100% of the political commentary coming from Dems. Nada from the Republicans. All of them are descending into the morass of profiting from blood of innocent Americans.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/03/sean-hannity-from-las-vegas-to-puerto-rico-media-plays-politics-to-hurt-president-trump.html

What do I care if someone decides not to bake a cake? That's up to the baker.

Several left-leaning states have said it's not up to the baker, it's up to the consumer, and that the baker had to bake a cake, or no cake baking at all. Further, they've enforced it with a ban on the baker earning a living.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-take-case-on-baker-who-refused-to-sell-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/2017/06/26/0c2f8606-0cde-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.270d1358cdf9

Your supposed indifference rings hollow.

If we have a 100% effective defensive weapon we should just start intercepting these things.

Respectfully disagree. Our defensive capability right now is shrouded in secrecy. Part of the probing of the NK effort is to discover, and evaluate our response capability. Better we let them lob their missiles into the sea than to reveal the ability the US has to intercept and/or destroy.

Most of us recall 'star wars' from the Reagan admin when we developed what the Soviets thought was an iron shield against their strategic weapons(it was not). I can tell you without giving up secrets that our capability in that area has gone forward with great effect. There have been setbacks, and there have been mistakes made, but overall our ability to intercept and destroy in the boost phase is much much better than it was. In the late 90s we were tracking and destroying SCUDs at a decent rate(~82%? IIRC). Since then, the targeting, and acquisition has improved dramatically. Particularly if we can get an airborne asset with a big radome on top within 400NM.

Long ago, I was lucky enough to be stationed with the ROK Marines in the norther part of the country. They are a tough, dedicated and well equipped force which will fight to the last man keeping NK from breaching the border. It was my opinion that they were always on what we would call 'alert 1' status. They trained as if the NK soldiers were massing at the border(in some cases, they were).

the US has moved some B-ONE(the Bone) assets from TX, and SD closer to NK around Japan, and also southern SK. The Bone is a strategic asset without parallel in the air. Its unrefueled combat radius includes all the bases we have in Japan, meaning it can load up, take off, fly right over NK, deliver the ordinance, and fly home without ever talking, or meeting with anyone along the way. Carrying int/ext 125k Lbs in ONE sortie, and getting on station within about an hour from Japan, a continuous mounted aviation operation would destroy much of NK within a few hours. BTW, this is only the strategic bombing capability, not including the fighter, and other assets in SK.

Of course, off-shore assets also have a role to play, but I know very little about the Naval side of the equation. Suffice to say, we would own the air, and own the sea, and SK would own the land part(we would help).

Most of the sabre rattling from NK is for internal consumption. It's a simple form of taunting to see what they can get away with, and what we will disclose about our capability. It would be very short work if the US decided to actually remove the military from NK. I suspect that Kim would flee at the first sign of aggression into China, and that China would harbor him and family for as long as it takes. Strategic thinking beyond destruction of the military is at the whim of whomever is the US prez, but at this point, I would almost surely think that Trump would re-unify the Koreas under a banner of parliamentary republicanism, much like the SK already have. Our assets in SK are fantastic, and they would get stronger with a takeover of NK. China would scream and wail, and shake their fist, but ultimately - they would take it up the ass, because we are the source of ~60% of the GDP. Messing with the output from Chinese factory would be devastating to their economy, and political power base.

Edit to add: The response from the US wound NEVER go nuclear, even if they used a nuclear first strike.

Edit; I said that the Bone was moved from MT, and I missed the correct state of SD. Ellsworth AFB. Apologies

That's my story, and I"m sticking to it.

According to folks hereabouts, if the fucking BLM, 99%er, Black Panther come marching into my neighborhood and I go out and yell at them, I'm just as bad as them.  According to folks here I have to meekly stay in my house and let BLM members, Black Panthers, Black and Islamic supremacists and bigots of all stripes do whatever they please wherever they want.

FIFY

These statues have been up over a hundred years in many cases.  Why now do they have to be torn down?  Why are they so threatening to the left, and the media?  Did Lee, or maybe Stonewall Jackson get down off their horses, and start looting like the BLM in Baltimore?

Maybe if the statues offend you, don't look at it when you drive, or walk by?   

Fear. The unstoppable march to the left has been interrupted by Trump. Anything that could potentially be a rallying point, or focus of conservatism must be crushed.

Anger. When you lose, it's common to get angry about the loss of power, and lash out at those who win. Including their statues.

Hate. They can't face the fact that their lives are miserable, and someone else is 'making it'. Success without progressive thought cannot be allowed to flourish, so they hate, and stamp out any signs of a reduction in the sad, and tortured movement to the left.

I'm confident that you are a "meet or exceed minimum standards" (which is what I said) kind of guy. This is what we ask of all members of the military. Some just barely meet it. Others rise far above it. But we would be unable to evaluate and wash out when appropriate without setting a minimum standard.

With deference to the fact that you served and I didn't, your anecdotes have not convinced me that adding women to combat forces is a detriment.

Your confidence is misplaced. As for service, I don't dismiss your POV just because of our difference in background. Anyway, it never mattered what I wrote, you have your position, badly mistaken as it is, nothing is going to sway you from it. Progressivism will be advanced, sacrifices will be made, and as long as you aren't doing the sacrificing, it's all good.

I guess I would first ask whether you have sources for some of these assertions whether this is your anecdotal evidence?

Already asked and answered. If I wanted to supplement my self-evidence based thoughts I guess I could, but a story will be better. Grab an armchair.

As a wee lad teen I found myself in the green uni with black boots, at a dusty spot in central TX with about 40 other just like me. Except, 4 were not just like me, they were of the female variety. As a new group usually does, we intermix into cliques with similar backgrounds and tastes, and generally made 'friends'. I was rather put-off that the four females kind of gathered together as a united front against the remaining male candidates, so I took an offensive position and barged into one of their coffee klatches. As we got to chatting, it turned out THEY had similar off-puttedness thinking that the males were excluding them, and making their own exclusive cliques without them in it. There was some truth to that, but being that I liked women, and I was perpetually horny as a teen, I saw it as my duty to, ahem - 'storm the beachhead'.

We progressed as all cadets do into training and as was typical we had washouts. About 20-25% of each group would wash out along the way for various reasons. We had a 'probation list' published each Tue which listed those who were not up to Military Standards, and I was on the list pretty regular. One of the women I befriended was a lot like me. We even had the same birthdate, however she was 2 years old than me. She also had some college behind her, and I barely had a few credits. Anyway, we both were somewhat bereft of military theory, but hey - we could fly, and we could shoot. We both got called in to the commander one day for a particularly lousy scores on some exam having to do with enfilade, or defilade, or mortar placement, or BS regurgitation from the Jr Officer Guide to Effective Use of Company Firepower. After the butt-chewing, he asked if either of us had anything to say. And she spoke words that could just as easily come out of my mouth, but she got to it first: "Sir - with all due respect, when it comes down to it, and you need some ordinance delivered, who do you want on the stick? Us, or Jeremy?" Now, this begs the question - who was Jeremy?

As I said, we had our washouts. Then we had a couple in the class who couldn't be washed out, and couldn't quite get the hang of things, and was all around a wothless POS, but no one knew what to do with them. Jeremy had already screwed up several times and several ways, just enough to stay in the program, but his pilotage, was horrible. He was sent back to a later flight several times, and always managed to work his way back to us, and he was the whipping boy for everyone. In spite of his giant head(his nickname was headly), he wasn't smart, he wasn't clever, he wasn't skilled, and he wasn't friendly. How he never washed out no one could understand, but what Becky said was sure as hell accurate. Our commander had no good comeback for that, and shooed us out of there with a warning that 'next time, your flight and training scores won't save you'. It was a hollow threat. We could bag it, and phone in the Military Theory from the Jr Officer Guide to Advancement Against a Fixed Position, as long as we could do the stick and rudder. And boy, could she fly! I soloed #5 in the class and she soloed #2(the 1 guy had civilian pilot experience). She was like a little machine behind the stick, it was - poetic.

We became fast friends, always platonic, but as we got to the end, I could see the differences emerging in our style, and outlook. Of course, the military always prided those who were aggressive, and always gung-ho. She was neither of these things. Two of the four women washed out, but one of them was allowed to join a class behind us, and eventually got through.  Jeremy actually graduated, and went on to kill himself in a track vehicle about 3 years later. I have no idea what he was doing in a tracked vehicle, and where he got it, but there's some scuttlebutt he was helped under the tracks. Which is not a bad thing overall, because we all knew eventually he would wind up killing someone else, or himself and a group, or some other massive suffering. Becks told be about him in a letter as we were separated in different units.

Becks was a fine asset to every command she was in. She and I left the service a few months apart, and she's gone on to a great career in finance. We were so much the same, but so completely different at the same time. Similar attitudes, aptitudes, outlook, ideals, and history, but her approach to doing our job was completely different. Not better, not worse, not superior, not inferior, just with a different way of doing things.

Much later in my career, I worked for a women for about 9 years. She was a fine supervisor, she had some great ideas, and we got along famously. But - she did things just,,, different than how a man would do things. These two long term associations plus knowing a fair amount about the opposite gender provided the insight into what I described as differentiation by gender(or bio-chemistry), and how it shapes combat situations. We can't have indecision, socratic branch theory, and/or questioning authority in combat. This goes way back to Ghengis Khan, and possibly before. I would say it's part of genetic coding bias from male to female, but I don't know. I am sure that an army with women in combat roles would not be as effective unless they were in senior positions. But - getting to a senior combat command, requires that one go through jr combat first. Because there are surely unwritten lessons(a plan of battle never survives first contact with the enemy) that need to be experienced before senior command is reached.