>>"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," ><
>>> He said Dutch leaders had told him that the presence of gay soldiers had contributed to the Bosnian massacre.
The Dutch leaders either told him this or not. It seems unlikely that a man of his stature would just make something like this up.
The Dutch leaders either told him this or not.
They most certainly did not!
It seems unlikely that a man of his stature would just make something like this up.
<< The Dutch leaders either told him this or not.
>>> They most certainly did not!
You really have to appreciate the ability some folks have to mind-read...
>>> It seems unlikely that a man of his stature would just make something like this up.
>>> Yet he did.
...or use a ouija board.
>>> Even "a man of his stature" can be homo-fobic. That fact can't be news to you, can it?
That a man of his stature "can" be...no, that wouldn't be news...that this particular man "is"...well, we'll need more than mind-reading and ouija boards to prove that one, won't we?>>> Sheehan obviously opposes lifting DADT, which is his democratic right.But doing so, he actually says that he doesn't "mind" if gay soldiers are doing the fighting (and dying) under his command, as long as he doesn't know they are gay.
Right...he believes that having openly gay soldiers in the military will cause fundamental problems...and he's probably right.>>> What is he thinking (if at all) re this 'issue' anyway? Does he believe "openly gay" soldiers suddenly sport pink poppies in their hair/helmets or something?
I believe that there are military regs regarding dress and hairstyle, so while there may be a noticeable "swish" in their marching gate, I don't think that "pink poppies" will be a significant problem.
>>> Does he believe that gay soldiers don't possess the urge of defending and fighting for their country?
Obviously he does...which is why he apparently has no problem having them in his units. He would just be appreciative of their discretion.
Why, in his opinion, would gay soldiers join the army at all?
To be all they can be?...except openly gay, of course.
>>> Would he even allow gay people to defend their country, once he knows they are gay?
What "he" knows isn't the issue...it's having an "openly gay" policy that he feels will be detrimental to the military.
>>> What is the "gain" if gay people hide who they are as soon as they join the army?
"Who they are?" Who they "are" are soldiers. They can keep who they'd like to bugger to themselves...like everyone else should. It should be "don't ask don't tell" for everyone.
>>> Most pressing IMO re this 'issue': Does he blame any US military failures on (obviously present but under the condition of DADT) gay soldiers as well?
He didn't say that...but how would he know...our soldiers aren't supposed to be openly gay, so it would only be an assumption on his part. Besides, any military failures have been foisted on the US by liberals who hamper them from doing their jobs.
I agree with you.
"I agree with you.