US MILITARY LAUNCHES COORDINATED STRIKES AGAINST AMERICAN TV HOST

True, all I have to go by are you words on this forum. Maybe what you said on here is not how you were as an officer.

They said their piece and moved on.

 

A few individuals did.

You really need to get a life, if you judge people by as little information as is available on this forum.

 

First it was simply a throw away line rolled in at the end if a sentence. Meant to show how unserious much of the top brass is about actual war fighting. Hopefully they aren't daft enough to send a woman seven months pregnant into combat in an f15 eagle in either position.

 

There are two aspects of leadership...mission accomplishment and troop welfare. To ignore either is a failure of leadership.

 

I do not really think it is my fault people post things about themselves that are not true. All I have to go by is what is posted here.

 

The military defended themselves. Carlson attacked them.

Conservatives get to me with this kind of thing. The military is making every effort to be scrupulously fair to every American who wants to serve this country which is exactly what they should be doing as an American institution, but that is not what conservatives want. Is there any way to make it any clearer that conservatives hate this country and everything it stands for?

And hasn't Carlson made that especially and abundantly clear in regard to himself? Every member of the military and every right-thinking American should boycott Fox and all their sponsors until he is dismissed.

 

Dysfunctional lives is why I don't listen to Progressives (other than in the 'staring at a car wreck' sense).

 

And that is precisely why they should not have responded. They are taking a political side.

I could not ask for better proof than your statement.

 

It is how you are applying it.

 

Oh really? So if you criticize them in any way you don't support them huh? Are you old enough to be one of those calling our guys coming home from war baby killers?

 

Well... we hope that he is more careful not to end his sentences with misogynistic remarks. Which, in the case of a bigot like Tucker Carlson, I doubt would be possible.

 

You do know that you don't have to respond to every single post that rebuts you, right? If you interpreted something wrong, you interpreted it wrong, and that's the end of that. Nobody is going to hold that against you. But people who think they can just grab a pre-canned response and throw it in end up looking... not only silly, but desperate.

 

Yes and sending a woman seven months pregnant into combat in an F15 eagle would show complete disregard for troop welfare and not just hers either.

 

Nothing misogynistic about it. Nor is he a bigot. Realist yes bigot no.

 

The whole issue is the need for accomodations. Women have no business in combat. It can be dangerous for other military personnel.

 

I interpreted nothing wrong and you could also stop posting when proven wrong as you have been in this instance.

 

Oh.... I see. Well, if you agree with the misogynistic sentiment, there is not much I can say. Can't help you there...

 

Putting women in combat adds costs and risks not required for a male only force. That is simply a fact.

 

Same response...

I just didn't realize that Tucker Carlson's defense was, not that his comments were not misogynistic, but that you actually agreed with them.

 

The "woke" people have a serious defect in thinking. They may think prohibiting diversity is wrong- but they also do think requiring diversity is right, AND takes diversity takes precedent over meritocracy.

I'm an investor, and a successful one. Investors regularly vote to retain or replace the officers of the companies they hold stock in. Personally, the first consideration of who should hold positions of control relates to performance. IF the person doesn't meet the test there- nothing else matters. If they do, it may depend on the equivalent options, but it never is determined one way or the other by diversity. Only fools who don't know how to manage anything think it should.

 

Where did I agree with him? I pointed out a fact. Do you claim that putting women in combat does not increase risk and costs?

 

Maybe a lot of the new more human world is 'Splained by so many absent baby daddies.

 

I'm sure Tucker Carlson believes that what he says is a fact too.

Women have as much a right to bear arms to protect the security of a free state as men do. Protecting people's rights is costly. So even bringing up that "it costs too much" to protect this right for women is misogynistic. It's as if you were to argue that training cops to not discriminate based on ethnic characteristics "costs too much".

Nothing more I can tell you about this...

 

Where did I say any of this?

You have not answered my very simple question. Do you claim that putting women in combat does not increase risk and costs?

 

I don't need any help.