THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

So why the **** was a retired American General commenting on blame in a fight in which he was unqualified to speak on?

You are qualified to speak on his credentials ? Thats right I forgot you are a great military man yourself, who has every qualification in these matters because you talk to military people. Are you sure you wish to bring qualifications into this ? Perhaps if you called him a coward like you called me, you dumb ****, you might make an even more embarrassing arse out of yourself, but you have set the bar pretty high already.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

A bigot is a bigot.And that folks is as complex as Miss William can get.

Do not need to be too complex with you as you are a bigot plain and simple.

How about a black senior military man declaring that all the problems in our military is because of the straight white boys?

Would you be as eager to give him a hearing fool?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

He was Supreme Allied Commander at the time and according to you he is just another dumb-**** bigot....I wish I could say that I was shocked but this is normal for you.

We had a fool that high up in our military!!!!!!!!!!

Now that need an investigation at once as how did we allow him to climb that high.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

How about a black senior military man declaring that all the problems in our military is because of the straight white boys?

Is this in your fantasy world where you want me to grow breasts or did this actually happen ? I suppose he would have to be black, homo, native, wanting a sex change and then he would be important to listen to in your opinion. Clearly anyone not belonging to a minority has any value as a human being.

Quote:

Would you be as eager to give him a hearing fool?

What a bigot like you doesnt understand, is I listen to everyone, even a total fool like you therefore I am not a bigot. You dont, therefore you are a bigot. Did you read the definition of Bigot ? I am trying to help you with your english.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

We had a fool that high up in our military!!!!!!!!!! Now that need an investigation at once as how did we allow him to climb that high.

Do you see how this statement makes you a bigot ? Do you see how full of hate and prejudice you are ? You wouldnt want your daughter to marry a nigger would you ?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
So why the **** was a retired American General commenting on blame in a fight in which he was unqualified to speak on?

wasn't he a NATO commander at the time? The failure of a NATO force in a UN operation is exactly with-in his expertise.

Quote:
Prior to assuming his final duties as Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command on October 31, 1994, General Sheehan served as Director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C. General Sheehan retired from the Marine Corps on September 24, 1997.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Sheehan

He was Supreme Allied Commander at the time and according to you he is just another dumb-**** bigot....I wish I could say that I was shocked but this is normal for you.

Interesting. What was his relation to this theater? Was he in command? It is commonplace for the Supreme Allied Commander to place blame on ground troops? How was he able to place blame on just the gay ones? Hmmm?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Interesting. What was his relation to this theater? Was he in command? It is commonplace for the Supreme Allied Commander to place blame on ground troops? How was he able to place blame on just the gay ones? Hmmm?

But your omnipotence has already decided. Isnt it a bit late to check facts now, bigot ? You continually make a fool of yourself and only your thick skin or lack of intelligence saves you from realising.

0 Replies

Quote:

He was Supreme Allied Commander at the time and according to you he is just another dumb-**** bigot....I wish I could say that I was shocked but this is normal for you.

I am not all that shock myself after thinking about the following fact.

When President Truman order the arm forces to be integrated, the then Joint Chiefs drag their feet and fought a delaying action for as long as possible.

Many men with many stars on their shoulder tabs turned out to be racial bigots in 1948, so why not have such men being homophone now?

1 Reply

One interesting question is once it become as silly to attack gays for being in the military as it is now to attack blacks what other groups are people like Ionus going to go after?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You wouldnt want your daughter to marry a nigger would you ?

LOL both of my step-daughters are of mixed race but they did not end up marrying black men.

So my grandkids are only 1/4 black but who know about the next generation by which time will no longer matter in any case.

Race and racial relationships will be an odd idea they will read about in the history books/electronic readers along with the idea that you should keep gays men and women out of the military.

Now the real interesting question is what will future bigots be whining about if they no longer had gays, blacks or Jews as subjects of their hate?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I think interracial concepts that were once taboo are no longer shocking to my generation already, let alone the younger ones. I'm of mixed race, so every relationship Ive ever had has been de facto interracial.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

How was he able to place blame on just the gay ones

Quote:

SHEEHAN: The case in point that I’m referring to was when the Dutch were required to defend Sbrenecia against the Serbs, 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. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.

LEVIN: And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?

SHEEHAN: It was a combination "

LEVIN: Did they tell you that?

SHEEHAN: Yes.

LEVIN: That’s my question.

SHEEHAN: They included that as part of the problem.

LEVIN: That there were gay soldiers among the Dutch force.

SHEEHAN: The combination was the liberalization of the military, the net effect of basically social engineering.

He does not blame the gays, he blames the officers and those who had the officers doing social engineering when they should have been leading warriors.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The end product is the same hawkeye. In the end, the statement is that homosexuals serving in the military provide an excuse to others for not doing their job. Fault to the gays. The assertion is crazy!

This isn't social engineering. Social engineering would be putting gays in the military when they had no interest in doing so or when it could be proven that they could not serve. Both are not the case.

It seems one detail stands out about the dialog. He testified hear-say. If the "leaders" in the Netherlands had said this, let them say it. It seems kind of shady to speak for others in this kind of setting. Being that the Netherlands were offended at being portrayed as such, I'm not more encouraged to believe his statement has any merit whatsoever.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

those who had the officers doing social engineering when they should have been leading warriors.

Social engineering like placing blacks and white soldiers together in the same units and then fighting the Koren war?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Social engineering like placing blacks and white soldiers together in the same units and then fighting the Koren war?

You mean the "police action" right? The first military engagement that we did not win in over a hundred years? And the next one we flat out lost. You are not helping your argument.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The end product is the same hawkeye. In the end, the statement is that homosexuals serving in the military provide an excuse to others for not doing their job. Fault to the gays. The assertion is crazy!

the end is still the same, that they gays should not have been there. Crazy idea it is not, the argument conforms to logic, and I have every confidence that a military historian could document when putting a force into social flux weakened it enough that it failed. Though I am not going to prove the case, as my point is that we should be able to talk about what happened and why, it is not to promote any ideas I have about what the truth is.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Social engineering like placing blacks and white soldiers together in the same units and then fighting the Koren war?

You mean the "police action" right? The first military engagement that we did not win in over a hundred years? And the next one we flat out lost. You are not helping your argument.

Have some balls hawkeye. I dare you.

Are you saying that the end product of the Korean War was due to integration of blacks into the Army? If you aren't, then it really doesn't hurt Bill's argument.

His argument is not harmed by an argument you won't ante up on.

T
K
O

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You mean the "police action" right? The first military engagement that we did not win in over a hundred years? And the next one we flat out lost. You are not helping your argument.

LOL and more LOL so blacks in the military kept us from "winning" the Koran war?

God you got me rolling on the floor.

Hate to tell this but we did indeed won the war or at least the goal we first enter the war with IE driving the North out of South Koran.

Only after we had turn the situation completely around and cut up and divide the North Koran army with our social engineer forces did Truman get talk into the idea of conquering the North.

We all know the story after that however in the end we still won that war in relationship to the goals we had at it start.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Are you saying that the end product of the Korean War was due to integration of blacks into the Army? If you aren't, then it really doesn't hurt Bill's argument.

I dont think I need to. He clearly meant to say that we have done this before and it was no problem, and I am pointing out that when we did the integration of blacks things did not go so good for us. Whether our poor performance was caused or partly caused by the integration IDK, but this history does support the position that we should be careful, that this is not easy-peazy we have done all of this before...

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The end product is the same hawkeye. In the end, the statement is that homosexuals serving in the military provide an excuse to others for not doing their job. Fault to the gays. The assertion is crazy!

the end is still the same, that they gays should not have been there.

Because?

It seems the only reason that can be accounted for is that the presence of gays gave the chain of command a scape goat to allegedly blame for the failures of their training.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Crazy idea it is not, the argument conforms to logic, and I have every confidence that a military historian could document when putting a force into social flux weakened it enough that it failed.

It conforms to no logic whatsoever. Gay soldiers have been able to complete their job functions and straight soldiers have been able to complete theirs in their presence. Pretending that otherwise is the case is intentionally dishonest and ignorant.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Though I am not going to prove the case, as my point is that we should be able to talk about what happened and why, it is not to promote any ideas I have about what the truth is.

You're attempting to promote controversy where there is no controversy. The strategic loss had nothing to do with gay soldiers. It's a lame excuse given in a meeting specifically to talk about DADT by a person that does not want to end DADT. It's pure assertion.

What's left to talk about? Simple: If you can accept it or not.

T
K
O

0 Replies

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know