The Hegseth "incident."
-
Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.
-
Ouch, 89th…
-
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Oh bloody hell. My bad
Two points.
- Waving your Purple Heart in someone's face to discredit them is poor form.
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Random (not even really interesting) fact: When I was in Wash DC this past summer, stopped by Sen. Duckworth's office. She happened to be there and was on her way out. Talked for about 10 seconds. She is half Thai so I greeted her with "Swa dee ka" , and she was kind of surprised. LOL
-
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
-
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
@NobodySock said in The Hegseth "incident.":
I didn't like him until I saw his white supremecy tats on his chest. That makes him good people.
Yes, white supremacy is the highest danger the country now faces.
-
@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Oh bloody hell. My bad
Two points.
- Waving your Purple Heart in someone's face to discredit them is poor form.
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
- She proves, in a way, Hegseth's point. If she had been in a non-combatant role, she'd be walking down the halls of congress.
Not really because that argument is not specific to women. Almost any wounded vet wouldn’t have been wounded had they not been in combat roles.
Not following that one. If women were restricted to non-combat roles, their chances of getting limbs blown off go way down. Not saying it wouldn't happen with asymmetric warfare, since with drones, IEDs, etc., the rear areas are also subject to violence, but chances are much less.
-
Same with left handers, gingers, and guys named Todd.
Is that an argument for excluding them from combat roles?
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Same with left handers, gingers, and guys named Todd.
Is that an argument for excluding them from combat roles?
Hegseth argued "standards".
Here's an article from Military.com:
What he said is pretty much in line with his previous position... Lowering standards results in a less deadly and efficient military. If you follow this stuff much at all, you know what he's talking about...Infantry, Special Ops, maybe some Engineering battalions, Calvary (women can't crank tracks)etc. It doesn't preclude them from combat roles such as fighter or helicopter pilots, drone operators, or near combat roles such as medical or quartermaster units.
-
Standards also isn’t a reason to have no women in combat. It’s a reason to have far fewer.
At any rate ‘group x shouldn’t be in combat because memebers of group x could get injured’ works for all x, not just a subset.
-
Standards also isn’t a reason to have no women in combat. It’s a reason to have far fewer.
At any rate ‘group x shouldn’t be in combat because memebers of group x could get injured’ works for all x, not just a subset.
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Standards also isn’t a reason to have no women in combat. It’s a reason to have far fewer.
Good point. Israel, famously, has women in combat roles.
Raises the obvious question, have standards been lowered to allow more women in combat roles?
The other question is unspoken. When you put a bunch of 20-year-olds in a tight situation, there's assuredly hanky-panky going on. What does that do to combat morale when the hottie slept with Eddie, and not Kyle? And, to @jolly's point, implantable contraception is a non-starter.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Standards also isn’t a reason to have no women in combat. It’s a reason to have far fewer.
Good point. Israel, famously, has women in combat roles.
Raises the obvious question, have standards been lowered to allow more women in combat roles?
The other question is unspoken. When you put a bunch of 20-year-olds in a tight situation, there's assuredly hanky-panky going on. What does that do to combat morale when the hottie slept with Eddie, and not Kyle? And, to @jolly's point, implantable contraception is a non-starter.
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Good point. Israel, famously, has women in combat roles.
Go check and see how often they deploy them. Very seldom in truly hostile situations and almost never outside of the Israeli border. Even then, there are some stipulations...For instance (correct me if I'm wrong) females only serve in all female tank crews, not in mixed crews.
-
I think they should only let bona fide lesbians in combat with the guys. Problem solved.
