 |
posted by Scott on Wednesday October 02, @09:44AM
from the announcements dept.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve writes "Scott Haltzman and I will host this week's MANN chat, Wednesday night (10/2), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the usual location. The topic for this chat will be "War with Iraq: A Men's Activism Issue." They're in the news daily: war, Iraq, the draft, weapons of mass destruction, inspections, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. All of these points ignore--or at least understate--the simple reality. If the United States (and its allies) go to war, it will be men dying, and men killing men. We can debate foreign policy and national security until we are blue in the face, but a war with Iraq still means a lot of dead men. Join us at this week's MANN chat to discuss why the prospect of war in Iraq is an important men's issue. Invite some friends to the chat, too!"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am an honorably discharged Vietnam combat veteran. My father was an officer in the US Army Infantry during W.W. II as was one of his brothers. His other brother was a Pilot in the US Army Air Force during W.W. II.
With regard to the Iraq war, I believe that the rules of international law should be followed and that a "pre-emptive strike" is both unethical and illegal and and will promulgate aggressive war through out the world.
Both the USA and the UK, both of which have female majority electorates, are acting aggressively rather than in an assertive manner with regard to this issue in that they both show little respect for their own rights (illegal immigration is rampant in both countries) while disregarding the rights of other countries (aggressive actions against Iraq and other countries). The female culture is predominantly aggressive and not assertive in this regard as opposed to the male culture which tends to be assertive (respecting their own rights and the rights of others). As the electorate becomes more female, so does foreign policy become more aggressive rather than assertive. Please note the aggressive nature of feminism which through it's authoritarain nature shows little respect for individual rights while denigrating the rights of other groups.
The action of both the USA and the UK remind me a great deal of the unethical aggressive actions of enemy nations during W.W. I which justified aggressive war as a "pre-emptive" action. To Germany's credit, it strongly opposes this action as being an unethical and illegal aggressive action. Unless Iraq invades or attacks another nation, we have no right to invade the same for the purpose of over throwing the Iraqi government. Both the USA and the UK should act assertively to protect their own borders against illegal immigration rather than aggressively attacking foreign nations premptively in violation of international law.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve gone back and forth with myself on this issue for a long time, now, and every time I read something new, it causes me to re-think my position. I get sick to my stomach every time I hear the liberals whine (there’s that word again TC :-) about war, not because I’m a hawk (Vietnam-era term for those too young to recall it), but because I just don’t want to agree with them. I agree with cshaw that we’re making decisions like a feminized society, and that a country run by “real men” wouldn’t need to go off looking for justification for a pre-emptive strike. I’m trying to balance the notion of pre-empting Hussein versus taking the risk of finding that our only crystal clear indication of his arsenal is a mushroom cloud hovering over some American city. “Real men” know how to handle the bully on the playground, because the bully knows that if he messes with them (not the word I’d use in less polite company), he gets his ass kicked. Saddam Hussein knows he cannot attack us directly. He knows that the consequences of personally delivering a nuclear weapon to U.S. soil will result in the vitrification of some of his most favored real estate. But like the feminized society we are, we got the willies about dealing with the “underworld,” the pimps, the drug dealers, and the criminals from whom our once-vaunted intelligence agencies collected information and leaked dis-information. The result? The CIA now has manners, but is otherwise useless. “Real men” did not, and would not, shrink from this task, regardless of the stench, until the feminized U.S. Congress ordered them to. So “real men” would otherwise be able to cut off Saddam’s secondary means of delivery: terrorism. It’s clear to me, just from recalling the liberals’ hawkish rhetoric from 1998 that their motivations on stopping the beating drums of war are nothing more than politics. Ultimately, I do agree with them but I justify my position differently. We should not undertake this pre-emptive attack, and we should use ALL means at our disposal to assure that such an attack is not delivered by terrorism. Let's be real men and face this threat down with the cold and steely gaze that a bully cannot mistake for fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 02, @11:11PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I get sick to my stomach every time I hear the Liberals whine (there's that word again TC:-) )))"
Frank.
Very funny. (^_^)
siriously though, I couldn't agree with you more on how we should handle this thing with Hussien.
AND the very real problem of a "feminized" US. and UK.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I think we should plan a "convention" somewhere and all have a couple of beers together. Not sure I could get away from the family, but I like the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Thursday October 03, @11:33PM EST (#5)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we're using the plight of Iraqi women as a chivalrous, sexist excuse for a 'males-per-gallon war,' as Warren Farrel might put it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
