. When you’re outnumbered 50 to 1, there might have been an intelligence breakdown.

    2. If it had been 450 US Marines versus 25,000 Serbs, something tells me the results would’ve been very different.

      1. I am aware of how effective badly outnumbered Special Operations forces were in the nightmare of Operation Gothic Serpent, but conventional forces in such a situation are cruising for a bruising. Still, the Dutch were “undermanned and poorly led”, which definitely didn’t help.

        1. “undermanned”? Hmmm….no, there is ‘t a need to go there.

      2. Or how ’bout 241 Marines vs 1 Truck?

        1. I see why Jersey barriers and other forms of reinforced walls are used so much in tactical environments now.

        2. Interesting analogy. By interesting I mean fucking retarded.

          Not many Marines were found handcuffed to telephone poles with full magazines in Lebanon.

          1. No, but parts of Marines were found dangling from telephone poles.

          2. In all seriousness, the Serbs knew about the numerical inferiority of the Dutch and attacked. If the intelligence flowed properly, they would have known about the Serbs’ movements and reinforced. A lot.

          3. My point is that 450 marines or anyone else no matter how good they are without air support would have an almost certain probablity of being overrun by 25,000 irregulars of any variety.

            1. So you give up and let people you are charged with protecting be slaughtered?

              1. They are the UN. Giving up is in their job description.

              2. So you give up and let people you are charged with protecting be slaughtered?

                Sometimes you’re at Thermopylae. Sometimes you’re at Corregidor.

                There are no easy answers.

                1. No one was protecting a civilian population at either of those battles. When charged with protecting people you don’t surrender and let men, women, and children be marched off to their deaths. If it’s just your ass on the line feel free to surrender. You lose that choice when you’re responsible for the lives of others.

                  That is a very easy answer.

                  1. hurler on the ditch

                    1. fuck preview

                  2. No one was protecting a civilian population at either of those battles

                    The surrender of the Philippines led to the imprisonment of American civilians by the Japanese. Which was not too pleasant.

                    And yes it’s a simplification, but Greeks were fighting to keep their civilian population from being enslaved by the Persian empire. (pretty standard fare in those days for the losing side)

              3. So you give up and let people you are charged with protecting be slaughtered?

                Ideally, no. But given the situation that the Dutch troops were facing, it’s an understandable reaction. The Dutch battalion was made up mostly of non-conscript troops, so at least there was that. But they also had been cut off from fuel supplies for nearly five months at the time of the massacre. The food situation was pretty grim; they were down to one meal a day, AFAICT. They were rationing water because of problems with the water treatment system, and that meant that there was little to no water left for laundry. They had no toilet paper, which was made worse by the fact that many of them had diarrhea because of poor sanitation due to the blockade. Some of the troops had fleas. Again due to the fuel situation, they could only take cold showers. The unit was supposed to be relieved by 1 Jul initially (five days before the massacre), but they couldn’t find a country willing to deploy troops to relieve the battalion, so their relief was delayed by a month. In short, there was every reason for morale to be abysmally low.

                Yeah, in war you deal with all these things. But look at the situation these troops were in: they were fighting in a foreign land, for people who they didn’t know, who had little in common with them culturally, and their nation’s interests weren’t even at stake. Why wouldn’t most troops give up given that situation?

                US Marines, in common with a few other similar units around the world, fight for the honor of their unit. In some ways, the Marines are more loyal to the Corps than to the US. Which is what you want in such a unit; when you’re fighting far away from home, in a conflict where your nation’s survival isn’t at stake and which might even be wildly unpopular at home, you have nothing to fight for but your unit. These Dutch troops weren’t an elite force; they didn’t have that esprit de corps that Marines would have.

                So given the situation, the problem was that gays were in the unit?!? If that had anything to do with the unit’s failure, it was such a small part of it that it’s not even worth mentioning.

                1. I had no idea that unit’s supply and logistical situation was that bad. NATO, the UN or the Dutch government, or any combination thereof, was fucking up badly.

                2. They were just too depressed because the lack of TP prevented them from having anal sex.

                  1. Tulpa, If you enjoy giving/getting it in the ass, toilet paper is the least of your concerns

      3. OK, how about this one: Chuck Norris, Mike Ditka, and Mr. T versus the entire Balkan penninsula. In that order.

        1. Regular Ditka or mini-Ditka?

        2. I’ll take Epic Beard Man over those three pussies any day.

          1. I forgot to post his latest music video

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD38kPCQqSQ

          2. Are you kidding? Any of those three would pulverize EBM. Especially Chuck Norris.

            1. No way dude, EBM’s fists are as big as Chuck’s face. I once saw this comic where EBM slammed his fists into the ground and busted up the sidewalk just the the Hulk or the one dude that is made out of rocks. Plus, I heard Epic Beard Man say he is an expert in Karate, Kung Fu, Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, MMA, and like five other styles. Epic Beard Man could take on Superman with one arm tied behind his back.

  13. “Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?” asked an incredulous Levin.

    “Yes,” Sheehan said and added: “They included that as part of the problem.”

    Which Dutch leaders told you that, General?

    *crickets chirping*

    1. Would have been interesting follow up question. No one on this thread bothered to read the damn testimony. He never directly said that gays were the problem. He said the Dutch thought that gays were part of the problem. That claim doesn’t strike me as completely outlandish. I would like to know what exactly the Dutch had to say. I wonder if there were any follow up questions? Are there any sources that can tell us what the General was talking about?

      Ah fuck it. Better to run off on a PC rant. It is not like Reason claims to be journalists or anything.

    2. He named the General that made the comment in his testimony.

      *crickets chirping*

      1. I missed that. Mea culpa.

        I know the Dutch Defense Ministry has called it (gay soldiers responsible for failure to prevent massacre) hogwash but I’m unable to find if the Dutch general that General Sheehan attributed this to has responded.

    3. Chief of Staff of the Dutch Army Hank von Bremun*

      no clue how it is spelled

      Maybe a little less trusting in the media hyperbole and a little more thinking on our own?

      1. http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..57596.html

        Of note, back in 2002 the entire Dutch political establishment was turned upside down over a report on Srebrenica.

        I doubt they all were gay

        1. I admire the Dutch leadership for falling on their own swords, so to speak. While I think less of Dutch military leadership than I do their US counterparts, maybe we should import some of their political ideas.

      2. here is the official dutch report (translated in to english) started in ’96 released in ’02
        http://srebrenica.brightside.nl/srebrenica/

        Searching on ‘homosexual’ yielded zero results

        Searching on ‘gay’ yielded one result

        ‘a gay peninsula filled with sprightly people who ate peppered foods, drank strong liquors, wore flamboyant clothes, loved and murdered easily and had a splendid talent for starting wars. Less imaginative westerners looked down on them with secret envy, sniffing at their royalty, scoffing at their pretensions, and fearing their savage terrorists.'[3]

        Which was a 1950’s description of Yugoslavia, not Holland

        http://srebrenica.brightside.n…..p;docidx=0

        FWIW.

        1. interesting approach. Nothing even close to the argument made by the General. But heh that’s okay.

          At least argue the points being made. Like that the socialization and break down of cohesion lead to an inferior force. Or that Europes relaxed attitude toward cohesion and preparation in the military were somehow connected and lead to the break down. Instead of picking up on the PC trigger words gay and homosexual like the media have done. And sadly like Reason has done.

          For the love of god if you’re going to disagree with what he said, at least know what he said.

          1. Personally, I can’t disagree with what GEN (Ret.) Sheehan said. I can only question whether t3h gh3y was a minor reason or a major reason their unit cohesion/effectiveness was so poor, or whether it was a cause, a symptom or merely tangential to the issues he was referring to. I simply don’t know.

            1. FWIW (nothing), I don’t have specific problems with DADT, but do understand how difficult it makes for homosexuals to spend any sort of lengthy career in the military.

            2. It’s a weak slippery slope argument. But the reaction from separate groups within the Dutch military is strengthening the Generals argument.

              Of course it wasn’t gay people that cause the atrocity and that’s not what he or the Dutch General said. They just wrongly, or disproportionately attributed the decline in cohesion and preparedness to gay people in the military. I’m sure there was some sort of impact, the problem is that impact was allowed to flourish and not addressed. So gay people serving no problem. Gay people serving and starting a group or union within the military is a big problem. You don’t get to be an individual, that’s part of the deal.

              1. Gay people serving and starting a group or union within the military is a big problem. You don’t get to be an individual, that’s part of the deal.

                I agree that these subgroups/unions in the military are a problem. And you’re right, to the extent that it’s possible, one sacrifices individuality to serve in the military.

          2. It’s a DADT hearing. “The Gay” is in fact the central issue in the testimony.

            It’s undisputed that some Dutch General told some American General that homosexuality in the forces was a contributing factor in Srebrencia.

            But the official record like Art’s link in the first subthread shows that the fundemental mistakes were in force structure, rules of engagement, and tactical coordination among the maneouvre units (i.e. the F-16’s)
            The Dutch General IMHO is talking out his 4th point of contact when he said that homosexuality was the problem – vice as you say potential problems *overall* with prepardness.

            And therefore the American general was incorrect in citing the Dutch General in that context. It’s not that he’s lying. It’s that the expert witness the American General is citing is misreading the situation.

            1. I think the line was gay people serving lead to a lax attitude which lead to the tragedy.

              You’re missing the connection in his argument, the aforementioned slippery slope, between allowing gay people to serve and a break down in cohesion. Which has been the oppositions argument to DADT from day one.

              He cited what he was told by a third party. Until the Dutch General comes out and says otherwise what he said is what he said.

            2. Maybe listen to his words again? The youtube should accompany this article up top, but I doubt that will happen since it lessens the impact of the OMG GENERAL HATES GAY PEOPLE!!!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V7Or0kbqY0

              1. Who cares about “OMG GENERAL HATES GAY PEOPLE!!!”? The slippery slope argument that you’re peddling is nonsense. As most slippery slope arguments. But this reiteration of it: gays -> lax attitude -> massacre is particularly preposterous. Opponents of gays in the military should stick to their more serious arguments like OMG THE GAYS WILL OGLE AT ME IN THE SHOWERS/LAUGH AT MY LITTLE DICK.

                1. News flash. *make ticker sound*

                  I don’t agree with the argument. That is the argument being made. Go ahead and scroll on up and look where I called the argument convoluted. The slope argument is the argument the General is making instead of the outright gay people caused the tragedy argument which is what most are charging him with here.

                  So attacking it as my position is, well a little off.

                  1. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. I guess this led me to believe that you subscribed to the argument to some extent.
                    They just wrongly, or disproportionately attributed the decline in cohesion and preparedness to gay people in the military. I’m sure there was some sort of impact.

                    1. I think a loss of cohesion is a possibility but in no way is it a reasoning for discriminating. There are more than enough avenues for control within the military to stop such a “slippery slope” argument from coming to fruition. The decline in cohesion and liberalization/socialization the General is speaking of among European military’s is hard to argue against. The strongest armies are cohesive unit based systems removing the individual from the equation. His fears of losing cohesion are founded, connecting gay people as major cause is not.

                    2. Well whatever the cause is, lets be overcautious and ban both the gays and those slippery slopes.

                  2. That is the argument that was made against racial integration of the armed forces. That is the argument still being made against women serving in combat zones.

                    That explains why many call people making those arguments racist, sexist or homophobic (as applicable) asswipes.

                    1. It’s a poor argument. That point has been reached and agreed upon. Nonetheless that’s his argument. Not that gay people caused any tragedy or whatever hyperbolic rhetoric that is being tossed around by the media.

              2. I’d like to. I can’t access youtube and can’t find a non-gated written transcript

  14. I think the real reason is because the dutch allow pot. All their soldiers, gay or not were stoned. This is why our miltary drug tests.

    1. Juanita, you don’t know anything. The straight ones were stoned. The gay ones were on meth or amyl nitrates.

      1. It don’t matter, they are all bad drugs.

        1. They’re not bad. They’re just misunderstood.

    2. When are you going to get laid Juanita?

  15. There’s more Dutch reaction (via DPA) here and here–including…

    Chairman Wim van den Burg of the Dutch military union AFMP FNV said ‘it is ridiculous to think there is a relationship between the soldiers’ sexual orientation and the fall of Srebrenica.’

    His counterpart from the Christian military union CNV ACOM Jan Kleian called Sheehan’s remarks ‘complete nonsense’ and added he was ‘pleased the Defence Ministry and our politicians want the army to reflect Dutch society. I am proud homosexuals also have a place in the army.’

    1. There’s going to be a common thread in all the responses. The words “group” and “union.” Which only makes Sheehan’s convoluted slippery slope argument look stronger.

      1. It’s a bit unusual from my perspective that Dutch soldiers can form unions, particularly those based on sexual orientation, religion, etc. That’s actually a good observation and point, hmm.

        1. FWIW, the “Christian” reference to CNV ACOM is likely misleading.

          1. Oh, they’re just like a regualr trade union. But still…

  16. Well, y’see, they were GOING to stop the massacre, but their was a SALE AT GUCCI!!!!

  17. “He said this process included “open homosexuality” which resulted in “a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.””

    So stop enlisting all the limp-wristers and start recruiting bears.

  18. “The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them.”

    Maybe it wasn’t that they were gay, it’s that they were into S&M?

    1. Oh, motherfuck you. Goddammit.

      1. [Insert Tom of Finland illustration]

    2. And they sent subs instead of doms?

  19. unionized soldiers. brilliant.

  20. and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them

    Lesson: cease recruiting from the BDSM sub community.

    1. Maybe recruit off Feministing?

    2. What Some Guy said.

  21. Gay or straight, the Dutch military was caught with their pants down. Bam!

  22. p’shaw, nobody in/from Europe wanted to get their hands dirty in the former Yugoslavia, so for it to be implied it was about them being gay is a complete strawman. More likely they were under orders to avoid conflict at all costs… Even though experience showed that showing a little backbone could stop them in their tracks

    http://www.serbianunity.net/ne…..o_Sun.html

    1. Merely firing warning shots out of their rifles and flares out of their mortars implies that this was the case.

      1. “Hey fellas, we better turn around now. We already had some warning shots and flares and now we are receiving heavy volleys of sternly written letters”

  23. The UN has killed more of its allies than Hitler.

    1. you know who else killed Hitler?

      1. Nicely done, Chin. The double-reverse Godwin.

  24. Like the Dutch had military prowess before they allowed gays.

    1. prowess before the gays? They had TULIPS, didn’t they? 😉

  25. You let the gays run the military, the first thing they’ll let Serbs right in the back door, and your soldiers are going to end up hugging poles.

  26. Makes sense to me. The gays and Muslims can’t coexist, so they helped even the odds a little for the coming battle.

  27. The problem with most European militaries isn’t that they admit gays. It is that most Europeans are pussies. This is what happens when the American military has been the surrogate European military for the last 60 years.

    1. “most Europeans are pussies” As a pussy, I can tell you that we wouldn’t have that type of fucking war, if we were in charge there;-)

  28. The gheys must have been in charge of all of europe and hawaii during WWII. Its the gays fault for the Iraq war, Afghanistan and N Korea. Its true, a Dutch guy told me.

  29. Jeebus H. Warning shots? Flares? When you know that the sonsabitches are massing for an assault with genocidal intent?

    You kill every one you see, and, especially when dealing with irregulars, its highly likely the rest will back off.

    And fuck NATO for craptacular intelligence and caving on airstrikes when the Serbs threatened to murder prisoners. Never forget:

    You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

    1. You kill every one you see, and, especially when dealing with irregulars, its highly likely the rest will back off.

      These were people on year 4 of a brutal civil war which was founded in centuries old grudges.

      Plus from above
      On the morning of 10 July 1995, the situation in Srebrenica was tense. Residents crowded the streets

      So, shoot everyone you see, eh?

      1. Still, if the Dutch had the intelligence, air and logistical support they needed, the VRS never would have had their troops and artillery positioned so close to the town.

        1. That batallion commander’s superior officer, or his superior’s superiors or some bureaucrat somewhere really let them all down.

  30. I know I can’t wait until the U.S. allows me in the Army. Oh, boy, foxholes and field showers!

    1. you would find a lot of recruits in this site

  31. I’d say the real issue was that the Dutch were not willing to die in a gesture of futile resistance against a much superior force, and that attitude was not confined to the troops there but also their superiors, both those inside the city with them and outside.

    And after it all went down exactly as one could predict, people went round pointing fingers to try and deflect blame, and one of those fingers was “It was the gays!”

    No, the real reason is that most nations’ UN deployments are not for causes they consider worth dying for. I suspect the Dutch government, even at the highest level, was not willing to have its detachment wiped out defending foreigners they didn’t care for.

    1. I’d say you have a point here. The more I read about the tragedy, the more the mission reeks of half-assery.

      1. I think that’s it right there. Gay Dutch fingers reeking of asses.

  32. Dear Mr Sheehan, do you know why the Dutch allow gays to join their army? “Because we’ve always been protected by dikes and are ruled by a queen.”

    1. That whole clip was short on ownage on all sides.

      Except maybe pointing out that the executive branch has failed to do the one thing it could and stop people from being discharged. The President is after all the Commander -in-Chief.

      1. That is what I was referring to.

  33. To all those pathetic idiots making excuses for the cowardly (but smart; afterall they’re still alive) Dutch soldiers, go to Hell!

    The Dutche behaved like typical products of a narcissistic Liberal pro-gay feminized cannabis-smoking socially engineered society; they behaved like cowardly pussies (and not soley because of openly gay ‘soldiers’ but of the effect of the entire emasculating socialist conditioning they were subjected to thru during their upbringing in stinking Holland).

    Some ignorant fool made the excuse that the poor Dutch surrender-monkeys couldn’t be blamed, since they were fighting for people they had little in common with, culturally, (i.e. Muslims) and nor did their deployment contribute to Dutch national interests. That’s a croc of shit. Contrast the cowardly dutch surrender monkeys to Royal Nepalese Army Gurkha soldiers that faced down the ruthless Israeli army (commanded at the time by Ariel Sharon) during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Only 7 gurkha soldiers held-off an entire Israeli armour division from crossing a key bridge in order to give Shia-Muslim villagers a chance to flee a nearly certain Israeli planned massacre (before any idiot denies this remember Sabra and Chatilla massacres happened under Israeli auspices in the same week). In any case, the Gurkha’s knew that if fighting broke out they would not survive against the Israelis, yet they stood their ground (7 Gurkhas against an entire Israeli armoured division). The Gurkhas had nothing in common with the Muslim-Shia Lebanese villagers they were protecting, in fact, Gurkhas are Hindus; traditionally enemies of Muslims (and generally natural allies of Jews and Israel for the same reason). In fact, it was against the Gurkha’s national interest to confront the Israeli’s as Nepal was the ONLY country in South Asia to recognize Israel at the time and have good relations with them. Yet despite this, the Gurkhas stood their ground; they were willing to die fighting to protect people they may not even like, because it was their duty. THAT is the difference between a REAL WARRIOR and selfish, spoiled cowardly western liberal surrender-monkeys. The socialist Brits are slimey cowards, the socialist Canadians are weak blow-hards, the socalist French are back-stabbers and unreliable allies, the Socalist Germans are racists who secretly hate Americans (Germans are notorious sore losers because the USA defeated and conquered them their Hitler) and so they can’t be trusted, the ultra-socialist Scandanivians are puny & pathetic and therefore useless miltarily. Such is the sad state of affairs of the “Western” Alliance; its pretty much the USA carrying the weight for the free-loading socialist Europeans & Canadians. Sadly the only western allies with a military not made up of surrender monkeys, are those of the United States, Poland, Czech, Bulgaria and Turkey.

    But now gutless liberal cowards like Carl Levin want to end that and castrate the US military too. Can you imagine sending a future “kumbaya”-singing socialized namby-pamby castrated feminized US military against a ruthlessly efficient and cohesive all-male Chinese military force? Is that in the best interests of Freedom and the United States?

    1. tl;dr

  34. Ahh, are you the guy from the news, who is doing the rewrite for the Texas school books?

    1. +LOL…sorry, you lost all credibility when you described the Canadians and British militaries as cowards and weak. They are quite tough.
      And the Germans are “racists who secretly hate us…” LOL.
      Sorry, you probably lost all credibility before that and I just missed it.

      1. You’re WRONG, I haven’t lost any credibility for stating the truth about todays Britain; the Brits are not what they used to be; they get all wobbly and crying like (i.e. emotional) and totally unBritish like, not like WWII generation at all. Prior to Iraq we’ve never witnessed Brits howling about a few hundred casualties (you guy lost hundreds of thousands to Superior German troops and you didn’t flinch once). Now You guys are weak, you’d never stand a chance against real tough guys like the Russians, Persians, or Chinese. As for the Germans, you dumb bastard, where do you think the Holocaust happened and who do you think perpetrated it? Those folks are still an uptight intolerant bunch who hate Americans but know they’re beaten and so don’t try to show it. Unlike Western Europe (Self-Serving Surrender Monkeys) America is a sincere and honorable country. Truth Hurts, but it’s still the truth. I don’t have an objection to the concept that if a gay man wants to serve and die for his country, he should have every right to exercise that privilege, afterall half the Islamic suicide bombers are self-hating homosexuals (a dirty little secret the Islamic world would like to keep secret) and lets face it, they’re quite effective in their attacks. BUT I do have a problem with Liberal Socially Engineering(i.e. socializing/weakening & feminizing) of the military.

  35. all-male Chinese military force?

    http://www.time.com/time/photo…..09,00.html

    1. Never let facts get in the way of a long rant.

      1. Yes an infantile and immature mind is always impressed by PICTURES, but such weak minds usually find dealing with facts to be an impossibility. PLA’s COMBAT UNITS are all male and will stay that way because China, unlike Western Europe is not STUPID and reliant on Uncle Sam to protect them. But since you’re too weakminded to process logic, facts and words, here are a couple of PICTURES that might help your child mind understand. Here are real chinese COMBAT troops: http://img395.imageshack.us/i/339901ol6.jpg/ (you notice the TOTAL absence of females?) and here are Chinese female soldiers: http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=50…..p;se=1#pn0 See the difference? Now have a coke and a smile and shut-the-f–k-up! 😉

    2. Yes an infantile and immature mind is always impressed by PICTURES, but such weak minds usually find dealing with facts to be an impossibility. PLA’s COMBAT UNITS are all male and will stay that way because China, unlike Western Europe is not STUPID and reliant on Uncle Sam to protect them. But since you’re too weakminded to process logic, facts and words, here are a couple of PICTURES that might help your child mind understand. Here are real chinese COMBAT troops: http://img395.imageshack.us/i/339901ol6.jpg/ (you notice the TOTAL absence of females?) and here are Chinese female soldiers: http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=50…..p;se=1#pn0 See the difference? Now have a coke and a smile and shut-the-f–k-up! 😉

  36. The real problem at Srebrenica: the natives expected foreigners to fight their war for them.

  37. Very good written article. It will be helpful to anyone who uses discount aline wedding dresses,including yours truly. Keep up the good work discount discount aline wedding dresses for sure i will check out more posts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.