an american ex-general accused the dutch gays in the army a few days ago of causing the srebrenica massacre. I mean, if you got to blame us, at least blame it on the proper people, not just the ones you don't like. Is the American view on gays really still this dim?
Except that instead of locking the crackpots in an asylum they elect them into presidential office amongst other important posts in the government. Although it's not like my country would be any different.
old farts with old ideas, unfortunately, have a lot of money. they use that money to elect other old farts with old ideas.
Keep in mind generals aren't elected. That is a rank which is earned through a lot of hard work, and although I don't agree with his statement about the gays in the military. I would also keep in mind we don't employ generals based on their personal opinion. We do it based on how they win battles. War isn't a political office and opinions don't matter, because once bullets start flying its all about the tacticians and the soldiers standing behind them. This guy doesn't run the country he just runs the military, and he only runs it has he is told to do so from his superiors (president, congress, senate, etc.) . That being said I can't believe generals would deny Americans the right to serve their country based on their personal life style.
Actually his critisism also had to do with tactics, as he solely blamed the positioning of the homosexuals at this location for the failure of the mission. That is moronic as far as tactical insight goes
That is a little retarded, but does anyone have any kind of performance record on him? Maybe any details on campaigns he was involved in? I'll probably look it up, but if hes a general I think he would have a semi decent record. We have always had generals that were a little.... messed up with their political views but that shouldn't determine whether we use them or not. Again we don't give this rank to people based on their political views, but on their performance on the field. Just look at the history of WW2 and the generals we had. Many of them had opinions contrary to the publics. Patton is a good example of this, but allowed them to keep their rank and position because they won battles.
You seem to be severely detached from the reality. Anyways I agree that there is some degree of tolerance allowed for the military officials in order to ensure the safety and effectivness of their troops, but at the end of the day they are there to protect what the nation stands for. In case of the U.S. especially it is the constitution which does not support bigoted discrimination.
I disagree. I believe the military is there to protect American lives not their interests. The general doesn't make decisions on who to go to war with, what laws to pass, or whether something is morally wrong or not. A general takes orders from the elected officials we appoint and makes sure those orders are carried out effectively. Nothing in what a general does has to do with his opinions on such things. He is there to form strategy and to execute orders given to him by the president. His opinions don't matter.
the 'disagree' wasn't aimed at you higgs, but at a few posts earlier. Still, a general who thinks the stationing of gay people is crucial can't be that good
Something I am finding a hard time understanding is how people can try and put morals and ethics into war? I mean war by definition is unethical and immoral.
Its the politicians who have to convince us its moral and ethical just look at iraq (WMDs, Genocide)...afghanistan (discrimination, violence, terroists)...vietnam(Communists!/Unity)...korea(Communists!/Unity)...WW2(Genocide/supression/unfair treatment by west/Nationalism)...WW1(Genocide/Alliances/Nationalism)...Spanish civil war(Facists/communists!)...the crusades (Heathens). No matter who you are fighting ethics and morals play a key role in any action. You can't have people killing each other for no other reason than its a war because people do not want to die for nothing. On a micro level morals and ethics may seem meaningless in war but on a macro scale they are the reason for any major decision on the course of the war. This is the reason why we decided to go with democracy so our (the majority) morals can be the ones which hold above all others. Looking back through america's past i don't think generals are selected purely on merit as much as we would all like to think. War is a politcal office as it is being orchestrated by politicians, a general is merely an arm of the people however as generals are human their morals or ethics may cloud their judgement. On that note if a general does his job (His job is not just to win but to extend the ethics and morals his leaders want him to extend especially since politicians don't know how to handle micro decisions it is up to the general to handle ethical and moral situations on the ground) there is no reason to sack him/her. This guy however is just an ex army nut who is free to express whatever he wants
by definition? 1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. b. The period of such conflict. c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 2. a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
I think he means the immoral act of killing that wars allow. When else would someone be allowed to kill 20 people and get rewarded for it rather than shunned or imprisoned?
