Rebuttle to Argument over Whether Someone is a "Real" Man or Woman for Serving Their Country

On a serious political note...if you really stop and think about it..and this isnt a biased opinion by any means..Everyone knows how much i HATE President Bush. He is the most incompotent president in this nation's history, in my own opinion. While i do not agree with the pretenses in which we actually went to war, one must stop and look at the facts. Bush was not wrong in linking Iraq with terrorism. Iraq DID in deed have links to Al-Queda and more specifically, Osama Bin Laden. They talked about it in the UN, they broadcast it on the news, its everywhere. There can be no doubt about it that Sadaam had contact with Osama. Now...even though no WMD's were found in Iraq..one has to seriously ask themselves, WHY would Iraq have nuclear scientists working for it if they were not planning on, in the future, constructing such weapons? They certainly had the technological capabilities for it. The SCUD missile systems that Iraq posessed, while a crude way of delivering a warhead, its effective and could easily be used to create and test nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq WAS necessary, though the reasons for going in are all known (oil) were wrong. Everyone has this preconceived notion that Iraq is an innocent nation. Innocent my fuckin ass....Iraq had weapons systems that the UN expressely stated that Iraq could NOT have. For years, Iraq defied the United Nations, ignored the UN sanctions, and in some cases, openly challenged the international community's authority. Iraq poses a threat to the US. Im pretty sure all of you know nothing about the attacks that Iraq carried out upon US and international troops in the No-Fly zone that was created around Iraq, which were unprovoked. The US quickly and swiftly retaliated by destroying a number of radar bases and command and control bunkers within iraq, but a war did not result. In fact, the world didnt care because it was an unprovoked attack upon US and international forces. In addition to that, people tend to forget the fact that SADAAM GASSED HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE!!! If hes not afraid of gassing his own people, whos to say that he wouldnt gas the US and her allies if given the perfect opportunity to. You all are so naive in thinking that the US has done a great injustice to the world by attacking Iraq for the oil. Sure Bush fucked up when he tried to cover up his real intentions, but if you really SERIOUSLY have a true grasp of international politics and study Sadaam, then and only then will you not be ignorant to the fact that Sadaam really truly DID pose a threat to the international community, though the threat was not imminenent. Sadaam's ties to Osama arent very reassuring either. I mean think about it....Iraq....a place where there is nothing but tyranny. Its the next best place to train terrorists, and if sadaam and osama were on good terms and the two of them were to team up to create a type of weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, why in the hell should we not have invaded? Do you not agree that it would be a smart fucking thing to do to invade them to make sure that that DOESNT happen? Now, to the point I was trying to make about myself defending my country. It takes a real man (or a real woman) to VOLUNTEER himself to serve his country, his fellow country men, to protect them from all evils that lurk beyond its borders, be it from foreign nations or terrorists. You cannot sit there and say that that is not a noble thing to do, you cannot sit there and say that there are no such threats because if you do, you my friends are just plain ignorant (not directed to anyone in particular). It takes a real man or a real woman to want to put themselves in harms way...to place themselves between the people in which they serve and those who wish to harm those in which you serve to protect. If there was no one there to do that, who then would protect your ass from those who wish to cause you harm?

Now, as for war causing problems....stop bitching about it. Yes war causes problems, but if you did not realize by paying attention in world history class, war is what keeps ur ass safe..its what keeps the world stable, its what keeps things reasonably peaceful. Without war, NONE of us would be here right now. You cannot say that war is completely evil. Yes,death and carnage is one of the things that is so inhumane, but seriously, war is what makes the world go round. You think that war is not necessary....it is necessary..i guarantee you it is. Why is it necessary? Because of people such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Yamamoto, Sadaam, and various other historical figures who represent pure evil. Without war, those people would be able to subject the world to their evil. We wouldnt be alive. You're way of thinking is idealistic....well this is reality...your ideologic ideas do not pertain to reality when it comes down to war and humans and to think so is also, ignorant. So before you come at me with how war 'causes more problems than anything', take some time to sit down and study politics, psychology, and world history beginning with the beginning of man. War is why your ass is where it is right now. So what about gas prices...they will go back down when things are settled. Are gas prices more important than your life? I sure as hell would hope not, so stop bitching about gas prices and living expenses. Good DOES result from war, if good prevails. Eventually, when things die down, there will be economic benefits. If you have not noticed...after every major war...the economic benefits increase and we ALL benefit from them, so chill the fuck out and really think about how politics and war really do more GOOD than harm and just try to understand how it all works on the international level before trying to make assumptions that war causes more problems than anything. That is only the point of view of someone who is ignorant.

Thats my rant and rave for tonight. I hope it suffices....Ryan, dont take any of that personal...i havent been able to debate a good strong point like that in a while, and when you said that, it really hit a nerve Let it be made known that i do not support war, regardless of what many may think or believe. I choose to serve my country because I want to protect the people and the nation that I love. Like i said before, it takes a real man or a real woman to volunteer to protect the people that they serve if it is for a noble purpose. Seriously tell me that im not a man for wanting to protect and preserve democracy. Tell me that im not a man for wanting to put my life on the line to protect my nation and my fellow country men.

I rest my case......

Speech on the Role of Women in the Military

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words represent the foundation upon which our country was created. Justice, equality, and the ability to live a free life with few hindrances from government are something that reflects the American way. We respect and admire those who give their lives to protect this foundation, both men and women alike, but we must ask ourselves, while we respect and admire these people, why are we allowing our females, the same females who belong to this country, to fight for equality when we openly defend refusing them the opportunity to obtain an equal status in the same military that defends the very foundation that this great nation was built upon? Hypocritical isn’t it? Let us examine both sides of the argument to gain a better insight of how each side of the argument thinks and reasons on this issue.

Espousers of the idea that the military should not allow females to advance in rank and duty, let alone be an active participant in the military argue that according to the numbers, there have been a steady increase in the amount of reported female rapes, sexual assaults, and harassments within military training bases, which has caused much concern to arise over whether females should be allowed to actively serve in the military. Some conservative Republicans in Congress surmise that these increases in reports vindicate an end to a gender-blind modern American military and that we should resort back to a time when we did not have women holding many positions within the military, save nurses and other medical staff.

Espousers who support a fully gender-integrated effectively argue that the numbers of reported gender related crimes is on a steady decrease. In fact, since 1988 between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of military women who reported that they had received uninvited and unwanted sexual attention from someone at work decreased from 64% to under 50%. Proponents of a fully gender-blind military also argue that the reason why there are so many reports of sexual misconduct within the military is because of the fact that there just aren’t enough women in the military at all ranks. Unless females are treated as equals like men, the men will continue to mistreat our females, however, there is one obstacle that prevents a full integration of women in the military...Congress. That’s right, our very own Congress refuses to fully gender integrate the military. Their excuse? Women cannot match the level of physical and mental pressure that their male counterparts can. They believe that females are more liable to crack under pressure and are prone to letting their judgment impair the decisions they make out on the battlefield and in other situations.

This kind of thinking is condescending, demeaning, and goes against the very principles that form the foundation that this nation was built upon. If we as Americans wish to progress as a people, we MUST allow ourselves to stop discriminating against those of different races and of the opposite sex. If we wish for our military to be even stronger than it already is, we must allow all those who are qualified to be leaders to step up regardless of skin color and/or race. We must not allow ourselves to fall back into a period of discrimination. For we have seen the effects of discrimination that has for over the two centuries of this county’s existence, divided us and caused us to go into a bloody civil war. We owe it to our ancestors, we owe it to our females, and we owe it to all those who gave their lives so that all Americans could live to be equal regardless of age, gender, or race, to stop the discrimination, because if we allow ourselves to permit discrimination against a single group of people, we are justifying discrimination against any group of people. If we allow our women to be discriminated against in the military, a lot more is at stake than most may realize. This issue, the issue of discrimination of a minority, if left unchecked and unsolved, will be the issue that tears America apart. Let us remember, we are our own enemies. Only we have the ability to destroy ourselves and we cannot permit this to happen.

Speech on the US and Its Role In Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Weiss, distinguished students, my fellow American colleagues, I come before you today to address an issue of prodigious international importance, nuclear proliferation and the United States’ role in global disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction. This country and its new generation of Americans are faced with a fundamental question: should the United States of America permit the proliferation of its own nuclear weapons, and if so, how should this generation of American leaders combat the political backlash of such a decision?

Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has regarded nuclear weapons as an intricate part of its foreign policy. During that era, we faced an enemy which threatened the stability of the world. The United States responded to that threat by increasing its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate. In the 90's, that threat nearly disappeared, spurred by the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union, which left America with thousands of nuclear weapons and as the only world super power. Because of this, nations such as China, Iran, and North Korea set out to begin or increase production of nuclear weapons in fear that the United States would use them against any potential enemies. Some of these nations justified the research and development of these weapons by saying that they have a right to protect themselves from the United States and any other aggressor that threatens them with nuclear warfare. Some argue that failure to flaunt or show-off its nuclear weapons, whether it be on a small scale or large, should be a tactic to deter nations from attacking the United States and its interests abroad, yet the question remains, how would the international community act if the US began the active proliferation of its nuclear weapons?

Advocates against the US proliferation of nuclear weapons argue that while it might seem practical to deploy such weapons that may only be a fraction of the size of strategic nuclear weapons, the results from such detonations would be catastrophic to both the environment and to the area affected by the strike and would prompt nuclear capable nations to respond with their own nuclear weapons. They also believe that because of the fact that the United States would develop nuclear weapons, whether they are low-yield or high, other nations are inherently justified in creating their own nuclear weapons to deter the United States from waging an unrestricted low-yield nuclear war against a nation that has little or no nuclear capabilities. In their argument, they are absolutely correct.

Congress has become a strong proponent in the fight against the US’ proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such is true and underscored by a speech given by Senator Douglas Roche on May 13, 2004 when speaking about the role of the US in nuclear disarmament. He explicitly stated “A March 2004 Report to Congress reveals that the U.S. is employing a double standard concerning compliance with the NPT. Whereas the U.S. wants to move forward into a new generation of nuclear weaponry, it adamantly rejects the attempt of any other state to acquire any sort of nuclear weapon. The U.S. clearly wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; of that there can be no doubt. But it does not want to be questioned on what it regards as its right to maintain enormous stocks (despite numerical reductions) and to keep nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its military doctrine.” What is the world’s reaction to the US’ double standard towards nuclear disarmament? The world criticizes America openly. Nuclear and non-nuclear nations alike believe if the United States justifies having nuclear weapons, regardless of the progress they are making in disarmament, even though the appearance of disarming is cosmetic, that other nations have the same right to develop and use nuclear weapons in the same exact manner that the US claims to have the divine right to do. My fellow Americans, THIS is American rhetoric and hypocrisy at its best!

What do advocates for the development and use of America’s nuclear weapons think? They believe that the United States has a sovereign right to maintain and use its nuclear weapons based on the threat that looms with terrorism and rogue nation-states. They believe that the United States has a right to force or even strong-arm nations into refraining from the development and use of nuclear weapons and to make them disarm because they pose a threat to the security of the superior American nation. As objective as this speech may be, I must stop and ask you all a question...just how dangerous is this way of thinking? Better yet, how much of a hypocrite can a person be to not think that other nations will not respond to America’s open and deliberate threat of using nuclear weapons on a conventional basis? Apparently our government is full of these hypocrites because in 2003, the Defense Authorization bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the 2004 fiscal year, passed by Congress and signed into law on January 7, 2003, gave the United States the authorization to resume construction of nuclear weapons, an ability that America has not had in over 30 years. To nations around the globe, this signals a major shift in United States foreign policy because the nuclear devices being produced would be used on a more conventional level. In addition, both Senate Resolution 76, presented on March 5, 2003, and House Resolution 291, presented on July 19, 2003, detail what would happen if the US were to proliferate such weapons. House Resolution 291 specifically states three points: "1) the policies and programs of the United States are counter productive because our reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, increasing the liklihood that nuclear weapons would be created and used, 2) such policies and programs are dangerous because the assertion of the US' right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right, and 3) such policies and programs are immoral because they place a threat of mass destruction, and the assertion of a right to initiate war at the core of United States foreign policy." The United States must set an example. We must take a lead in the global destruction of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Taking the lead in this endeavour also means complying with our own demands that are being imposed upon all other nations of the world.
As a new generation, we must think deeply about the cause and effects of if the United States were to actively produce weapons of mass destruction, whether they are for conventional or strategic use. Since the current US government has enabled the US military to engage in the research, development, and testing of new nuclear weapons by appropriating funds and pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001, the United States stands at a crossroads and it is our generation’s responsibility to ensure that the United States contiues to vie for global nuclear disarmament while abiding by the same international laws and treaties that we helped for so many decades, shape, for if we don’t, the crediblity of the United States will begin to waver and allied and international support in the global disarmament of nuclear weapons will be lost, creating an even greater threat to the existence of all humankind. Thank you and God bless.