|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Call me a sexist pig, but I think I would be rather disgusted to see a lot of women talking about the war - like as if they feared being drafted themselves, when as yet, they are still exempt from this. In other words, a woman talking about war comes off as something of a poseur. I know this is a bigoted attitude for me to take, as I know that there are many women who will serve voluntarily in the mission (even if they don't see combat), and a lot of mothers and daughters and wives and girlfriends who are genuinely worried about the fates of loved ones who will be ingested in this.
I'm not just biased against female commentators, though. I have a problem with anyone who - by virtue of age, gender and/or some other special qualification - is not too likely to find themselves in combat boots (voluntarily or otherwise) sermonizing on why "we" must go to war. If it were up to me, the only people interviewed about the war would be draft-eligible men, their families, the families of those already in the military, and the military personnel themselves.
Yes, I know there are holes in that plan - and I don't claim to be altogether correct or rational in my logic on this one. But, that would seem the most fair to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The military action by the United States and Great Britian against the Taliban has been characterized by ideologically feminist leftist media as an act of international terrorism against the innocent civilians of Afghanistan.
I've been pushing the buttons of several intellectials from the left by suggesting that opposition to the bombing of the Taliban, arguably the most sexist regime on the planet, is sexist. They can't resist responding, because in this conflict, unlike conflicts of the past, such as Vietnam, the moral boundaries were not so starkly drawn, and criticism from left was more persuasive. There is a real intellectual problem if one asserts that the United States is responsible for the cataclysmic events of 9/11 and then denies the U.S. the option of a military response, without arguing why matters of foreign policy and homeland defense could not be treated seperately, to mention one of many difficulties progressive intellectuals must address.
As an example of how intellectually unprepared the left is to handle the events of 9/11, I offer the following emotional response of an important left-wing intellectual to my questions (he didn't appreciate being called sexist for opposing the bombing of the Taliban, thereby lending support to a sexist regime):
You know, when some person lacking resources and knowledge says nuke em -- or some such thing -- it is far less despicable than when a person in
position to know what is going on says what you say below -- which is a mind boggling rationalization for murder of any scale at all. Some time down the road you are perhaps going to realize that you have taken a stance in favor of killing as many as millions of people...and I hope when that happens you will have the wherewithal to be horrified at yourself and transcend rather than be immobilized by your past choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The military action by the United States and Great Britian against the Taliban has been characterized by ideologically feminist leftist media as an act of international terrorism against the innocent civilians of Afghanistan.
I've been pushing the buttons of several intellectuals from the left by suggesting that opposition to the bombing of the Taliban, arguably the most sexist regime on the planet, is sexist. They can't resist responding; unlike many conflicts of the past, such as Vietnam, the moral boundaries were not so starkly drawn, and criticism from left was more persuasive. There is a real intellectual problem if one asserts that the United States is responsible for the cataclysmic events of 9/11 and then denies the U.S. the option of a military response, without arguing why matters of foreign policy and homeland defense could not be treated separately, to mention one of many difficulties progressive intellectuals must address.
As an example of how intellectually unprepared the left is to handle the events of 9/11, I offer the following emotional response of an important left-wing intellectual to my questions (he didn't appreciate being called sexist for opposing the bombing of the Taliban, thereby lending support to a sexist regime):
You know, when some person lacking resources and knowledge says nuke em -- or some such thing -- it is far less despicable than when a person in position to know what is going on says what you say below -- which is a mind boggling rationalization for murder of any scale at all. Some time down the road you are perhaps going to realize that you have taken a stance in favor of killing as many as millions of people...and I hope when that happens you will have the wherewithal to be horrified at yourself and transcend rather than be immobilized by your past choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 11, @03:14PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
In many other countries, the disabled and sick are treated as third-class citizens because they are physically unable to fulfill their "duty" as soldiers. They are denied essential human rights because they dared be born with a heart defect, or had the nerve to be hit by a drunk driver and end up in a wheelchair. They are seen as less than human.
IMO, this is part of the evil of the draft. Instead of seeing children as our children, we see them as little soldiers. We can't wait until they're old enough to grab a gun and start killing. We look forward to sending them to war because it's "glorious" to have what's left of them scraped off the ground and sent home in a bag (if there's even enough left to scrape off the ground).
Bin Laden claims America is too "soft" and won't accept casualties. If only he knew the truth. Not only will we accept casualties, we'll get angry if the body count isn't high enough.
We too see those ineligible for combat as less than human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you like the draft is irrelevant to the problem of the appropriate military response to homeland defense; it concerns how one might implement such a response, should military action be indicated. Some pacifists might not wish to entertain such thoughts, on the ground that they are abhorrent, but in my view, a disciplined intellectual must pursue arguments wherever they may lead, even if these are repugnant from certain perspectives.
I'd like to return to the thread by posing a question to ask women and feminist journalists and commentators who have apparently been excluded by the mainstream media from the spectrum of admissible opinion on the war: is gender equality worth fighting and dying for?
Is the answer, "yes, provided men do the fighting?" Or is the answer, "no, nothing justifies fighting and dying in combat, not even gender equality, thank you."
The question is relevant: many feminist intellectuals are opposing military action by the United States and Great Britian against the Taliban, characterizing it as an act of international terrorism against innocent Afghan civilians--the adjective Afghan is included to make the United States and Great Britian appear as racist as possible. Moreover, the "innocent civilians" are often women, whose lot they wish to improve, even if that means, in effect by opposing the bombing, lending support to what is arguably the most sexist regime on the planet.
Do they believe that war without "innocent civilian casualties" is possible or likely? If not, does that rule out a military response altogether? How do they weigh the value of gender equality by comparison with other freedoms? Is gender equality worth fighting and dying for? if the Taliban is destroyed, and some women are killed, but the survivors get their freedom from a sexist regime, is that worth it? The Taliban deliberately puts innocent civilians in harms way, by storing weapons of mass destruction in children's hospitals and in mosques. The price of liberty tragically includes the lives of innocent civilians. Is that a reason not to put an end to the most sexist regime on the planet?
The conflict in Afghanistan presents difficult ideological challenges for progressive intellectuals and feminists, among other thinkers. Let's hope that our thinking becomes more nuanced and sophisticated in the wake of the atrocity of two months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 12, @01:01PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about innocent civilians. I'm talking about draftees. Draftees are victims of government terrorism. The draft cannot be justified. Nothing is worth *drafting* unwilling, innocent people, women or men, and sending them to horrific deaths.
Irony. The government is launching a war on the terminally ill, claiming they do not have the right to commit suicide in a painless manner and end their suffering. Yet the same government is willing to force innocent people into involuntary suicide in an incredibly painful, horrific manner called the draft.
Have terminal cancer and want to end your pain? You're crazy!!! Get a draft notice and fight to save your life? That's crazy too!! ???????????
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
