Once upon a time real conservatives thought his character and behavior were disqualifying, too.
Words have meaning.
So they can resupply, rinse and repeat. A surrender is required.
Why do you feel like there’s some world where radical Muslims suddenly realize they’re in the modern world and become rational actors?
Don't recall you teaching anything, you are like your idol (solved the birthed issue) remember all the evidence the shocking things they found? Of course not reality hurts.
Guess why we call it Kaliningrad and not Konigsberg?
There is ample historical precedent for the western free world doing this in necessary situations in the 20th century. It was endorsed in 1945 by the entire free and unfree world.
Soon as you stop being one will stop using it.
It has been done, if you are using Potsdam as a template, it was when we had very little choice. We had just finished the worst war in European history,were about to finish a devastating war in the pacific. The national will to continue the war for any reason other then national survival was nil.There is ample historical precedent for the western free world doing this in necessary situations in the 20th century. It was endorsed in 1945 by the entire free and unfree world.
I know you cultural relativists like to live in fantasy land, but in the real world these things have been done, with the agreement of the free world, and done relatively humanely.
Potsdam Agreement - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I will say your plan is AWESOME. I will also politically impossible. The equivalent in lives relative to population between the united states and Isreal would be ...I forget the numbers but tens of thousands of hostages and 120000 dead.
The western world did not endorse the Rwandan genocide in any way. That was a civil war, not an international conflict.
I never did i think I have been very clear in my opinion of Islamic terrorism
Sure it did, we knew it was happening we could have intervened and we did nothing. We just let it happen. If the civil war had not been won by the tutsi the killing would have lasted more then 100 days..
apnews.com
apnews.com
Don’t want to open a whole can of worms here but if anybody hasn’t, you should watch the whole 2 hour episode Hegseth on Shawn Ryan. It’s enlightening from his views on the VA, agendas in the military, and a much more complete discussion of women in the military, with the take home message of not changing standards to ensure women are billeted in combat roles. Puts the one liner of not wanting women in combat into perspective a bit.It's a good thing Hegseth has stated what he believes women's roles in the military should be so we can clear this up:
“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7 2024.
Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.
In his book, he said women have performed well in dangerous support roles during war, but “women in the infantry — women in combat on purpose — is another story.” He adds, “women cannot physically meet the same standards as men.”
He said, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
Hegseth's views on women in combat, infidelity and more — in his own words
Pete Hegseth has tried to convince members of the Senate Armed Services Committee he should be the next secretary of defense.
Here's a look at the number of women in military combat roles
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been outspoken about his opinion that women shouldn't serve in combat roles.
His later comments do not reassure me of a changed man.
He's right. Are there any men that actually disagree with this? Real men not those chai latte-sipping ball less soy boys.
Well he pretty much makes that same argument as well. To him its about maintaining the same standard to do the job, and not making it an agenda. Give it a watch.
Yes. Provided they meet the standard. There are a handful of female special operators that have done that, and they have earned their place. Regarding other combat arms, there can’t be two sets of standards, you can do the job or you can’t.
When I served my concern over who served with me was non existent. It did not effect my desire to serve.in any way. What the hell is he talking about?
I've got some anecdotal pseudo data to share, and an opinion.It's a good thing Hegseth has stated what he believes women's roles in the military should be so we can clear this up:
“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7 2024.
Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.
In his book, he said women have performed well in dangerous support roles during war, but “women in the infantry — women in combat on purpose — is another story.” He adds, “women cannot physically meet the same standards as men.”
He said, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
Hegseth's views on women in combat, infidelity and more — in his own words
Pete Hegseth has tried to convince members of the Senate Armed Services Committee he should be the next secretary of defense.
Here's a look at the number of women in military combat roles
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been outspoken about his opinion that women shouldn't serve in combat roles.
His later comments do not reassure me of a changed man.
My point is, I don't think you have any insight into what someone outside your bubble thinks and you are close minded to any opinion that does not match your belief. I would venture to guess you have not spent any time around anyone from any of those states, especially the rural areas. I am in an unrelated portion of the country in an urban area and I still hear the jokes consistently with the guys in a skirt and the other memes that have been generated surrounding the idiocy that prevails in the leadership of the military as they try to appeal to the woke agenda. It's like Bud Light trying to appeal to the trans population. It backfired in a huge way and their shareholders paid the price for it. There are many who will never drink another of their products again.
Three rules for getting involved in someone else's civil war :
Totally fair, even I didn't walk away 100% happy with everything he said, and there is A LOT of controversy in his comments. Let's all be honest, are there better pics, absolutely. Personally, I don't see anything in him that is 100% disqualifying and as with all Trump pics, sadly I guess I'll take it.
I never served but I am close with many who did. I guess my takeaway from this is that you seem very empowered to speak with authority on any topic, even ones you admit you know nothing about. Yet you seem to imply a knowledge on the topic that is not present. Having not served, I also cannot speak intelligently about the military other than to tell you that, based upon the many soldiers I have encountered, I don't think you have insight into what military service entails, the physically demanding aspects of it, or how a typical soldier views their job or life. I think I am going to have to go with what pgg, DocMcCoy, Pete Hegseth, or others who have served have to say on the subject.
readsludge.com
Lol
Purely a move to control the narrative. Vast majority of those under 35 are getting news from tik tok. Government can't control everything that's on there. Anti israel things, the bin laden letter, etc.How do people feel about the USA TikTok ban? I get it national security. But it’s not like the us govt isn’t spying on us anyways. Facebook is notorious as well.
Somehow I think both facebook and google (with YouTube) are involved in this matter. Both USA companies.
It’s like United healthcare in the ears of the Federal Trade commission lady about usap Colorado with TikTok posing a Great completion to the revenue of Facebook and absolutely destroying YouTube content these days
The attention span of Americans get less and less. Vine didn’t take off like Tik tok.
So I think national security is a secondary excuse to the real excuse. Money.
Meta, YouTube, and Others Morgan Stanley Says Could Benefit From TikTok Ban
With a TikTok ban potentially set to take effect in the U.S. on Sunday, other social media platforms could compete for its users’ attention, analysts at Morgan Stanley said.www.investopedia.com
“A new disclosure reveals Instagram owner Meta spent more than ever on lobbing Congress and the White House as legislation to potentially ban its competitor, TikTok, was drawn up and passed”
Meta Shatters Lobbying Record as House Passes TikTok Ban
A new disclosure reveals Instagram owner Meta spent more than ever on lobbing Congress and the White House as legislation to potentially ban its competitor, TikTok, was drawn up and passed.
