Random Politics & Religion #27

Does she think your tractor's sexy, too?

don't sell yourself short... you survived five mass extinctions, countless wars, the black plague and 150,000 years of human stupidity to get to right now....

you've got the moves kid

Met my wife while pining for like three other girls who are now, while still very nice people, both mothers of no fewer than 4 children.

Dodged a bullet there, let me tell ya.

So yeah. Listen to the old man.

Dammit.

Rooks edit.

Dude, what?

[Mod Edit: Fixed. - AnnaMolly]

Kinda a P&R question, I guess. A few weeks back, I was watching videos about Humvees and one that was recommended was of soldiers driving through Baghdad, bumping cars that wouldn't get out of the way until they did.

Firstly, the reason they did this was to stay on the move in enemy territory, you don't exactly stop when it could mean an ambush.

This video got me thinking, I like to think most cops have their head on straight enough to not be as nuts as MSM portrays them but you know there will always be that one cop trying to be a hardass. It's usually rookies, eager to use their new authority from most stories I've heard.

Anyway, my question is.. if a cop in a foreign country tries to pull over and arrest a soldier using strategies like this, what happens? Is the cop treated as an enemy combatant?

It's my understanding that soldiers do often get arrested but these are off duty in a secured city and are usually arrested for acting inappropriately but not on-duty.

So, what happens? Does the cop immediately become outgunned and taken captive, treated as an enemy combatant and immediately forced to surrender or be killed?

Uh, I don't think there are any cops in active combat zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria (to a much lesser extent), which are really the only prominent places we are actively engaged right now. Our soldiers don't drive around civilian populaces in Hummers loaded for bear, 99% of our guys aren't armed when they are on liberty. The only guys that have weapons traditionally are the MPs, who usually work hand in hand with the local police force.

But the answer to your last question is absolutely not. No.

So, say we went to war with and occupied North Korea for some reason... Local police would work with MPs and have actual authority over soldiers? That seems kinda dangerous.

We were armed every time we left the FOB, did not matter where we were going. Iraq had a semi-dismantled police force. Many of them just did not care enough and would basically just walk around ignoring everyone. We had translators with us and a couple of times police tried to stop us and we just had our guy basically tell them to move or we will run you over. This was in 2003 or 2004ish. Cops in war zones I would think basically do not do much but tell you they are police and run things in that particular province, at least the ones I saw didn't.

Being one of the older people on here, the stories I could tell about the Army. ugh

This pretty much answers my question. They are basically just disregarded as authority figures in such cases, I take it.

They were by us thats for sure. They tried to stop us from going places but it never worked out.

Didn't we actually train an entirely new Baghdadi police force or was that Iraqi military?

Can someone translate this for me ?

Depends on the country, if it's the middle east in a war torn country with a high level of terrorist activity, then everyone outside the camp is treated as a potential enemy combatant.

Outside of that, the US normally has an agreement with a host nation known as a SOFA. That agreement spells out the relationship between the US military and the host nations own military and police forces including the protocols for interacting with each other.

This is what I mean by not knowing how the modern dating scene and relationship dynamics work.

Everything all three of you said no longer applies and is a recipe for failure. Modern educational institutes teach young women that their goals should be to "enjoy life" while their younger, and to "settle down" later. What this translates into is partying and having great sexual adventures with hot dudes when their under 30's and then later finding some guy with a stable job to "settle down" with.

The problem with this is that humans don't work this way, our expectations go up but can never go down. Once she's had the rockstar sex with that super hot Australian dude she met that the club, it's very hard for her to find value in the balding overweight office worker. And because she did have sexual adventures with that hot dude, she will forever think that hot dude is what she "deserves" and now her standards were raised.

We evolved by females homo-sapiens competing with each other to attract the sexual attention of the top 20% male homo-sapiens and the males competing with each other to be in that top 20%. Genetic evidence has demonstrated that females procreated at an average ratio of 5 to 1, that's five females successfully passing on their genetics for every one male. In times of great strife or resource scarcity that ratio jumps up to ~12 to one. That is human genetic history for hundreds of thousands of years because it also includes proto-humans.

What we have today is modern feminism dismantling "The Patriarchy" which was a set of social standards designed to mitigate this unrestrained dynamic of sexual competition and create the family unit which is the building block of our society. Without that system in place there is no reason for a 18~28 year old women to not *** every hot guy she can, and nothing to stop the dudes from striving to be the ones getting *** by the girls. So that's exactly what happens, girls *** around while their in those younger years, maybe pop out a few kids, and then once they hit 30+ and the hot dudes pass on them for hotter chicks, they "settle down" with someone they wouldn't even give the time of day to.

Separate post cause last one was getting too long.

For those thinking that I'm in that later category, you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm saying this stuff from the position of being the hot dude the girls were trying to ***. I've seen and done it all because I was the dude the engaged or married chicks would cheat with on the side. I'm that guy that they would give a call when they finished their boring date and come up for some fun before they left at one am.

These girls would tell me how great their boyfriends were, all that romantic soulmate ***, and then we'd have sex and they'd go back to that "soulmate" boyfriend. It got the point where it's super predictable and nothing is original.

Anyhow that was all before I married my wife, whom I only married after she demonstrated a strong character and unquestionable loyalty.

Pffbbtbttt hahahaha... Oh the entertainment value

See that is the problem you are reading !

Looks like Lawrence O Donnel is having a Bill O Reilly moment:

Basically the grievance over women impinging on the same sexual bravado men have gotten away with since recorded history began and how this violates the natural order of some ***-flinging hominid hierarchy.