We all know perfectly well that, after the Iraq debacle, the rest of the world doesn't trust the West. And quite rightly. As far as they're concerned, we're a bunch of bloodthirsty war-mongers that spin lies to justify the invasion of other countries. Some call us "Those who drink blood and oil" (which is so f**king poetic I'm going to have to plagiarise it at some point).
In light of that, you'd think the U.S. might, possibly, wait for U.N. collected evidence (seen by the rest of the world as impartial) to be analysed and presented, before trying to start World War 3?
The British PM was all ready to drag us along, but thankfully The House of Commons gave him a slap and asked "What the hell are you doing?!".
If action is going to be taken in that region, in this political climate, your case must be f**king bullet-proof!
WAIT FOR THE U.N.'s REPORT!!
If all is as claimed, Russia and China will be shamed into silence, and action can be taken without exacerbating tensions in the Middle East....
....and if it's not, the more vocal western politicians can kiss their careers goodbye.
Everyone else below them?--- Fuck'em.
The children cancer treatment funding?----fuck'em, too.
You're crediting the upper echelons with way too much nobility.
The general population may fight the good fight, but those that put them in harm's way only think War = Business = Money.
Need money? Find a war.
No war? Start one.
Well, I think Libertarians would definitely be a rousing about face from the cliff side. People who actually care about the first amendment, who don't water it down with disingenuous precepts like "hate speech", running the show would certainly be preferable.
Especially if they finally dismantle the religio-political industrial complex festering the courts, the houses, and the presidency's cabinet. More than half of our country is chucking their hard earned net worth at an unverifiable hypothesis; with preacher, pastors, rabbis and evangelists salivating at the chance to exploit and propagate ignorance. Much of it backwards and violent. Circumcision, for instance, is a human rights violation; and any rabbi who skins a baby boy alive--or any child, or any person without their permission--- should be peddling his desert fairy tales in cell block. Doctors should be arrested as well for circumcising without permission by the parents or the child.
As a libertarian, I believe in an America that observes what atheist james Maddison and deist Thomas Jefferson maintained to be necessary for the purity of religion and the continuity of the state: a strict and unflinching separation.
I mean, some lean left, some lean right. There are some who want to dismantle the Dept. of Education & leave education entirely up to the parents and/or homeschool programs. Some want to completely take away all social safety nets & forms of welfare.
Personally, I'm the sort of liberal that would thrive in Scandinavian countries. Big on civil & social freedoms, not so fond of bigotry, wage gaps, or letting the average citizen have access to rocket launchers.
A)rocket launchers are tits. Besides...how many...people, we'll say that---how many people have been killed by a civilian rocket launcher. Also I'm pretty certain RPG's are military grade weaponry off limits to civilians. In any case, you're clearly not aware of America's historically vindicated pragmatism when it comes to weapons: "when the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people...it's liberty." Sorry, you're talking to an Arizonian (conceal and carry state, bitch!): I don't have a problem with people owning military grade weapons. I have issues with people misusing those weapons; which is why I believe in mandated safety courses and certificates of authenticity, not just handing some bumpkin fuck a glock and hoping for the best.
B)You need public education of some kind--some nationally recognized template for knowledge--because otherwise any creationist yutze can teach kids that evolution will make their penis shrivel because God hates fags. Clearly a bad idea. Same thing with obscenity laws.
C)Those countries aren't as idyllic as you think. Many of them are highly misandristic. Like Sweden, that rates movies by gender equality; which it defines as two women talking about something other than a man or men: even though Princess Leia, Ripley, and Sarah Connor are basically the only women in those movies. Or how France that defines sexual harassment entirely by female opinion and can fine you up to 3,000 dollars plus jail time. Or England that literally is retrofitting female prisons, putting non-violent women in custodial communes (they're like penal gated communities)--all so they can fill these prisons with even MORE men. Even though men make up in 95% of the prisoners in the U.K.. Just like the U.S. Like most first world countries. In fact, on a global scale I've never seen a country that didn't go above 20% female convicts. Switzerland I've heard is a man-hater's meccah. They hhhhhate men there like most of Europe. Every European country I've seen is hyper feminized. To the point of critical mass. At least that regarding France, Sweden, U.K. and Switzerland. I still need to do more research.
I'm all for concealed carry, and for reasonable firearm ownership. Pistols, shotguns, single-shot & sport rifles - all good. Grenades, Claymore mines, high explosives? There is no reasonable justification for your average non-military citizen to own those (and the paranoid bunker-dwelling "we gotta rise up against the gub'ment" rhetoric doesn't fly here).
B) I agree that we need public education. Which is why I disagree with the people who think it should be entirely up to the parents, or - heaven forbid - the churches.
C) Have you actually been to those countries? "Highly misandristic"? If you're a MRA, maybe.
Neither I, nor any of my male friends, have had any problems in those countries. Are you getting your info from MGTOW or the Spearhead or something?
-Swedish cinemas: That was only put in place as of late 2013, and it's not even all cinemas. It's also done on a voluntary basis. Besides, there are plenty of films with women in active roles doing something other than talking about men; Hunger Games ring a bell? And they have to pass the Bechdel test, which has nothing to do with "talking about men." Romantic comedies can still pass the test. You misrepresent the actual facts.
-French sexual harassment laws: Funny, I can't find any sources backing up your claim here. I do know they repealed a former law for being too vague, and adopted a new one that - amongst other things - now protects transgender people. That doesn't seem to be "entirely by female opinion" to me.
-English Prisons: They are retrofitting prisons to accommodate violent male prisoners, who make up the vast majority of violent criminals in the UK? That actually sounds reasonable. I assume you're projecting some fiendish anti-male conspiracy to imprison men on the (mostly male) government of England here, though.
-Switzerland: A man-hater's mecca? Oh, for crying out loud... only if you define "man-hater" as "any woman that doesn't believe she should be subservient & inferior to all men." In fact, the only sources I could find for that claim are from sites like A Voice For Men, a well-known MRA (and misogynist) site that has been caught making things up in the past.
I don't think your definition of "hyper feminized" is the same as anyone else's - outside of male supremacist groups, that is.
In fact, your whole post comes off as a MRA/MGTOW rant. Maybe you should do more *unbiased* research.
B) define misogyny. In my experience people don't know the difference between misogyny and chauvinism. Misogyny is the fear and hatred of women, meaning language, gestures, actions or socio-political initiatives that threaten or terrorize specifically a woman or women based on their gender. Like "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them."
Chauvinism, however, is the assertion of cultural superiority, often in the case of sexism based on gender www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…. Feminists, I find (in my personal observance) are particularly dense about the difference. Sometimes compulsively equating misogyny with chauvinism.
*"Males were imprisoned at a rate 14 times higher than females(954 per 100,000 U.S. residents compared to 68 per 100,000 U.S. residents, respectively)." Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009-Statistical Tables, Heather C. West, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics
Adding up the total 1022 inmates, women only comprised .06% of the incarcerated.
Feminists fight against involuntary circumcision (though some men willingly undergo it later in life for personal reasons), and one COULD argue that the disparity in incarceration rates is a slight against men - except it comes from the patriarchal view that women are weaker, less dangerous, and less capable of committing crimes than men. (The fact that biological males are simply more likely to commit violent crimes is also a factor.)
B) "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" is no more a serious endorsement of violence against men than "ewww, girls are icky" is a serious statement on female STD rates. It's a playful mockery of childhood attitudes, not a threat against your manhood.
And you seem to imply that misogyny isn't prevalent, despite all the things you listed being prevalent in many cultures (including parts of the US).
Chauvinism often comes paired WITH misogyny (or misandry, which is less common but equally disgusting). Most MRAs, for instance, are both chauvinists and misogynists - just like most radfems are chauvinists & misandrists. Most feminists DO understand the difference, but the two attitudes are so often found hand-in-hand that it's easier to just list the one that's actually causing the most harm. "In my experience" is never followed by unbiased or statistically representative claims; for someone so determined to come off as being reasonable & intellectual about this, you should have known better.
AVFM, Spearhead & MGTOW are definitely chauvinistic AND misogynist, because they regularly express fear & hatred of women, as well as advocating socio-political initiatives (such as a law forcing women into submission & sexual slavery to men) and actions (rape apologetics being a favourite at those sites). Claiming otherwise is simply a case of ignorance of their forums, or outright dishonesty. I'm going to assume the former. After all, MRAs & MGTOWs are a rather fringe group, so one can't be expected to know where they congregate unless one actively seeks out that information.
You still haven't responded to any of my actual points, though. Shall I assume you're conceding those points, or are you still formulating a response?
Funny. Because female circumcision---which is applied to a region of anatomy with a mere 4,000 nerve endings compared to the average male's 80,000---has been conclusively classified as wildly, wildly abusive. And we've crucified any human rights violators who said otherwise with minimal litigious strain in a court of law. Provided the deformed party had a vagina. Yet baby boys are skinned alive en masse in this country with proven psychological trauma to show for it; with 96% of this procedures observed without anesthetic; and Christian, jews and muslims and even nondenominational spiritualists never so much as bate their eyes.
CNN reported on the study www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/cir… that was undergone to determine the exact pain circumcision entailed in numbed and unnumbed boys: the results were so mortifying that the experiment, a recent venture, was discontinued. The researchers were so convinced of the slobberingly obvious, the sheer cruelty of the experiment, they quit full stop. Let that sink in: the researchers were so disgusted by the apparent atrocity of the experiment that they stopped doing what's standard procedure in this country: to perform circumcision without anesthetic.
I have an article on the subject if you'd care to look plus a video featuring a circumcision of a child with a fuck ton of research by multiple medical journals www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zkKc… board.freedomainradio.com/topi…, proving conclusively there are no remarkable benefits to circumcision. it's a psychologically debilitating procedure, causes erectile dysfunction; and it's even been theorized to be one of the causes in men that crave violent, abusive sex. Because they're trying to get the same amount of sensation with a deformed member that requires more extreme stimuli. It's just common sense: mutilating a child is wrong. End of story. Replace the penis with a vagina and everyone knows it's wrong: this is deliberate amorality against boys.
This isn't a matter of opinion: this is raw common sense. Mutilating a child not even a day old---after posturing how sacred his life is; and that he's a pink squishy snowflake made by a benevolent god---by pinning him down and sawing a third of his penis off...it's torture. If Christians, Jews and Muslims want to be deformed downstairs by all means, saw away: but when you do something like that to a child...without their express permission...you are, in effect, committing the human rights equivalent of a war crime. For a procedure that doesn't even pertain to Christians; who are gentiles not children of Israeli adopting the covenant bestowed to Jacob. Christ never once, ever, in the new testament mandated circumcision. That's nowhere to be found (former priest here). European countries, predominately catholic, don't even observe this nonsense anymore. The mecca of a centuries old cult doesn't even require circumcision: what is the point continuing this senseless decision!? Where is the morality in mutilating a baby boy without his say in the matter? Could it be that if they didn't do mutilate him when the boy is helpless, when he could object, that he wouldn't do it? What are these religions afraid of? Freewill?
Mutilating of a helpless human being IS my business. And frankly your's as a decent human being.
Even still, they seem to have the level of common sense needed to figure this is going to be a disaster if it happens. At the very least, it'll tick off the mid-east. Worse (for the U.S) would be the Saudis deciding they'd like their coin in gold or the Euro. Only thing holding our dollar up at the moment is oil. Worse yet, would be Russia backing Syria, which would then put two large (yet both near broke) nations in a cozy proxy war. There is no way in hell that's going to end up in anyone's favor. Willl it end up like Fallout? No, but it doesn't have to.
- The UN isn't some all-knowing, trustworthy entity. I don't know how you believe that.
- Countries like Russia and China CANNOT be "shamed into silence" where did you even get that notion? You're acting like they have a conscience to begin with, and that Russia, if proven wrong on Syria's weapons, would gladly "step aside." Ridiculous.
So why is it important to wait for the UN's conclusion? Simple!
After decades of declaring constant wars of aggression in the region, *nobody trusts the US*.
I'm so happy for you, that you were elected official spokesperson regarding this matter of opinion.
Your mother must be very proud.
Well who would'a thunk it.
I, on the other hand, do have an answerer. Govern yourself, and let others do the same, understand?
They have every bit a much the right to govern themselves as you do, and the fact is, Syria never signed any international or domestic law outlawing chemical weapons.
Perhaps when, I don't know, the US actually manages to get rid of theirs, then you can talk. Until then, you have no ethical or legal right to invade other nations simply because they have different laws than yours.