More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.
The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016....
1517 wrote: Neil, We have battled it out in the past...
I enjoyed our discussion here, thanks.
One thing I never knew until recently about Prokoviev's "Peter & the Wolf": Peter is a Young Pioneer, a Bolshevik Boy Scout. Most performances (e.g. Disney) tend to leave this unstated. Oh well, it's still enjoyable, & politically incorrect today as well (hunting wolves & all).
Neil, We have battled it out in the past, but I am truly impressed with the gifts God has granted you and your willingness to share your, to me, extensive knowledge of these geo-political subjects. Will have to look up that soundtrack.
1517 wrote: Neil, To Stalin, do you think he fell for the treaty because of a more favorable outlook on the emerging National Socialists over and against the old German guard that was in power during WWI?
I don't think it was a matter of ideology. As late as 1938, the Soviet historical propaganda film Alexander Nevsky was very anti-German â€” Teutonic Knights were the Bad Guys (complete with helmets resembling the Stahlhelm) invading Mother Russia â€” so it's evident to me that Stalin changed official direction at least twice respecting Nazi Germany, out of pure expedience. Official xenophobia has always played well in Russia, even today.
One could also spin the history as Russian Orthodox versus Catholic Crusaders, which is more accurate. The Knights were mostly Estonian, not German.
1517 wrote: ...there was clear distinction in the minds of East Germans. I have wondered why Stalin would "join" the allies against Nazi Germany apart from Hitler pulling a Napoleon and attacking Russia.
Since Nat'l Socialism was a rival totalitarian ideology to Stalinism, it's no surprise E. Germans would ignore the similarities. Or at least, they were not allowed to think otherwise.
I think the Molotovâ€“Ribbentrop Treaty was pure expedience on Hitler's part, to keep the Russians at bay until W. Europe was reduced. The Germans had a history of playing diplomatic shell games with the Russians vs. France, e.g. Bismarck's Reinsurance Treaty. So it seems incredible that cynical Stalin could've been taken in by this.
Neil, Through my Western eyes the two ( Fascism and Marxist-Leninism) seem to be synonymous. But, I have a friend who grew up in East Germany and told me there was clear distinction in the minds of East Germans. I have wondered why Stalin would "join" the allies against Nazi Germany apart from Hitler pulling a Napoleon and attacking Russia.
1517 wrote: Neil, I found excerpts from a book ( Three New Deals by W. Schivelbusch) that quotes a Nazi newspaper
Thanks for passing this on. As Goldberg observed, "Fascism" is difficult to define, I think because it had no coherent philosophy other than to do whatever "works," in contrast to dogmatic Marxist-Leninism. One thing they did have in common was hostility to free-market capitalism, which they identified with England & America.
BTW, in postwar European politics, Christian Democracy means or conforms well to applied Catholic Social Teaching.
Neil, I found excerpts from a book ( Three New Deals by W. Schivelbusch) that quotes a Nazi newspaper delighting in "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies." Now that I read this, I may try to find a copy of this book.
1517 wrote: Neil, I have read Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" a few years ago. Maybe your Hitler reference was in that book.
I read it too, but want to know where Goldberg found the quote.
Politics makes strange bedfellows; both Socialists & old-school Repubs opposed imperialism, for different reasons; e.g. Thos. Brackett Reed (R-ME), the powerful House Speaker who left office over the Spanish-American War after McKinley relented to pressure for it.
I suspect not many Americans remember that our first Asian guerilla war, which got pretty ugly, was in the Phillipines after it was annexed by the US. We betrayed Filipino revolutionaries by excluding them from negotiations with Spain, just as we did with Cuba. With the latter especially, we reaped what we sowed.
Thanks 1517 and J4J for serving our country. To the rest, unless you have the intelligence given to our military leaders your opinion (and mine) is nothing more than mere speculation. We lost 3000 on our own soil for the pacifist views that are being expressed here. Even the liberal 911 commission acknowledged they were at war with us and we were not with them. Maybe you think it better to have our cities attacked.
Strat, I agree that stating that our military action is " maintaining America's freedom" is not really true. Likewise, in light of the free for all that is going on at the Mexican border, it does make you scratch your head and wonder "what is the point of DHS?" California is not enforcing any illegal alien laws and the DOJ is slack on federal laws. I am with you in those areas.
1517 wrote: Strat, That's your opinion, respect that, just disagree with your contemporary view of "war".
Well the fact that we are using up our best and brightest in foreign Wars for the stated yet false,fraudulent and easily disputed claim that it is a fight for Americans and their freedom is not just an opinion...perhaps you would dare to address the issue of the steady decline of the security of our borders,the constitution and the bill of rights in light of all of these crusades for life,liberty and the American way ? as well as the laughable oath taken to defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic....this is not the case,it screams out from the headlines everyday and is not just an opinion.
Neil, That is interesting. How much do you know about Wilson (Woodrow) or Teddy Roosevelt for that matter? I do have a book that covers the Progressive movement, but have not read it. What little I do know, the National Socialists in Germany were impressed with Wilson. Is that correct?
1517 wrote: Please help me with Progressive imperialism. That term gained my interest.
Very simply, I see a connection between the drift started by Progressives toward interventionist domestic policy, & the correspondent increase in overt influence overseas. Common denominator: a desire to control people's lives.
1517 wrote: Strat, Goodness man, take a breath. As a military veteran I do not diminish the lives of the fallen. My point in my statistics was to highlight the fact of what we call "war" pales in comparison to past wars. I found it interesting how the media would continually mention the number of the fallen as if it were a bloodbath , but neglect to mention the daily gun violence killings in our own country. Besides, those countries are falling apart highlights the importance of our going over there in the first place. There are those who are truly bloodthirsty and would see more of it lest they are restrained. What you call "pointless" significantly dismantled those who perpetrated the MURDERS of 3,000 people in one day from doing again.
Gun violence deaths have nothing to do with War casualties,neither one justifies or excuses the other and to compare the two for political purposes by either the media or the War industry is wrong
The comparison of one War to another to excuse that War is also wrong as is the tired worn out excuse of getting the bad guys,based on this logic America should be at this minute launching an attack against North Korea,Iran,Sudan etc etc,perpetual War and profits for the War industry..Eisenhower was right.