|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 16, @09:38PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yea, the dead aren't talking. A minor oversight.
The feminists cry about the horrors that women and children face as a result of war. What the heck are the men doing having a picnic? I don't know too many men (who are doing their "duty") who would rather not be someplace else than on the front lines, when the horrors of war are reaping their harvest.
It must be nice to be a privileged matriarch within the feminist movement, where your biggest obligation is just running your big mouth. You tell it like it is Glenn. It is most often the poor common young men (boys) who get stuck doing the dirty work of war. Historically, if you were to stick a camera and microphone in the face of the common young man on the front line he'd probably say something like, "I'd rather be fishing, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."
Men have historically been the first to die, when the opportunists of every generation have sought to impose their will on other nations. It often seems that Homo Sapiens has shown his highest technological brilliance in his ability to effectively wage horrific wars. I'm not saying that wars may not at times be absolutely necessary, but given the long history of so many wars you gotta wonder if there might not be a better way of managing the limited resources and opportunities we are all given to share. There seems to be a major disconnect between the brilliant abilities we demonstrate and the horrible realities of war that we too often find ourselves in. I'm not faulting anyone nation, or party or person, I'm faulting us all, the whole brilliant and blundering species known as Homo Sapiens.
The better angels of our natures have never been "none too good" in disliking the terribleness of war. As we distance ourselves from the gut wrenching carnage of the front lines we soothe and protect our psyches so we may sanely allow the magnitude of the horror to escalate apocalyptically. As one of the commanders in the final action scene in "Platoon," said (as he ordered a strike in on his own overrun position), "It's a lovely F-----g war."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I served in the U.S. military in the U.S. Army Infantry in Vietnam. It appears to me that nations through out the world believe that young men, because of their gender, have a "duty" enforced by their governments to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their futures in military service for others unwilling and/or unable to serve in the military (women and others).
What is the duty of young men? The duty of young men is to question the same for many reasons. If the government fails to compensate the risks, hardships, and financial losses that occur while enriching those that do not have to fight (women and others), should military service be avoided? If the government enforcing military service is, itself, "the enemy of the people" or "the enemy of males", should military service be refused? If the war, itself, is unjust, should military service be avoided? These are questions, in my opinion, that both American and Iraqui young men should ask themselves.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @08:34AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I know that the soldiers on the Iraqi side must be very very scared.
Frankly I can't help but feel for them to some degree.
But the young men on BOTH sides will pay the price, if there is a war, because of the decision of one man, Sadam Hussien.
He has had the power to stop this the whole time, and has opted not to do so.
We should keep the young men, who are fighting on both sides of this battle in our prayers, IMO.
By the way.
Does anyone know if WOMEN are fighting on the front lines in this war?
On all the news out-lets they keep interviewing female soldier after female soldier. The impression is given that they (female soldiers) are going to be right up there with the men during combat.
Is this, indeed, the case...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing glorious, or noble to die in a war that you are forced to fight in. Our troops are all volunteer. As a veteran I support our troops, both male and female. The only thought that I give to the poor troops in Iraq is that when we move, we do so swiftly, concisely, and it is over quickly, thereby saving both sides from more loss. By the way, whenever females have served with men on the front lines as a matter of equality, there have been problems that were threatening to the success of the missions. For practical reasons I would not want my foxhole partner to be a woman. If it was my last day on earth, and I already knew it, then I would reconsider. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @04:18PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The very same phenomenom is happening this side of the Atlantic. Everytime a soldier is interviewed on UK TV it is a female 'soldier' being interviewed. The only male soldier that has appeared on TV is the American (can't remember his name) who will be commanding the British forces.
Female 'Soldiers' eh? No, I do not think for one second that these female 'soldiers' will be fighting on the front line. The only jobs these female 'soldiers' will be doing is Cooks and Blanket Stackers.
And by the way, I have noticed something else. Whenever the Press and the Media are referring to our armed forces they refer to them as "Service Men and 'Women'". Where this this come from?
14 million MEN lost their lives fighting in World War 1 alone and every year when remembrance Sunday is broadcast we are told to remember our Service Men and 'Women' who sacrificed their lives for our country. Who are these 'service women' who allegedly lost their lives fighting during the wars exactly?
Since when did women qualify for such consideration when throughout the Centuries it has been men and only men who have fought and sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The only contribution that women have made is to enjoy the benefits, priviledges and freedom that these great men have given them through their sacrifices and during the last few decades have betrayed the men who provided these priviledges that they currently enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @10:08PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
TC
That's a really good question.
1. I believe that some of them will be in the combat zone. (There was the one female that I know of who was killed in Afghanistan. Here supply plane crashed and killed her and 7 other men.)
2. I know some fighter jet pilots in the Navy are female.
3. I do not know of any females in front line infantry combat positions so someone correct me about that if I am wrong.
Ironically, a couple of months ago I was in Westwood/West L.A. (near UCLA)going East on Wilshire Blvd. On the side of one office bldg. was a huge mural (hundreds of feet tall and wide) of a soldier with an M-16 with a grenade launcher on it. You guessed it, the soldier was female. I did a double take, and then I just felt like puking. What an insult. Give me a break. When they pay their dues (if ever) in that role, then put up a mural, but not before.
To add further irony to this little story, right now there are hundreds of peace protesters in front of the Federal Bldg. on Wilshire Blvd. within eyesight of this mural. This is the exact place where I went to a couple of weeks ago on International Women’s Day with the truck sign that read, FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD LAWS. Yes, for International Women’s Day the Feminists were protesting the war in Iraq. They even advertised it through the taxpayer funded Women’s Studies program at my college. Getting back to the sign, I didn’t have any more room on that sign, (FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD LAWS), but I should have added, “They also make ridiculous murals.”
Do the Feminists hate Bush. Could be, they sent out an email on the school network promoting a rally protesting the war in Afghanistan. Get this, it was late Fall 2001 and they were still pulling the bodies out of the world trade center. They referred to that war in their email as Bush’s war. Feminist don’t support terrorist, they are terrorists.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at this exceptionally sick diatribe by the famous Dr. Helen Caldecott.
Some of my favorite statements from her harangue:
"What evolutionary situation necessitated that the killing reflex be located in the human (male’s) brain?"
I guess that proves it. When a woman commits murder, it's just something that came from the brain of a man or little boy.
"While women sat in caves breast-feeding and nurturing their young., the males quickly learned to protect their genes by aggression and killing."
The men, of course, weren't protecting women and children for whom they cared. They weren't "nurturing." They were just protecting their genes. (I didn't realize cave dwellers knew so much about genetic science.)
"I always found it interesting and terrifying that when a conquering army invades a country their first act is to rape the women."
That's right Bagdad. Hide your women. When we enter, we're gonna rape 'em all. No food and medicine for the populace from those evil males. Nope.
"when the scent of blood metaphorically enters the male nostril, it triggers the psychological imperative to kill – a primitive autonomic reflex located in the male midbrain."
Reminds me of my desire to eat, when the scent of a good meal metaphorically enters my nostrils. And this thing is respected by many people.
"So eager were they (young men during World War I) to participate in the noble act of killing that they lied about their age"
That's right, none of them were drafted. And none of them were willing to make sacrifices. Caldecott's tirade goes on and on.
It's truly a crackup that Devvy Whatsherface has no idea why men are becoming less inclined to defend women.
By the way, I've found the answer to the age old question:
"What do women want?"
"Hey, how 'bout those Mets?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @08:10PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Yeah, It's interesting, isn't it? that if men fight in war we are labled "brutal killers".
But if men DON'T fight in a war we are labled "cowards"...,
And just a side note, here.
with women like Caldecott, Devvy and other feminazi types, one can easily see the parallels between the early prejudice towards American-Indians and current prejudice against men.
American-Indians were, and often still are considered "brutal", "war-like", "murdrous", "savage", etc.
See the parallel?
Notice that in order to justify their prejudices, any given group will ALWAYS, with out exeption, lable the objects of their loathing with nearly if not the exact same discriptions.
Todays feminist and like-minded-woman is the same old song played on a different instrument.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @09:33PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"Notice that in order to justify their prejudices, any given group will ALWAYS, with out exeption, lable the objects of their loathing... ..."brutal", "war-like", "murdrous", "savage", etc."
This is an extremely accurate description of what feminists have routinely done to men to demonize them, coincidentally it is an extremely accurate description of a hate crime.
Perhaps if we reveal this truth often enough our politicians will eventually see what a flaming bunch of malicious fascists this un-American infestation is to our society. Someday the general public will despise this abusive group as much as the Klan or the Nazis.
The fact that we (male activists) already recognize and despise them for what they are gives us the dubious distinction of having precursory insight into the true nature of the Feminazis.
It's a million dollars worth of insight I've gotten through my experience as a victim at the hands of their deviltry. It's a million dollars worth of experience I wouldn't give a nickel to get again.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 18, @02:06PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
Yeah, I agree, we should draw these parellels for polaticians and others at every opportunity.
I beleive that if we do so even closed minded people won't be able to ignore the facts.
We should not only draw the parallels to the way Indians were\are treated, but also Blacks, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, Irish and others.
The fact that there isn't an ethnic or religious group that HASN'T been touched by bigotry makes our job that much easier.
Don't anyone be afraid to include Caucasian groups in the parallels, either. People tend to think that the only groups who have suffered discrimination are "people of color". History will show that this is not the case. Any one of Irish ancestory, for instance, KNOWS what their Irish fore-bearers indured. (I have Irish ancestory, myself.)
As I said, the instrument is different but the song is the same. What is happening to men is just as wrong as what happened to Women, Indians, Blacks, Jewish people, the Irish, and so forth. Once it is finaly "politicaly-incorrect" to hate men, beleive me when I tell you bigotry will find a new target.
It always dose.
And we will be going through this whole same stupid, senseless thing again.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
