What's new

America Is 'Committing Suicide' By Allowing Transgenders in the Military (Russian TV News)

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
America Is 'Committing Suicide' By Allowing Transgenders in the Military (Russian TV News)

Russia's #1 anchor explains the Russian view on women, homosexuals, and transgenders in the military. Russia thinks the USA is nuts.

Dmitry Kiselyov
1,262 Comments



It's no secret that the official US foreign policy has been sodomite promotion for years.

Now, instead of doing something productive, like spending their ridiculously high defense budget on taking care of veterans and their families, the US Military has decided they would be better served by a sodomite squad.

Apparently, they really need that high defense budget for sex change operations...gives a whole new meaning to the term "special operations".

In this video exposé on our YouTube Channel, Russia's top news Anchor reveals just how far Sodom-and-Gomorrah-on-the-Potomac have fallen. (Full transcript provided below the video)

Kiselyov is always interesting because of his carefully crafted and scripted monologues. You can see a full archive of them on RI here.

Full Transcript:

Russia's Top Anchor Kiselyov:

Recently, a soldier of the U.S. Army underwent a sex reassignment surgery. The Pentagon issued a special statement on the matter which was aired by NBC. Importantly, the surgery was paid for from the U.S. military budget. Since the service member had already voluntarily started the transitioning before, his doctor was able to make the final decision before the operation—do the cut.

And the head of the DoD's Military Health System approved it as a government program.

But the U.S. Army experience in field surgery wasn't enough for it. It's not the same as stitching up a wound or extracting shrapnel. So the newest development in military medicine took place in a specially selected private clinic. After this disgrace, army docs might try to get back in the game and open special departments for service members who want to transition. It is, after all, a matter of combat fitness and thus also of national security. And how could you possibly ensure it when the soldier can only think of his wrong sex. But once he becomes a transgender woman, then things will start looking up.

Still, it's not like there's unanimity on the issue in the U.S. U.S. President Donald Trump, who is also the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, issued a decree in summer to ban transgender people from joining U.S. Army.

Trump's tweet: "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

But the District Court for Washington blocked this ban end of October, so transgender people keep enlisting and the army itself is now paying for sex reassignment surgeries. A precedent has been made. Different estimates put the total number of transgender people in the U.S. Army at several thousand. The actual combat fitness of these soldiers is yet to be determined. There haven't been any studies so far. Apparently, it wouldn't be politically correct.

And political correctness is more important than national security.

Need proof? The United States allows women to serve in combat units, including army special forces, or the Green Berets, the Marine Corps, the SEALs, or the Blue Berets, and even submarines. And that's even though co-ed units don't perform in the field as well as men-only units, as is confirmed by numerous studies.

But refusing women in their desire to join male teams is even scarier. Its discrimination after all.

At the same time, actual violence against service women is almost a norm. A famous documentary by American director Kirby Dick “The Invisible War” claims that 1 in 4 military women has been raped, and not in the way described by some Hollywood actresses, "He touched me from behind," but rather aggressively. However horrible this is, the problem is an old one. What's new is yet another extreme.

Wednesday brought news of the American Parliament introducing mandatory training for the congressmen, staff and even interns. The objective is to stop lawmakers from sexually harassing others. Refusing to do it is not an option. At the end of the training, participants receive certificates.

So we can now expect congressmen to decorate their offices with diplomas showing their excellence in chastity classes. But what do they teach in these classes? The importance of not catcalling after women. Clicking tongue and snapping fingers is also not allowed. Sighs should be drawn with care, as if they are not about the woman. And to look at the woman, you need to cast down your eyes, never staring at her directly, let alone undressing her with your gaze.

If you're explaining something at the computer, standing behind her chair, you should keep a respectful distance. And god forbid you lean in! Touching is a whole subject of its own with many sections. The same goes for joking. Clumsy, suggestive, witty, silly jokes and obviously those with medical imagery are absolutely off limits. Before undoing any button, either yours or hers, give it a really good second thought.

A huge section deals with the legal consequences of all this.

Meanwhile, Hollywood is bubbling with new sex scandals. This time, accusations are being thrown at Sylvester Stallone. Last century, he and his bodyguards allegedly raped a 16-year-old girl. The actor is denying that and calling the accusations absurd.

Actually, all these stories have a certain civilization filling. It's an explosive mixture of political correctness, hypocrisy, tolerance, consumerism and an expanded understanding of freedom. Liberation of the body, from liberalizing recreational drug use to sexualizing everything, from fashion and cinema to architecture and even food, let alone musical culture. Madonna alone is more than enough. Or Lady Gaga. Or Beyonce. Or Mariah Carey. Or TV series. From Sex in the City to another major hit Californication, where everything revolves around drugs, fornicating and alcohol. Or take Masters of Sex where a scientist is studying human sexual reactions. One sex scene after another.

No wonder that the mind dissociates when, on one hand, there's a taboo, but, on the other hand, all floodgates are open. The whole concept of love has been reduced by mass commercial culture to just sex. Complete replacement. That's how we got the expression 'make love'. And the thing that used to be called love before is now falling into oblivion.

Radical feminism started with fighting for equal rights for women but has since moved further—to domination of all things male which are made to look almost disgusting.

Women's equality is now also at its limits.

First, they tried to prove that women are just like men but then it turned out that the same medicine affects them differently and their sicknesses are also different. Statistically, men are more prone to cardiovascular diseases while women are more likely to get Alzheimer's. But there are other differences too. Differences between sexes have been found even in the brain.

The physiological structure of the brain can be more masculine or more feminine. Usually, that corresponds to sex. The quantitative studies were done, for example, by Daphna Joel from the Tel Aviv University. And talking about equal rights— in Russia, we are not against them but our understanding is different. The period of vulgar equality when women drive tractors is over.

Today, the ideal is more along the lines of harmony between the two sexes.

And everyone has the same right to live at their full potential, men and women alike. Of course, we need to ensure the rights of minorities. But without overdoing it and oppressing the majority. And the--let's call them-- natural advantages of each sex shouldn't be ignored. Meanwhile, the U.S. is swinging from one extreme to another. And by doing so, it imposes its new ideals onto the entire planet, always finding someone who does it a different way, an incorrect way, not the American way.

And now even the way the Russian president sits in his chair is wrong and Russia itself doesn't behave well.

Nothing but reproaches from them. Supposedly, it was us who meddled with the American democracy, as well as with Catalonia and Brexit— we really can do it all. To be honest, it's all the same for us. We know that Russia is simply standing in the way of an American project. And they refuse to understand why Russia doesn't want to give itself up and surrender to the U.S.

If an American soldier can change his sex, Russia should change too—it's not a big deal.

The Russians point at traditions, history, character, culture, common sense. But who cares! The time is new and everything is new. But I'd like to believe that this line of thinking simply isn’t true. If I’m right, Sergey Shoygu is not going to pay for soldiers getting sex reassignment surgery. And in general, let the Americans commit suicide if they wish.

What do we have to do with it?

http://russia-insider.com/en/americ...transgenders-military-russian-tv-news/ri21772
 
A. that is a doctored Pic
B. The Russians are afraid of a beaten down from transgenders :D
 
LOL. Russians are master trolls. Look at all the western butt hurts on the thread. :lol:
 
transgenero-forcas-armadas-700x500.jpg

:bad::bad::bad:


US army , when it comes to moral corruption , is comparable to ISIS terrorists. Rape and any kinds of sexual problems are reported from American soldiers. As every sane guy testifies that USA was the main creator and supporter of ISIS terrorists, we can conclude that American army is the great version of ISIS, most of their soldiers think that democracy can be spread through rape and violation of human rights.

@TaiShang

Daily-mail reports :
American women veterans in a recent report have presented new accounts of the depth of sexual corruption in the US military.
2028806.jpg

According to Daily Mail, a nonprofit organization in the United States that has been working to promote the lives of American veterans has reported an increase in homelessness and mental harm among female veterans of the Army.
While women currently account for eight percent of the total US Army veterans and 14.6 percent of the army's active forces, the figure is expected to increase to 16 percent by 2035.
Accordingly, the "National Coalition of Homeless Veterans" reports that number of homeless veterans has grown from 1380 in 2006 to 3328 in 2010.
The organization has also published images from this group of women, and their writings, once served on the armed forces of the United States, they will have no home when they finish their military service.
"National Coalition of Homeless Veterans" says that many of these women express the influential narratives of sexual assaults on women in the US Army by male colleagues and their superiors.
Lori Horse, who worked in the US Army Air Force as a mechanic for the B-31 bomber, said that she had been raped by one of her contacts, but ignored her complaints.
Many other homeless women interviewed in this report have provided similar narratives. They refrain from setting up a formal complaint form for their rights because of the lack of consideration of their complaints or the avoidance of mischief.
Sarah Jackins finished serving at the US Marines. She is also one of those who have been raped in the army.
Jackins is currently homeless and lives with the food provided by the National Foundation for Veterans.
The following pictures are about women veterans in the US Army, who are now homeless and live on the streets.
1396060116450853117357310.jpg

1396060116453637117357410.jpg

13960601164558944117357510.jpg

13960601164325881117356910.jpg

13960601164227177117356710.jpg

13960601164119349117356610.jpg

13960601164052130117356510.jpg

13960601164001365117356310.jpg

13960601163929161117356210.jpg

13960601163842286117356110.jpg

1396060116381599117356010.jpg


DAILY MAIL
 

I guess the picture reflects the ongoing (developing) reality.

They are only allowing it now? I thought that whistleblower Manning was a tranny

I think they have been allowing for a long while now. And I do not see anything wrong with that. I do not know why the Russian (and some UK) media got worked up on it. But hey, it is media wars, and rhetoric matters. Mockery is a strong tool being used for a long time by the US media.

Why not give them similar treatment :partay:?

The US Army has reduced the standards for recruitment, including people with a history of drug abuse (and I do not consider recruiting transgenders as lowering standards for US army).

Perhaps they have some more urgent problems.

***

Basic US Military Problem: Most Expensive Does Not Equal Best

In numerous areas US weapon systems just don't measure up, despite being the most expensive solution available

Andrei Akulov

Thu, Nov 30, 2017


LCS and the F-35 are just two of the duds

Boosting military spending was one of President Trump’s major campaign pledges. The fiscal 2018 defense spending bill introduced by a joint House-Senate conference committee allows $692 billion, including $626 billion in base budget spending and $66 billion more for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund.

There are other security related expenses of other agencies, which exceed $170 billion. They include the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the State Department, the Homeland Security, the FBI, and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice.

Defense spending accounts for almost 16 percent of all federal spending and roughly half of discretionary spending. The United States spends more on national defense than the next eight biggest national defense budgets in the world combined, including China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan.

The discussions on the need for hikes in military spending are a popular issue. It’s widely believed that the United States is the most formidable military power the world has ever seen. No doubt, America’s military might is great but the armed forces are not faultless. The build-up plans hit many snags on the way. There are weak points serious enough to put into doubt the effectiveness of the current defense programs and combat readiness of the military, be it a nuclear or a conventional war.

Some experts say a US first strike would knock out most of the capability of a Russian counter second strike, with a limited number of nuclear missiles launched by Russia in retaliation blocked by ballistic missile defense. It’s not worth going into details.

Even if ground-based missiles in silos and strategic nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) moored at bases are knocked out, Russia’s SSBNs and strategic bombers on patrol will retaliate, inflicting unacceptable damage. The risk is always there and it’s unthinkable. Nobody in their right mind would try it.

Indeed, there is some threat posed by sea- and air-based long-range cruise missiles and B-2 stealth bombers. But “some” is unacceptable for a first strike. If the enemy retains the capability to inflict unacceptable damage in a retaliatory strike, a limited capability to strike him first is useless. Besides, the speed of the delivery means is relatively slow and timely detection is impossible to avoid.

Much ballyhoo is raised about the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept – the ability to deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour. No such weapon is on the horizon despite all the efforts applied so far. With much smaller defense spending, Russia is leading the race. "Boost glide" hypersonic weapon technology presupposes the use of ballistic missiles or bombers, which will be detected. The PGS delivered by glide vehicles will be warned about to provoke a nuclear retaliation. The US will actually commit a suicide by striking Russia with conventional weapons to trigger a nuclear response.

The first conventional prompt strike missile for the United States Navy was tested on Oct.30. The US Navy started to explore a submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile (SLIRBM) to fulfill the PGS Mission around 2003. It makes it the first trial in 13 years! And the delivery means was a ballistic missile. It is confirmed by the words by Cmdr. Patrick Evans, the Pentagon spokesperson, who said, “The test collected data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test-range performance for long-range atmospheric flight.” So, the technology is boost flight.

The move away from ballistic missile-based weapon and toward hypersonic capabilities along a cruise trajectory from the very start to avoid an adversary mistaking a conventional ballistic missile for a nuclear one is still a pipe dream. There is nothing tested so far. The PGS concept is not what could make Russia kneel. Striking groups of terrorists with very expensive and sophisticated weapons is crazy; they have no assets worth wasting such cutting-edge expensive weapons. What about the principle of cost-effectiveness? Anyway, with much effort applied, the PGS program offers little to be proud of, at least for now.

Congress has appropriated roughly $190 billion for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs between fiscal years 1985 and 2017. For nearly two decades, the US has sought to acquire the capability to protect it against limited long-range missile strikes. Some achievements have been evidently exaggerated. Some very limited capability against unsophisticated missiles is in place but it has no relation to countering Russia’s or China’s arsenal. Actually, nothing has come to fruition to talk about real BMD capability seriously.

YAL-1 airborne laser is an example of a costly effort going down the drain. The $5-billion airborne laser is in the boneyard.

MRAP (mine resistant ambush protected) is another example of boondoggle. The nearly $50 billion investment in MRAPs appears to make no sense. The heavily-protected vehicles were no more effective at reducing casualties than the medium armored vehicles being three times as expensive. Many MRAP vehicles have been given to partner forces or sold for scrap.

Stryker is the backbone of the Army. After so many years in service, it still lacks firepower and protection. 90 Strykers were lost in Afghanistan, where the enemy had no armor vehicles, aviation, artillery or effective anti-tank weapons. The vehicle has thin skin. A Stryker is useless against a tank. It is not designed to maneuver against other combat vehicles and is doomed to be outgunned by the enemy. It has no air defense protection. What it is good for is an unanswered question.

The US Army is poorly protected from air threats. THAAD is good only for missile defense, not air defense. Patriot PAC-3 is destined to counter tactical ballistic and cruise missiles. It has very limited capability against aircraft. Aircraft-capable PAC-1 and PAC-2 are either upgraded to the PAC-3 variant or sold abroad. There is nothing left but short-range shoulder-fired portable Stingers, with a range of 8 km and a maximum altitude of 4 km. This is a very serious drawback to make the troops extremely vulnerable to airstrikes.

The Navy’s littoral combat ship (LCS) is a class of relatively small surface vessels intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore). It was destined to function as an agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals.

Last month, Austal and Lockheed Martin shipbuilders were awarded more than $1.1 billion combined to build two littoral combat ships. The development and construction of this vessel class is plagued by cost overruns. LCSs have been plagued by numerous problems, including structure cracks, computer system failures, generator meltdowns, burst pipes, propulsions problems, and potentially disastrous communication errors. And to boot, naval officials are skeptical that they will do well in combat.

Last year, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain criticized the program, saying that as much as $12.4 billion has been wasted by the US Department of Defense for 26 littoral combat ships with no practical combat capability. According to the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore, neither of the two LCS variants now being built by competing contractors is expected to be survivable in combat, a fact that undermines the whole concept of operations for the ship class.

It is unlikely that the LCS would ultimately be able to meet the Navy's air defense requirements. The ship is equipped to perform one primary mission at any given time. The poorly-armed and sensor-deprived LCS sacrifices a great deal for its high speed, including range and, arguably, damage resistance. It’s not clear why the Navy should need this ship. European corvettes and frigates are less costly and more capable.

F-35 is to become the backbone of US Air Force and Navy. It's supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – missions. Launched in 2001, the program is the most error ridden project in the history of the United States military. Nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements.

President Trump lambasted the program in February. The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is roughly twice what was promised early on. Marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane to guarantee air supremacy, it's turned out to be none of those things. The planes currently aren't able to fly in bad weather or at night, and none have been used in combat.

With so much money and time spent, it’s too late to cancel the program or insert significant changes into it. The Pentagon has declared the F-35 “too big to fail.” According to CNBC, “The F-35 has come to symbolize all that's wrong with American defense spending: uncontrolled bloat, unaccountable manufacturers (in this case, Lockheed Martin), and an internal Pentagon culture that cannot adequately track taxpayer dollars.”

Mandy Smithberger of the Straus Military Reform Project believes that “A lot of the waste is coming from mismanagement and concurrency in major acquisition programs like the F-35 and the LCS.” The aircraft carrier Gerald Ford cost $13 billion to produce. It is two years behind schedule and — according to the Pentagon’s top weapon tester — can’t fight. It has trouble with air traffic control, moving munitions, ship defense and launching and landing aircraft.

A Government Accountability Office report noted that the combination of cost problems, engineering obstacles, and untested technology systems was alarming and should be addressed by Congress. Some experts have also pointed out that in an age of long-range and heavy-yield precision missiles, aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete (but still incredibly expensive) strategic assets.

Waste in the Pentagon has soared to new heights. The 2016 report by the Defense Department’s Inspector General found the Army made $2.8 trillion worth of wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. The service lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.

According to War is Boring, “US Special Operations Command spent millions on tiny drones it knew didn’t work, the Department of Veterans Affairs misspent $6 billion using purchase cards meant for small transactions and the Army is desperately trying to hire someone to install, repair and inspect playground equipment at Pentagon schools across Europe”.

Add to it the scandals over purported $100 hammers, $300 toilet seats, and $16 muffins. The spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants is everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story.

Despite being the leader in military spending, the US military has very serious shortcomings. It is mired in problems. Military planning deficiencies greatly reduce combat capabilities. Cost-effectiveness is a big problem. Being the most expensive does not automatically make the US military the best.

Source: Journal of Strategic Culture
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom