d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Pete Hegseth Quiting ?
Prev1234
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 21,958
Joined: Jun 14 2012
Gold: 331,454.58
Mar 24 2026 04:46pm
I'm sure he's solved his drinking image.

But he's not a good image for Trumps third term.
Member
Posts: 92,890
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 24 2026 05:42pm
Look two idiots that do not know how to read..
Legal Context: International humanitarian law, including the "Hague Convention of 1907", explicitly forbids declaring that "no quarter" will be given. Such a declaration is considered a war crime because it effectively orders the killing of anyone who attempts to surrender.

We are not the only country in the world that decides what a war crime is or is not..WTF are you two on about?? Pete is in a possition of power over our military... We charged Germans with war crimes besides Hitler ... So saying he cannot be charged with a war crime or stating "We are the only ones that make the law in the world is just a joke.. Two numnuts that just say might makes right.. lol what ever dudes


U don't read well
Member
Posts: 17,248
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 24 2026 06:27pm


ok when did i say he just broke International laws? When did I say he should be prosecuted by a International Criminal Court?

Hegseth is accused of ordering a second, "follow-up" strike on survivors of an initial U.S. military attack on a suspected drug-smuggling boat off the coast of Venezuela
Legal experts and lawmakers, including members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have scrutinized this as a potential war crime (killing individuals who are shipwrecked or no longer active combatants).


You said it here...

Look two idiots that do not know how to read..
Legal Context: International humanitarian law, including the "Hague Convention of 1907", explicitly forbids declaring that "no quarter" will be given. Such a declaration is considered a war crime because it effectively orders the killing of anyone who attempts to surrender.

We are not the only country in the world that decides what a war crime is or is not..WTF are you two on about?? Pete is in a possition of power over our military... We charged Germans with war crimes besides Hitler ... So saying he cannot be charged with a war crime or stating "We are the only ones that make the law in the world is just a joke.. Two numnuts that just say might makes right.. lol what ever dudes


And also here.

What do you call a war crime? Only American laws? the laws are made internationally ...What are you saying dude? I call a war crime a war crime... You are saying they are not war crimes? you lost me


You also said it in another post before these two lol.

If you want to change your argument to you think he violated American laws and should be tried under the American judicial system then I don't have a problem with that.

What you were saying was based on a faulty understanding though.
Member
Posts: 39,613
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Gold: 13.37
Mar 25 2026 12:19am
There is no failure in Iran. the US went in, mowed the lawn, changed the regime, what are you talking about? there is so much bullshit propaganda on the internet.
when you travel around the planet, twice in a 12 month period, bomb the shit out of a country, kill its leader, and go home.

thats winning. by any margin.

you know my views, but honestly, this whole notion of "iran winning" is such bullshit. its iran "surviving" "weathering the storm" not "winning". I only hope when the dust settles we get 2 earthquakes in Iran's mountains at some point over the next 2 years and they declare that they are now a nuclear power with 20+ nukes and successful nuclear testing under their belts.. that will put an end to this bomb schoolgirls shit.


Honestly, you’re not wrong about the framing. “Winning” is a loaded word, and in these situations, it usually doesn’t fit anyone.

The US went in, delivered a massive blow, took out leadership, and demonstrated it can project power at will- that’s not nothing. On the other side, Iran absorbed it, showed it can keep its system intact, and is still standing. But calling that “winning” feels like spin either way. It’s more like mutual endurance- both sides took damage, both side got to claim something for their domestic audience, but no one walked away truly ahead.

And if the dust does settle with Iran crossing the nuclear threshold? That wouldn’t be a win either. It’d be a whole new layer of instability- not an ending, just the beginning of an even more dangerous phase.

At the end of the day, these aren’t wins. They’re trades- lives, stability, and long-term security- for short-term points on a scoreboard that doesn’t matter to the people who actually pay the price.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1234
Add Reply New Topic New Poll