03-23-2010, 10:13 AM
On 27 June 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 199 sponsored by Congressman Christopher Smith and Congressman Benjamin Cardin) commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of 370 to 1, the only one to vote no being Ron Paul, with 62 absent. The resolution states that:
" ...the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 and 1995 with the direct support of Serbian regime of Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević and its followers ultimately led to the displacement of more than 2,000,000 people, an estimated 200,000 killed, tens of thousands raped or otherwise tortured and abused, and the innocent civilians of Sarajevo and other urban centres repeatedly subjected to shelling and sniper attacks; meet the terms defining the crime of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in Paris on December 9, 1948, and entered into force on January 12, 1951."
The Srebrenica massacre led to long-running discussions in the Netherlands. In 1996, the Dutch government asked the "Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie" (NIOD, translation: Dutch Institute for War Documentation) to conduct research into the events before, during and after the fall of Srebrenica. The resulting report was published in 2002. It concluded that the Dutchbat mission was not well considered and well-nigh impossible. The NIOD report is cited often, but it has not escaped criticism, leading the Institute for War and Peace Reporting to label the report controversial.
As a result the Dutch government accepted partial responsibility and the second cabinet of Wim Kok resigned in 2002.
Last Thursday, former U.S. general and high ranking NATO official John Sheehan is quoted as saying "They [The Dutch] declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military â that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war." He claimed that his opinion was shared by the leadership of the Dutch armed forces, mentioning the name "Hankman Berman", most probably referring to the then chief of the Dutch defence staff, Henk van den Breemen. Sheehan's remarks were officially condemned by the Dutch authorities and van den Breemen, with his remarks being dismissed as "disgraceful" and "total nonsense."
Dutch military homosexual rights organizations are now planning to start a class-action lawsuit in the USA against Sheehan.
This sparked quite some outrage in the Netherlands. We as a country generally feel guilty that the Dutchbat soldiers were unable to prevent the massacre, although it is generally accepted this was due to them being underequipped and with little time to prepare to handle the task and that NATO partners failed to provide support at crucial times and politicians were bickering while the situation escalated. Dutchbat was not suited to handle the task, which high military officers later tried to hide by destroying evidence (which sparked even more outrage at the time). The general consensus in the Netherlands is that we sent too few men, with too little equipment, with too little preparation. The soldiers were not capable of repelling a tank attack with their measly APC's and relative light firepower. The soldiers at the spot were not to blame, but rather the people who sent them there with not enough means to get the job done.
And now comes this American ex-general, claiming Dutchbat failed because we employ open homosexuals in our military? Talk about throwing salt in an open wound.
" ...the policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing as implemented by Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 and 1995 with the direct support of Serbian regime of Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević and its followers ultimately led to the displacement of more than 2,000,000 people, an estimated 200,000 killed, tens of thousands raped or otherwise tortured and abused, and the innocent civilians of Sarajevo and other urban centres repeatedly subjected to shelling and sniper attacks; meet the terms defining the crime of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in Paris on December 9, 1948, and entered into force on January 12, 1951."
The Srebrenica massacre led to long-running discussions in the Netherlands. In 1996, the Dutch government asked the "Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie" (NIOD, translation: Dutch Institute for War Documentation) to conduct research into the events before, during and after the fall of Srebrenica. The resulting report was published in 2002. It concluded that the Dutchbat mission was not well considered and well-nigh impossible. The NIOD report is cited often, but it has not escaped criticism, leading the Institute for War and Peace Reporting to label the report controversial.
As a result the Dutch government accepted partial responsibility and the second cabinet of Wim Kok resigned in 2002.
Last Thursday, former U.S. general and high ranking NATO official John Sheehan is quoted as saying "They [The Dutch] declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military â that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war." He claimed that his opinion was shared by the leadership of the Dutch armed forces, mentioning the name "Hankman Berman", most probably referring to the then chief of the Dutch defence staff, Henk van den Breemen. Sheehan's remarks were officially condemned by the Dutch authorities and van den Breemen, with his remarks being dismissed as "disgraceful" and "total nonsense."
Dutch military homosexual rights organizations are now planning to start a class-action lawsuit in the USA against Sheehan.
This sparked quite some outrage in the Netherlands. We as a country generally feel guilty that the Dutchbat soldiers were unable to prevent the massacre, although it is generally accepted this was due to them being underequipped and with little time to prepare to handle the task and that NATO partners failed to provide support at crucial times and politicians were bickering while the situation escalated. Dutchbat was not suited to handle the task, which high military officers later tried to hide by destroying evidence (which sparked even more outrage at the time). The general consensus in the Netherlands is that we sent too few men, with too little equipment, with too little preparation. The soldiers were not capable of repelling a tank attack with their measly APC's and relative light firepower. The soldiers at the spot were not to blame, but rather the people who sent them there with not enough means to get the job done.
And now comes this American ex-general, claiming Dutchbat failed because we employ open homosexuals in our military? Talk about throwing salt in an open wound.
Former www.diablo2.com webmaster.
When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout.
When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout.