"Why I am not an anti-feminist."

[S'mon]

associates and friends that have immigrated to America from Iran, Lebanon, and Egypt

And compared to the Gulf monarchies, Pakistan & Afghanistan, those are some of the nicer Muslim societies!

[SHARK]

And compared to the Gulf monarchies, Pakistan & Afghanistan, those are some of the nicer Muslim societies!

Greetings!

Yep S'mon! That's the damned truth, too! In the Muslim world, there seems to be "dark and brutal"--and "Fucked up, Oh My God Madness."

I told some kids at school--one feminist, and one gay boy--I told them, You realise that in Iran, neither one of you would ever get a chance to speak or protest a goddamned thing, right? Or maybe you could get away with it...once. On your way home from a gay feminist rights rally you would be surrounded by men dressed in black, jumping from trucks. The girl would be gang raped, over and over, and then gutted like a pig, and thrown naked into the sewer channel. The gay boy would be beaten and tortured, over and over, before being soaked in gasoline and burned alive while men and women gathered around, chanting and celebrating your tortured screams.

You people have no fucking clue what "Oppression" even looks like.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

And compared to the Gulf monarchies, Pakistan & Afghanistan, those are some of the nicer Muslim societies!

To me, the bizarre thing is that the countries that you cite as the worst are American allies with firm Republican support. Despite complaints about how liberals are pro-Islam, within the U.S., it is overwhelmingly Republicans who are maintaining our ties to these countries. In congressional votes to end our support for Saudi Arabia's current war, it was entirely Republican votes that scuttled the measure.

Along similar lines - prior to 9/11, complaints about the Taliban were overwhelmingly from liberal feminists who attacked their treatment of women. However, this was largely dismissed by conservatives as liberal hand-wringing, and the Afghanis were often literally conservative heroes. (In film, for example, mujahideen were shown as allies to both Rambo and James Bond.)

Today, there are loud liberal complaints are about the killing of journalists in Muslim countries - most notably Jamal Khashoggi. As far as I can see, that is not finding any support or resonance within conservative circles.

[SHARK]

To me, the bizarre thing is that the countries that you cite as the worst are American allies with firm Republican support. Despite complaints about how liberals are pro-Islam, within the U.S., it is overwhelmingly Republicans who are maintaining our ties to these countries. In congressional votes to end our support for Saudi Arabia's current war, it was entirely Republican votes that scuttled the measure.

Along similar lines - prior to 9/11, complaints about the Taliban were overwhelmingly from liberal feminists who attacked their treatment of women. However, this was largely dismissed by conservatives as liberal hand-wringing, and the Afghanis were often literally conservative heroes. (In film, for example, mujahideen were shown as allies to both Rambo and James Bond.)

Today, there are loud liberal complaints are about the killing of journalists in Muslim countries - most notably Jamal Khashoggi. As far as I can see, that is not finding any support or resonance within conservative circles.

Greetings!

Jhkim. Do you ever play Chess, my friend? Chess matches are routinely won by sacrificing a pawn, so you can gain *position* advantage with a knight, so that four moves down the road, you can crush your opponent by taking their queen, or maneuver them into checkmate.

It's the same thing with geopolitics. Morality and all that barney show juice is for kids, Jhkim. It's nice; it's important; it's stuff that we value. But on the chessboard of life, those considerations must be lower on the priority list, and in order to *win*--they must be on occasion, expendable.

We are talking about control, and power-projection. Ensuring that we have dominance over the entire theater of operations. Not merely directly, or for resources such as oil, for ourselves--no, it is like chess, to control *space* to benefit and strengthen your own forces, but also to *deny* that spacial opportunity to the opponent.

To whit, China needs oil, to keep their economy humming, but also for war. If it comes to war, the Chinese oil network goes through the Indian Ocean, and through the South Pacific. All of which can be interdicted by the US Navy, thus crippling the Chinese war effort. If China can gain allies to build pipelines connecting China and the Middle East, then the Chinese regime has a way around the US Navy, and can thus gain an advantage. Conversely, if they don't have a pipeline, or don't have the political and economic leverage to gain points in the Middle East, then they cannot escape. If we control the ground, either directly or indirectly, the Chinese are fucked, and they know it. We know it. And they know that we know it.

All of that--long before a shot is ever fired--years even--is what is going on here. For us to have the secret, under the table "control of the board space"--we have to often tolerate whatever bullshit that goes on domestically in whatever Muslim country. The priority is that they let us keep our Knight in square 8. We have that, we know that six moves down the road, the Chinese *won't* have that square, and we can fuck them.

In the back rooms as our diplomats share dinner and smoke cigars with them *now*--as we argue over this policy or that policy--they know we have control of square X with our Knight.

This is how long-term global strategy is played, Jhkim. Ultimately, it contributes to making America safer, as well as our allies. This is how it must be done.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[ThatChrisGuy]

To me, the bizarre thing is that the countries that you cite as the worst are American allies with firm Republican support. Despite complaints about how liberals are pro-Islam, within the U.S., it is overwhelmingly Republicans who are maintaining our ties to these countries. In congressional votes to end our support for Saudi Arabia's current war, it was entirely Republican votes that scuttled the measure.

I don't support the Saudi war, and I wish we could cut them loose, but it's not like we can without majorly negative repercussions.

Along similar lines - prior to 9/11, complaints about the Taliban were overwhelmingly from liberal feminists who attacked their treatment of women. However, this was largely dismissed by conservatives as liberal hand-wringing, and the Afghanis were often literally conservative heroes. (In film, for example, mujahideen were shown as allies to both Rambo and James Bond.)

Today, there are loud liberal complaints are about the killing of journalists in Muslim countries - most notably Jamal Khashoggi. As far as I can see, that is not finding any support or resonance within conservative circles.

Lots of journalists got murdered around the world last year, and that's nothing to celebrate.  But I'm very cynical, and I don't think the Khashoggi story would have much traction if it couldn't be used to make the President look bad.  As a country we've never talked much about the Mexican journalists murdered next door to us by the drug cartels every year since 2006 or so.  It hardly ever makes it to our news.

[S'mon]

To me, the bizarre thing is that the countries that you cite as the worst are American allies with firm Republican support.

I don't find it particularly bizarre, but it's why I generally prefer the secular socialist Arab dictatorships to the US-backed regimes; the US-backed ones on average are (even) more evil than the 'enemy' ones, and toppling them generally makes things even worse.

[S'mon]

This is how long-term global strategy is played, Jhkim. Ultimately, it contributes to making America safer, as well as our allies.

I'm going to have to disagree with SHARK here (*eek*!) - I don't think US geostrategy in the Middle East has contributed to the safety of either the USA or her (genuine) allies, except possibly Israel since the Six Day War, and that's debatable.

[S'mon]

As a country we've never talked much about the Mexican journalists murdered next door to us by the drug cartels every year since 2006 or so.  It hardly ever makes it to our news.

The drug cartels are not US allies, though.

I would tend to agree that had Kashoggi been murdered under President Hillary's watch it would have got a lot less media attention; Hillary would have done the exact same as Trump and backed the murdering Saudi regime, but the media would have covered for her, apart from some complaints from Breitbart etc and the far left.

[CarlD.]

I don't support the Saudi war, and I wish we could cut them loose, but it's not like we can without majorly negative repercussions.

Which would be?

[S'mon]

I don't support the Saudi war, and I wish we could cut them loose, but it's not like we can without majorly negative repercussions.

I don't think the repercussions would be particularly negative, especially if they got a military dictatorship or Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government rather than say a big civil war or Al Qaeda regime - not that the current regime doesn't back Al Qaeda, but then the US backed Al Qaeda vs the Syrian govt too.

[ThatChrisGuy]

Which would be?

Losing any influence over a significant regional power and a major energy source.  Among other things, I'm sure.

That doesn't mean it would be the wrong action to take, mind, but it would definitely have a big and unpredictable cost.

[SHARK]

I'm going to have to disagree with SHARK here (*eek*!) - I don't think US geostrategy in the Middle East has contributed to the safety of either the USA or her (genuine) allies, except possibly Israel since the Six Day War, and that's debatable.

Greetings!

LOL!:) Hee hee S'mon! I'm relaxing here, having some good French Roast coffee, and smoking my pipe with "Southern Belle" tobacco. My apologies. I should have said that "Ultimately, the goal of it is to contribute to making America safer, as well as our allies." How that has actually played out...yeah, it's been a clusterfuck for sure. I don't disagree with your point, S'mon. Everytime we take one step forward over there, on anything, we soon fuck it up and take two steps back. I wish I knew how we could implement a righteous and muscularly effective strategy--there's so many contradictory ambitions and goals, not to mention trying to throw jello at the wall and hoping something sticks while trying to get a whole bunch of people on the same page--all of which are competing and hating each other, too. Honestly, though, I fear that even if we did have some brilliant policy--lets say to be silly, Trump called you and I up, S'mon, and told us, we have all the authority and power to implement whatever we want, and a budget of 2 trillion dollars. Go to work boys! Even if that happened, and everything was working fine, everyone was happy--in four years, with a new president, a new state department, they would have a different "Strategic Vision"--and you and I would be shit-canned, and all of our work and progress would be pissed away and changed to "something new"--simply because the new team wants the glory of their own achievement, and to do that, we would have to be minimized, and thrown out. You know what I'm saying?

We'd be sitting in some cafe somewhere, pulling our hair out, and screaming at each other, "How can they do this? Look what we've accomplished! What the fuck is wrong with them?" But they'd still insist on doing it their "new" way, no matter how good our policies were, huh?

I feel like this is what we do every three to five years, back and forth, like a fucking yo-yo with our policies over there, all over the damned map, never being consistent, never learning anything from past failures or success, and always seeming like a bunch of naked apes locked in a dark room, filled up to our asses in gasoline, while we search for the matches to create light...

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

I'm going to have to disagree with SHARK here (*eek*!) - I don't think US geostrategy in the Middle East has contributed to the safety of either the USA or her (genuine) allies, except possibly Israel since the Six Day War, and that's debatable.

I should have said that "Ultimately, the goal of it is to contribute to making America safer, as well as our allies." How that has actually played out...yeah, it's been a clusterfuck for sure. I don't disagree with your point, S'mon. Everytime we take one step forward over there, on anything, we soon fuck it up and take two steps back. I wish I knew how we could implement a righteous and muscularly effective strategy--there's so many contradictory ambitions and goals, not to mention trying to throw jello at the wall and hoping something sticks while trying to get a whole bunch of people on the same page--all of which are competing and hating each other, too. Honestly, though, I fear that even if we did have some brilliant policy--lets say to be silly, Trump called you and I up, S'mon, and told us, we have all the authority and power to implement whatever we want, and a budget of 2 trillion dollars. Go to work boys! Even if that happened, and everything was working fine, everyone was happy--in four years, with a new president, a new state department, they would have a different "Strategic Vision"--and you and I would be shit-canned, and all of our work and progress would be pissed away and changed to "something new"--simply because the new team wants the glory of their own achievement, and to do that, we would have to be minimized, and thrown out.

I agree with S'mon. In general, I'm largely anti-interventionist. If the geopolitical meddling is complicated and heated and it's not clear what the right military strategy is to achieve anything - then we should just keep the fuck out. I also think that most interventions are not for the sake the safety of most Americans, and are more about dominance and/or financial gain for a limited set.

For safety, the best thing to do is to have a clear deterrent. Don't attack us or our allies, and we won't attack you. If you do attack us, then we will strike back swiftly and decisively with all our might. Since WWII, I support the Korean War and the First Gulf War and not much else. (We did have good cause to retaliate against the Taliban after 9/11, but the approach of invasion and nation-building was flawed from the start.)

As for who our allies should be - We should be clear and forthright, and stand up for our beliefs and values. Our allies should be people we actually want to support. Supporting hateful "allies" like how we supported the mujahideen and the Taliban has gotten us into more trouble than it has helped us, in my opinion.

[Apparition]

I am not an anti-feminist.  I am an anti-third wave feminist.

[jeff37923]

I like the article and the responses here in the thread, but I have to wonder.

Whatever happened to being pro-common sense and anti-stupidity?