• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

USA news & politics

Funny enough this is one of the cases where he is probably right, there very little defence by the department of defence. It's one of those things nobody wants to admit.
You don't have to respond to an attack for if it be defence. You can defend your values and allies abroad. You can defend the vulnerable and people who can't defend themselves.

Sure, I get what you mean and everything but I don't think it's in keeping with what we're (the west) are meant to be about
 
Yeah true about the department of defence. I was more thinking about the iconic Pentagon being rebranded as the article states but perhaps it's name will remain.

Maybe it will inspire the IDF into a similar rebrand.
To be fair the IDF are pretty much an exclusively defence force. If there was no IDF they’d be not a single Jew left in the Middle East.
 
Wasn't it all changed post WW2? Before that every government had a minister for War and a War department
Yeah, it was WW2 that changed the branding. But I wouldn’t say just branding as that makes it sound disingenuous when I think there was a real desire after 2 horrific world wars in under half a century did kind of make us think, you know what, this total war stuff is kind of ****.
 
Your playing dumb, and pretending like i didnt tell you in the original comment that I didnt read past the sensible overview statements, and asked if I needed to read on:

"Do I need to read on beyond the sensible statements at top of the page?"

You can twist that all you like, but its these childish little games, and mirtruths that have me struggling to take what you say too seriously. Your trying so hard to win, your not looking for truth.

If you wanted me to read something specific, in regards to criticism of RFK, you wouldnt post a link where the 'round up' were comments we probably all agree with, and then faux outrage when I ask if I need to read the rest based on the overview being sensibly crafted answers to questions.

Just be honest and specific.
This is the biggest load of projection you've done. Your last line in particular, very pot calling kettle black.
 
You don't have to respond to an attack for if it be defence. You can defend your values and allies abroad. You can defend the vulnerable and people who can't defend themselves.

Sure, I get what you mean and everything but I don't think it's in keeping with what we're (the west) are meant to be about
That may be true but that's certainly not how the USA armed forces have been used for a long time.
 
That may be true but that's certainly not how the USA armed forces have been used for a long time.
Yeah fair, and I agree, though they would say they're "defending their interests"

Which is probably oil a lot of the time but I also think, call me naive, that it's also been for moral reasons as well.

But I would be quibbling with you to be honest. Vietnam wasn't defensive and the plethora of Middle Eastern conflicts weren’t either. I guess Afghanistan was fair game with 9/11 but Iraq obviously less so.
 

Interesting read
The powers of the presidency (and the weakening of the party they're in) have been increasing for years. Big changes every time a new president wants to do things differently to their predecessor may be baked in here.
 

Gee, I wonder why? 🤔
/s
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top