The L Word
Love is a silly thing and also a major loss of Man Points to discuss. I, however, am going to have to shed those Man Points today as I drop the L-bomb.
Don’t worry about my Man Points though. I gained several thousand this week by drinking a beer into which some careless, anorexic, fatass shrew had discarded a cigarette.
Then I slipped her a free MenAreBetterThanWomen.com card and my Man Points lit up like a slot machine.
Christmas is getting closer, and that means expensive gifts are being purchased all across the land. That also means that a million women are about to fall in love; a love of jewelry and bath products and other lame bullshit upon which women base their lives and also credit for the foundations of a good relationship. Merry fucking Christmas.
Women are lousy at being at in love.
To a man, being in love is a lot like getting a promotion. Sure it’s exciting and it has the potential to improve your quality of life, but it requires at all times that we men behave with discretion and self respect. For example, you don’t see a man running out of his boss’ office and spiking a stapler or striping his shirt off, do you? No of course not. That would be completely classless. Perhaps buying a round of drinks or two for his friends. Now that would be a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Men look at love in exactly the same way. Something has happened which is good for the moment — in the present context, and now I will have to adopt my lifestyle in some way. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t; we’ll have to wait and roll with the punches. Surprise, surprise, women are exactly the opposite.
To a woman, being in love is a license to behave like a fucking lunatic. Firstly, women do not love other people — men, women, children, it’s all the same. Women love only things and it’s obviously true because they obsess like fuck about their precious trinkets every chance they get. That’s what women call love. It’s a self-love that’s also called avarice and greed, and because they don’t actually feel anything like the love that men feel, women behave like crazy people to fill in the gaps.
Women in love are like the mad inventor who never had the time to start a family of his own. He was probably too busy inventing time machines and T-shirt cannons and helicopters that ran on sunflower seeds. To compensate the scientist naturally builds weird robot replicas of families or other such things. Like Edward Scissorhands, that’s a good example. The guy didn’t have hands, so what did he use instead? Scissors. That’s the manner of shit women perpetrate when they want to be in love or think they should be. They just pull a bunch of emotions out of their ass and mix it up in a big gumbo of delusion.
“My boyfriend’s sixty pounds overweight but boy does he have a perfect ass!”
Yea, that makes about sixty pounds of sense.
Talk to a woman about love and she’ll go on for hours with all kinds of similar nonsense sayings and bullshit aphorisms. Women are like fucking car salesmen with the shit — all selling themselves the same used junk. Take my word for it if you want to do the manly thing and not ruin your evening by listening to a bunch of whining. The point is that women spend most of their time thinking about being in love. They think about it so fucking much that by the time it comes around for the first or fiftieth time, they’ve trained themselves to react like cult members or kung fu masters. Every signal and reaction is automatic, and from the barroom to the bedroom they’re on autopilot; just soaking in the adulation and shelling out the storybook shill.
Women debase themselves regularly for love. The love of not being wrong and not having to admit the fantasy upon which they’ve built their self-worth just isn’t going to work because it’s impossible and stupid.
The first step to being in love is growing the fuck up.
Related Articles:
December 9th, 2005 at 4:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05876c7260a2f
Did you have a bad date, dick?
Shall I give you my understanding of love? Oh, wait, I already did that yesterday. You’ll probably think my definition is completely immature, much like George did.
Considering that it was all about selflessness and men know nothing than pure ego selfishness, I don’t expect you to interpret it as “mature.” But then, your also the one who advocates masturbating in the work place, so you must be right. Not that I think all men are like you, that would be an overwhelming generalization.
Love is a tricky beast. Very difficult not to confuse it with lust. I tend to agree with Freud’s interpretation that the “in love” state is an overblown idealization, comparable to being in a psychotic state. It’s so unfortunate that when you idealize someone’s average traits, you also tend to do the reverse and deidealize their other average traits that for whatever reason, just don’t sit well with you.
This is a very timely topic you have written on and I am glad to see it. I know you couldn’t care less to know this but I have just fallen out of being “in love.” I feel a lot better for it. Yay!!!
December 9th, 2005 at 8:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
No one cares who you tend to agree with, Female. You’re a woman.
-Dick
December 10th, 2005 at 11:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: eeffcc3f4c66e
WTF is this Female person offering you love. You don’t need none of that sheyt, because you can write brilliant sheyt as the following.
Damn, every time I come here and read, I forget to surround the chair with pillows, as I always fall off it laughing uncontrolably.
The Geezer
http://www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
http://www.thespinmeister.blogspot.com
December 10th, 2005 at 11:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7b3045c12f605
There is no way on this earth that I would EVER be offering love to the misogynist who runs this site. I was referring to a post I made in response to some asshole called George, a day or two ago. George thought he was a manly man because he could tell his girlfriend that if she didn’t moddycoddle him 24/7, then he’d be kicking her sorry ass out. I tried to straighten things out for George by giving him a lesson in Love 101. Naturally, the beast didn’t understand, but who cares, that’s his problem. I hope he can’t have children.
December 11th, 2005 at 4:22 am - IP Man-Hash: aa524eb129acd
This female bitch is getting nastier and nastier day by day and I really think she should be banned from this site. She has already done more than enough in proving how nasty, illogical and hate-driven women can be and there is nothing else she can do to contribute to this site, as she obviously lacks the ability to make even one single argument based on evidence and logic. All she does to prove that her ideas are based on reason is to claim they are, but she understands no better about reason than a parrot does. Besides, she has started to make the site terribly boring.
December 11th, 2005 at 5:11 am - IP Man-Hash: 7b3045c12f605
Explain this to me genius, what post would you have contributed in replace of the one you just had, had I never come across this site? There was nothing else in your post, besides your opinion of me. No opinion on dick’s story, no ideas you might have about why you think men are better than women, no interesting stories about your own personal experiences with the other sex, no news item relevant to the premise of this site, not even a comment on whether you enjoyed Dick’s story. How boring. Not to mention the fact that the aforementioned absences totally contradict your request. If I’m boring, you’re already in a coma.
December 11th, 2005 at 5:55 am - IP Man-Hash: e5de997fd2a02
I think Ozgur gotcher sore spot female :)
December 11th, 2005 at 12:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
No, I merely told the truth. The following are facts:
1. There is no such thing as equality.
2. One party or the other always contributes more to a relationship. This may change sides from time to time, but typically does not.
3. All relationships have economic disparity. This leads to such things as alimony (funny, when man may be awarded alimony the women are up in arms-see Nick Lachey. But they feel a sisterhood, an entitlement when it comes to one of their own gender, which is typical bullshit!). Since I am the only financial contributor in my relationship and (men are the primary financial conributor in most relationships) have the responsibilities, liabilities and requisite accountability that it entails then I am entitled to speical privelages and consideration, if I am adult enough to require it. Anything which does not support my career goals and objectives I remove, this includes meddlesome and interferring women. If a woman does not have the simple intelligence to understand enlightened self interest (and most don’t or have cuchholded their men to the point where they have no confidence in their career or lead lives of quiet desperation) and aid in the common good of making herself more secure by assisting her mate/partner/husband/boyfriend etc, then she has become a liability to be removed. If a woman is not making my life and career better, yet she benefits from my efforts, then why is she there? No reason. Therefore, she would be gone. You see the symptoms of their stupidity in divorce, which serves only to enrich attorneys and to harm the woman financially, when they attack the men’s careers by harassing them at their workplace, interferring with their work, and doing other malicious acts designed to harm him financially all the while failing to realize that it will harm themselves as well. This is all to common.
4. Men don’t need or want women as friends. We have plenty of friends in other men. Some women want to be one of the guys, but they never can be. There is always that subtle undercurrent which underscores and emphasizes the vast differences. Only gay men have women as friends, since they don’t want to fuck them. That is fine.
Thus, if a woman isn’t helping me there is no reason to have her in a relationship. I don’t need a pet. I don’t need a rattlesnake. I really don’t need a woman, but if one is going to be around then be of some service and support or get lost. Relationships are about enlightened self interest, not about selflessness (that is when you have children, selflessness) or altruism. They don’t exist in relationships between men and women, and shouldn’t. Don’t act like they do. If you benefit from my work and income you will be of assistance or you will be gone. Simple. Why is that so hard to understand. Also, a man should never marry without prenuptial agreement protecting his income, assets and career earnings.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
To Femail: PS, I have 2 sons whom I have sole physical and legal custody of. Spent the requisite funds on legal fees to remove their meddlesome mother from their life. I don’t deny her access but she is typical of women in divorce as she tried to deny me access to my sons and harassed me. Once I was done with her I put her into bankruptcy and she owes we 6 years of child support which I can use to have her thrown in jail if she gives me any grief again. I have told my sons to be very careful in their selection of girlfriends, that if they feel compelled to marry to only do it if they intend to have children and to wait until after they are 35 to do it and to get a prenuptial agreement. I have told them to always use condoms and to assume that the other party isn’t on birth control, even if they say they are. I never bad mouth their mother or say rude things about her (How many women do you know that don’t as most do badmouth and harass their childrens fathers.) Had I to do it over again, I would never have married. I make too much money and have too much to lose. The laws favor women and contribute to an environment encouraging them to make false claims of abuse, to use children as a chattel/property to bargain with their x-husband, and to do other things which taken in the whole are unethical, immoral and to the detriment of children and their own situation. You want equality, get your wallet out. Money is the great equalizer and creates a level playing field. Act consistent with your position or shut the fuck up.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f3b6c4052622
i agree whole heartedly with everything george just said and good job for sticking it to your ex, i would have put her in jail though
December 11th, 2005 at 1:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Good post, George. “enlightened self interest” is the key phrase that you use twice. A great many women sadly do not remotely grasp that concept.
-wolfe.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f3b6c4052622
by the way female just because god gave you a vagina and no self respect does not mean you have the right to be angry at the power wielding sex
December 11th, 2005 at 4:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
Putting my x in jail would not have served any purpose, unless she continued harassing me and doing things that would be considered irrational and/or illegal. I wanted the advantage to incarcerate her for non-payment as a means to insure her unwilling total compliance and subordinance since working through diplomatic means had failed miserably due to her inability to be reasonable or meeting anyone half-way to do what was best for the children. Once she dug herself a hole I merely shoveled the dirt back on her to keep her in a box and to leave me alone. Now, if she steps out of line you can be assured I will fuck her up beyond all reason since she also committed bankruptcy fraud and I am sure the US Attorney would love to address that matter criminally as well. I am like any other predator. Leave me alone and all is fine. Harass me at your own peril.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:09 am - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
No, I think I’ve grasped it. I’m not hanging around to let trolls like UGP annoy me. Just came by to say that if anyone has seen footage of the race riots between people of anglo saxon appearance and people of middle eastern appearance that took place at Cronulla beach yesterday, most Australians are sickened by it and ashamed. I think this proves my point that mandatory culling of all prejudiced people is necessary, regardless of their cultural background.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:14 am - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
George, I’m glad I was able to provoke you into a decent response. It seems that most men who are attracted to this site are bitter with women due to having experienced a difficult divorce. Fair enough you are angry. Just don’t forget LOVE 101 or you’ll end up throwing away someone better, when next she comes around.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:06 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
Prejudiced people should be culled?
Female, you’re beyond parody.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
No, not angry. I was pragmatic, practical and cold blooded. I was disappointed that someone could not be selfless with their children. I was disappointed that I had to to spend $250,000 on legal fees to bury her. I was disappointed that she lacked the common sense to be somewhat reasonable but she acted typical of most women in a divorce when they are the party who either: 1) engages in PAS and then faces losing custody due to their own foolish actions, and 2) intentionally make things worse rather than resolve issues. Divorce is merely a business deal gone bad. I am not mad at “women”. I merely see them for what they are, a potential danger to my career. If I was mad at women I would not be in a relationship with one. You are a sad person whose blindness and absolutist position is indefensible.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:13 am - IP Man-Hash: 801d8edb201cf
George 99 percent of all women are NOT reasonable, just look at female !
Women don’t care about anything other than their own wants and needs, that’s why you have to invest in a nice rubber hose to beat them with daily if need be, because they certainly are beyond reasoning.
I think of a good pre-nup as the best armor a man can get to protect against the psycho feminasty whores who are only out after our money.
Having the bitches surveilled is also a good countermeasure, because you can bet when you’re not around, they are up to some shit, FACT…
December 12th, 2005 at 8:33 am - IP Man-Hash: e6684e7eed2e9
Excellent advice given to your sons George. I have 4 daughters to whom I have given similar advice. The New York State Family Courts have ordered me to pay $4,500 a month in “child support”… yeah, men and women are equal…
December 12th, 2005 at 4:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: e2d025f19e31f
Female, thought you might like a little proof that men are better than women.
Boys outnumber girls in remedial reading classes — by large ratios, in most studies — but they are even likelier to outnumber girls among the most gifted in math and science. In one Johns Hopkins University study of gifted pre-adolescent students, boys outperformed girls among the top scoring students on math by 13-to-1.
Comparative Study done on Olympic Athletes: Foot Races (all distances are in meters, averages done in seconds)
1 100M M=9.84 W=10.6 -8%
2 200M M=19.32 W=21.3 -10%
3 400M M=43.49 W=48.3 -11%
4 800M M=103 W=113 -10%
5 1,500M M=212 W=234 -10%
6 5,000M M=786 W=881 -12%
7 10,000M M=1625 W=1817 -12%
8 Marathon M=7740 W=8580 -11%
Women Compared To Men In Life:
Did do-it-yourself maintenance: oil, battery, antifreeze, spark plug
change
—————————
Men Women
18-24 26 12
25-34 33 16
35-44 29 12
45-54 25 11
55-64 23 9
65+ 13 4
Men consistently do car maintenance more than women by over 2 to 1
in all age ranges.
Items Purchased in 1996
———————-
Men women
Motor Oil 64 50
Antifreeze 44 36
Wiper Blade 28 20
Only 30% of women in the US Army said that they would
volunteer for combat jobs, compared to 60% of men
POINTS OF INTEREST FOR MEN:
EDUCATION OF MEN, BUT NOT WOMEN HELPS ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Robert Barros’ “Determinants of
Economic Growth” says that male secondary and higher levels of
education is highly correlated with economic growth. However, the
secondary education of women showed an insignificant or negative
effect on subsequent levels of economic growth. Of all the variables
he mentions in the book he gives a theoretical explanation, except
for this one. His data included over a 100 countries over a 35 to 40
year period.
RADICAL FEMINIST REFUSES TO TEACH MEN
Radical feminist Boston College professor told she must teach men
Eastside Journal Feb 26, 1999 p. A11 Mary Daly says “women defer to
men in their presence, so she won’t let men into her classes.”
women’s college
Fewer than 1 percent of Fortune’s 4,000 highest corporate
earners are female, although a third of that elite group are women’s-college graduates.
Only one Wellesley woman, from ‘79, has run a company with more than 1,000 employees; about a quarter have run businesses, mostly very small ones.
Just food for thought Female. :-)
December 13th, 2005 at 2:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 9efaeb2a8447e
Alright geezer, you’ve got my attention (hairline close though). Thanks so much for giving us these facts, not that I could care less. The whole debate of who is the better sex is rubbish. That’s like saying, which is better, a dog or a horse? A horse is better if you want to travel long distances quickly, but maybe not so good at bringing you your slippers and pipe at night (which I’m sure is relevant in your case). This is why I do not waste my time trawling the web to find facts on the many things in which women excel at, and which men, do not. The premise of this site is a joke, that you have bought into it is completely laughable. Good one geezer!
December 13th, 2005 at 4:17 am - IP Man-Hash: 30e38eb4b9c6e
Yeah, it looks like he gotcher sore spot female :)
December 13th, 2005 at 9:24 am - IP Man-Hash: 8dd3dc862afae
The comparison of the sexes has nothing to do with dogs and horses. It’s like asking which is better: a dog or a lame, disobedient dog?
-Dick
December 13th, 2005 at 1:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
‘Alright geezer, you’ve got my attention (hairline close though). ‘
Oh, give it a rest, female. Everyone has your attention. You’re on a mission, and you know it.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:43 am - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Much like yourself no doubt. What’s your mission then honey? If it’s to get me off these boards, you’ve got too little, too late. I’m over it. Ciao.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 3f6f1bc89c9c0
Exactly.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:29 am - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
It’s to my personal benefit that you remain, female.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Now that sounds frightening. Lucky you Female, seems you now have 2 stalkers and the latest one seems a bit unhinged. Do you always manage to attract freaks?
December 15th, 2005 at 3:18 am - IP Man-Hash: 05876c7260a2f
Not as regularly as I used too, but things do look like they may be picking up.
December 15th, 2005 at 7:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: fa9f9872494c7
Unforytunately this board attracts female samples by 2.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1cc2bd319db66
Ah love. The captivating “Deus ex machina�-phenomena, which suddenly strikes from beyond, and you feel powerful and powerless at the same time and blah. blah . Even though the sentence before is enthusiastically written, I exaggerated on purpose, because love in my opinion is drastically overrated or perhaps confused with lust.
I might be pessimistic or realistic on the subject, as it depends on how you would look at it, but the definition “to fall in love� is in my optics alias attraction or a sexual drive, though love in my opinion isn’t an nonexistent quality, it can only be reachable in a relationship over the course of time, and thus strengthening the bonds between one another the more you learn about each other.
I don’t know why girls can act so hysterically when they are “in love�, and then after 2 days “fall in love� with another man. No wonder there are so many divorces in the western world, and thus I come to admire Muslim culture in some ways, where women do not walk around like crazed sex robots seeking attention.
(Oldone)Quote:� Only 30% of women in the US Army said that they would
volunteer for combat jobs, compared to 60% of men�.
I actually think this quote makes men look bad, because if you think that you in casu will find men with more courage I have to agree, but at the same time also with a lot of stupidity to risk ones life in that calibre, just to get a pay check. You won’t find vires et honestas in the army as there is nothing honourable about war.
Half Soul
December 18th, 2005 at 2:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 818387b8dec3d
They are only in love with the motion of being in love. Women do not really care whom it is as long as they can go through the emotions of it.
Regardless of sex or gender, women will do the rounds of being in love.
Unfortunately love to women is money, that is, wedding dress(shopping),wedding ring (money and shopping).
It has to be the right colour, shape and size otherwise you don’t really love them),
parties(money),
wedding reception(money),
what to eat (shopping),
what the bridesmaids should wear(shopping),
flower for the occassion (shopping),
Honeymoon (shopping).
It does not stop.
Get hitched to these professional shoppers and you will never achieve or do what you want.
Only suckers get married.
You will just be broke.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:51 am - IP Man-Hash: 1cc2bd319db66
Hi Christian j :)
Quote:�Only suckers get married.�
Well mate, besides getting an education and a career (perhaps as a teacher), there is nothing else I would rather be than a father, and you usually marry to be that.
Quote: “You will just be broke.�
I will just have to take that chance, but you can always use some prevention in order to not make her use her purse with catastrophic effect, by i.e. putting a mouse or a cockroach in it. She would never go near it again hehe.
Half Soul
December 18th, 2005 at 11:44 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
I respect you, and your right to an opinion, but I do not respect that opinion. (You grasp the distinction, I hope).
Much like the force of gravity, violence and stupidity will sadly be with us for ages to come. Perhaps forever. We have not evolved beyond it and are nowhere near doing so. (Witness the recent wars and violence in “civilised” Europe.)
As long as this is the case, we either surrender to the violent, or we battle them to preserve a civil society. The police battle from within; the military from without. The men who volunteer to fight for us do so honorably, at least in most Western militaries. (The US military rejects the stupid on both moral and practical grounds; perhaps you were unaware of this.)
They do not do so for a “pay check”.
As for the suggestion that you will find neither moral force (I assume this is what you mean by vires; the usage is unusal, even for me) nor honesty in the Army, I think you are very very mistaken.
Almost uniformly (no pun intended), the military men I’ve worked with through the years were more honorable and reliable than their civilian counterparts. Most had a highly developed moral sense; something I’ve only more rarely seen in civilians.
As for the idea that there is nothing honorable about war? I don’t know. I know there is no glory.
But the war against Fascism, the War against Slavery and even the Cold War — ask most Czechs, Hungarians and Poles — were, I think, all honorable wars.
You, as do I, owe your right to write as you please in no small part to a dying group of Americans, British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders and others of many nationalities.
-wolfe
December 19th, 2005 at 2:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
hahahaha
female and femalemark2,
Get the bleep over yourselves.
Thank you for making me laugh (again). It’s always fun to read your posts. Such great amusement.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1cc2bd319db66
Hi Wolfe. I am sorry if I offended you by saying what I did, as my personal opinion as it is pro tempus, was not the same before the war in Iraq, therefore I simplified the sentence on purpose.
Before the war in Iraq, my brother was in the Danish army, and I was about to choose my own career, which I was in doubt what to be, so because my brother was in the army (he was a driver in a leopard tank), I thought why not become an officer?, and I was just about to join the officer academy, when Denmark chose to join the illegal war. That was when I decided to resign my application (this is the truth).
(Wolfe) Quote: (“…The men who volunteer to fight for us do so honorably, at least in most Western militaries�.)
I agree, my brother also joined the army, because he wanted to help people in need, and it is unquestionable that there lies honour within that.
(Wolfe) quote “They do not do so for a “pay check�.)
In most cases no, but in the U.S. there is a tendency, that many people from the lower middleclass join the marines so it can be questioned, because you don’t see any rich people in the army. I also spoke with some Iraqis, who live here, and they said, that many Mexicans with whom they had spoken, only joined the U.S army to get a green pass, and they never wanted to be in the war in the first place.
(wolfe) quote: (“As for the suggestion that you will find neither moral force (I assume this is what you mean by vires; the usage is unusal, even for me) nor honesty in the Army, I think you are very very mistaken�.)
Unfortunately it is you who is mistaken, because the word “honestas� means honour, but even so I simplified what I said, because there is honour in the army. There is honesty in any army(I think I explained the necessity of truth in another post about men and lying), because you can’t have a functional chain of command without it. Also many battles are won because of information, and therefore you have to rely or depend on the person providing these info, as any misinformation could lead to a loss.
(wolfe) quote: (“As for the idea that there is nothing honorable about war? I don’t know. I know there is no glory.
But the war against Fascism, the War against Slavery and even the Cold War — ask most Czechs, Hungarians and Poles — were, I think, all honorable wars.�)
To say that there is nothing honourable about war in itself, is something different than an honourable war, as an honourable war has a noble goal, whereas war in itself isn’t noble, unless the goal is. Yes the wars against Fascism are honourable wars, because wasn’t it for the U.S. we would still have a Nazi regime today. I can also admire the U.S., when i.e. Bill Clinton attacked the Serbs, when they were killing Muslim men. While we Europeans were still in dialogue with them, you guys went to war without the U.N.´s permission, and who knows how many lives have been saved by that action, so there are indeed honourable wars.
It is quite interesting, I have read a book called “Empire� by the American philosopher Michael Hardt and Italian philosopher Antonio Negri, who say that even though the U.S. promotes Democracy in the world, they are not democratic within the globalization. (what are your thoughts about this?)
Half Soul
December 19th, 2005 at 10:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Long and written in haste. I’ll emphasize that I mean you personally no ill-will, but I find your response insulting and rude. You may find mine the same; if so, please remember it was written in considerable haste.
We had UN permission. Do you want me to list the applicable UN resolutions? In the case of Kosovo we definitely didn’t. Why is a war backed by multiple security council resolutions “without UN permission” and a war opposed by the UN “with UN permission”? This is strange revisionist history. Have you been asleep for the last 10-15 years?
Remember, the Kosovo bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations (Iraq was neither). Unlike Hussein, Milosevic neither used WMD’s nor did he try to possess them. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic presented no threats to its neighbors and never invaded them. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic did not try to assassinate a US President. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic’s intelligence service did not participate in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (in ’93). Unlike Hussein, Milosevic complied with all UN security council resolutions relating to Kosovo. Hussein offered far more support for terrorists than Milosevic.
You’re going to claim Kosovo was legal and good? Fine, then either you’re irrational, stupid, or a liar if you don’t then admit that Iraq was far more legal. You can tell me which it is.
You can claim both wars were legal. You can claim neither was legal. You can claim Iraq was legal and Kosovo wasn’t. But you cannot be a rational thinking honest human being and claim Kosovo was and Iraq wasn’t.
According to the UN itself, Iraq was in violation of the terms of the ’91 cease fire. That meant the US could go back to war (as Clinton did in ’98 with the Desert Fox strikes) without any further UN authorization. In fact, there were over a dozen resolutions between ’91 and ’03 that supported US action. (Want me to cite them?)
Don’t make me laugh by citing Kofi Anan’s comments or those of the other evil corrupt Europeans who were sucking on the teat of kickbacks from Saddam Hussein via the Oil-for-Food Program. Just don’t, unless you want me to think you too were getting Oil-for-Food money.
If the war in Iraq is illegal, then there has likely never been a legal war. Kosovo did not involve the US defending itself; Iraq most certainly did. See also the British Attorney-General’s dossier on the legality of the war if repeated Security Council resolutions aren’t enough.
European dialogue is useless. No. Let me correct that. European dialogue kills and destroys. It brought us “peace” at Munich, it brought us at least a hundred million dead due to a European ideology: Communism. It brought us the killing fields of Cambodia, where literal mountains of skulls rose in a grisly tribute to European ideology.
European dialogue will likely bring Iran to the brink of nuclear weapons. Perhaps for you this is a pleasant thought; for those of us who consider the consequences of a spineless Europe coupled with a nuclear Muslim theocracy it is not all that pleasant.
If any city has to be nuked, I hope it will be Berlin, Copenhagen, or Paris that gets the Iranian nukes, but I fear it will be London, Warsaw, Kiev, or Tel Aviv that gets hit. Of course, I hope none get hit.
I don’t know how many tens of millions of Europeans need to die to shatter your continent’s mad arrogance; I hope it will not be many. I hope it will be none. Europeans seem to glory in death, destruction, and the hatred of dead-end bankrupt ideologies. I don’t know why. Sadism? Masochism? Who knows.
You seem to now agree that there is both honor and honesty in the army. Fair enough. You still claim I am mistaken, but I see no argument for this. Again, you are welcome to your views, but when you arrogantly respond “it is you that are mistaken” and provide no evidence for this (indeed only evidence that I am correct) it does not do your argument any good. I spoke of both honor and honesty in my post; the fact that you chose to disregard what I wrote was your choice, but do not let your ignorance make a claim of me being mistaken.
Since you chose to make a crack at me over “honestas� I will respond bluntly by pointing out there is no such word in the English language. Trying to determine what the devil you mean when you use manufactured words should receive thanks from you, not insults. Again I responded both to honor and honesty, and had you done me at least the courtesy of reading what I wrote you might have discovered this. Instead you chose to be rude. Your choice.
You claim “Mexicans� serve in the US forces to get a green card. Some undoubtedly do. People of all nationalities undoubtedly do, and it’s their free choice to do so. Or would you, in your arrogance, claim that the “lower classes� are incapable of rational thought and self-determination? Behind your argument lies the ugly spectre of European racism.
You’re wrong on the legality of the war. You’re wrong on UN support for Kosovo. You’re wrong on the lack of UN support for Iraq. You’re wrong on the honor/honesty issue. I’m not sure what you’re right on.
The Hardt/Negri book, Empire? I skimmed the first section when it came out back in 2000. I wasn’t impressed. It’s yet another facile attempt to restore to respectability the morally and intellectually bankrupt heinous faith of Marxism. An ill-thought rehash of classist analysis with a mélange of Derrida-ist post-modernism with a sprinkling of classical Hegelianism does not resurrect the dead. Thank goodness.
I’d also argue its arguments on globalism have been virtually turned on their head (as have Fukuyama’s arguments) by the events since 9/10.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve friends that stayed in the services and that are in theatre. I was in New York on 9/11 and I remember it well. If you think we’re going to let thousands more die to appease arrogant corrupt evil Europeans on the take from Arabia, then you’ve got another think coming. The stinking putrid rotten corruption of the French and German governments in particular make me sick to my stomach, and your unthinking adoption of their propaganda makes me shake my head in sorrow.
You’re welcome to think as you wish, but don’t try and debate when you are armed with neither facts nor wit. Again, I can respect your intellectual coherency and integrity if you claim both Kosovo and Iraq are immoral, illegal and wrong. But when someone tries, as you do, to claim the former war was just and legal and the latter wasn’t… words fail me.
I’ll have another look at Empire later if I have time. Perhaps it’s not as awful as I remember, but the description that sticks in my head at the time (“The Communist Manifesto for the 21st Century�) makes me think that’s unlikely.
Regards,
-wolfe.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:35 am - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
I know I should stay out of this one but I can’t. I don’t understand why the US or any other countries secret service couldn’t get to Saddam and his cronies and simply dispose of them without the need to go to war. I would think in this day of satellites, global positioning etc that it should have been possible. Yes difficult, but not impossible.
Re: is war honourable or legal debate? I don’t think it can ever be either. You are talking about killing people don’t forget. Yes I know I’ve seemed to indicate this is fine in previous posts but if you couldn’t tell I was taking the piss, then you need to lighten up. Seriously. I have lived with returned army personnel (toured in Somalia) and although we were supposed to be keeping the peace over there and not engaging in open combat, these guys had shocking psychological damage from what they saw and what they did while there. It’s not right.
Iraq has turned into a terrorist training ground and the US had better damn well stay there until order is returned. Shame what it’s going to do to your soldiers and their families though.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:28 am - IP Man-Hash: a0c7c73d83830
How laughable! A woman talking about satellites and global positioning like she knows what the fuck they are! What next, Female? Are you going to pretend to know about politics or finance?
What a dumb bitch.
-Dick
December 20th, 2005 at 8:30 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Remember just after the Gulf War in ‘90-91? The US tried to do that. Result was a lot of dead Iraqis and near total destruction of CIA assets in Iraq. Sadly, with Saddam having had 30 years of killing any opposition, iron control over state security, a network of doubles travelling around in his stead… it just couldn’t be done.
Your opinion is fair enough — it has logical consistency, unlike Half Soul’s, though I disagree with it. Again, was it honorable to fight the Nazi’s and empty the KZ camps? Yes, undoubtedly. Honorable to face down the Soviets for 40 years until Europe was free? Undoubtedly. The War on Piracy? Yes. The War on Slavery? Yes. (Success in the last two proves we can indeed fight a war against a concept, Te