Norman Mailer has the answer to the complex Middle East question, and the real reason behind Iraq:

The American White Male's ego has been badly bruised over the years because women, blacks and Hispanics have made inroads into sports and business over the decades. Feeling inferior that football and basketball were now melting pots, the White Male decided that since the military was still majority white, the humiliated White Male could have a war and actually win at something.

No, I'm not making this up.

I groan not only because the column - perhaps satirical tongue in cheek more than anything else - is obviously and blatantly racist. But I also groan because such columns only cloud and water down the intelligent anti-war opinions out there.

<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-662789,00.html' target='_blank'>Get ready to lose your lunch</a>








<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|Apr 29 2003, 02:53 PM-->

I personally think he is on to something.

The war was a referrendum on manhood.

People who supported this war, by and large, did so to declare themselves men -- and in contrast to the other people. Hence, we had the epithets directed at people like me. On this board, I was accused of being a wuss, of sucking on the teat of the welfare state and a whole bunch of other things. I think I was accused of being gay at one point.

That's why it's been so easy to make a complete joke out of France. The cold hard truth is if France did not exist, a resolution making this war legal would not have cleared the Security Council. I've listed, time and again, the number of countries against it. THe reason Americans galloped to pick on France was, in large part, because Americans have always associated the French with vaguely effete qualities.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis????

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A44887-2003Mar18&notFound=true' target='_blank'>Lots of Dikes too! </a>

This is the key graph, and it really backs me up:

A majority of women now back the invasion of Iraq. Two thirds of those surveyed said they support a war with Iraq, compared to about half in a poll conducted two weeks ago. Eight in 10 men supported a war.

That's a pretty big disparity: 67 percent vs. 80 percent. It reflects the historic disparity in sexes between the parties. A majority of women tend to vote Democratic. A majority of men vote Republican.

The numbers were obviously huge at that moment. This poll was taken immediately after Bush's speech to the nation, which obviously bumped these results.

My honest belief is that a lot of that support is soft, inflated by Bush's PR blitz and the usual tendency of Americans to rally around the president in times of war. Bush's approval ratings during Gulf War II never approached those of his father. Also, in January, when clearer minds were prevaling, a majority of Americans did not want to go without significant international support.

Come 2004, a majority of women will be voting against Bush. I'm pretty confident of that.

Sorry, RF.

There are anti-war reasons I believe are valid: Regional instability, aftermath uncertainty, and cost being among them.

There are anti-war reasons I don't believe are valid: It's all for oil, Bush Jr just wants to finish the job of Bush Sr, and empire building among them.

Then there's the anti-war reason that I believe is absolutely ridiculous: It's a racist war perpetrated by the White Man nourishing his macho ego.



Very little rubs my nerves more than someone reducing everything to a collectivist's favorite hobby of categorizing skin color and gender. Norman's liberal use (no pun intended) of the word "we", "our" and "us" is particularly insulting, since he's implying that he knows the deep motive of every white-skin male. Trust me, Norm, if I support some of the pro-war opinions, it's not because I'm upset that the Pistons are made up of mostly black players, or that my office General Manager here is indeed female.

Mostly satire to stir things up, I'm sure. But on the whole, another racist article that won't be called as such by mainstream media (since the object of his [self-]loathing is the white male).

I said he was onto something with this manhood thing. That's all.

To recognize the cult of manhood that surrounds this decision to go to war is not the same thing as making an argument against the war.

And the article isn't racist. It is certainly highly speculative and it discusses race. But that doesn't make it racist.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 29 2003, 04:18 PM-->

Feeling inferior that football and basketball were now melting pots, the White Male decided that since the military was still majority white, the humiliated White Male could have a war and actually win at something.


nah, nothing racist there. nothing at all.

Feeling inferior that MENSA and YALE were now melting pots, the COLORED MALE decided that since the NBA was still majority COLORED, the humiliated COLORED Male could have a GAME and actually win at something.

Screw all these conspriracy theories, to those I file under "T" for trash. People have too much time on their hands.

Why did we go to war?

How about this......How many terrorist attacks have we have since 9/11???????? The REASON we had 9/11 was because of Clinton's inept attitude towards Kobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and the Sudan, the USS Cole, WTC '93 etc. His policy of prosecuting ONLY the perpetrators is as inept as fighting a fireant bed by ONLY killing the ones biting you. Remember people, Osama Bin Laden was pretty much offered up by the Sudan, with Mansoor Ijaz being the forebearer of the transfer(In which Clinton refused to act). Clinton is also the reason that China can NOW hit us with nukes. Loral Corp. anyone?

Pacifism gets you one of two things.....enslaved or DEAD!

Dang,I thought i was a right winger.Rebel you are even further right than i.I tip my glass to you sir.

<a href='http://www.rambles.net/faludi_stiffed.html' target='_blank'>http://www.rambles.net/faludi_stiffed.html</a>

Quote:Her goal is to find out why men in today's USA are unhappy, angry, bewildered and all too often violent.

Is this more than once per month?

Man, you should see those happy, peaceful women gushing and pumping their fists during a Red Wing hockey fight. And, of course, the females on all those reality shows are always such gentle creatures.

-----

Take 10 highly depressed and traumatized men and make them out to be the average "guy on the street", and you've got the premise of this literary trash.

- Glowing review from a satisfied reader of Faludi's Pulizer Prize winning "Stiffed".

:D

just say no roy Wrote:Dang,I thought i was a right winger.Rebel you are even further right than i.I tip my glass to you sir. &nbsp;

Not hardly, I am fiscally conservative. I am a Libertarian by party. I.e. Anti-Drug Laws, anti-Anti-freedom laws, etc.

<a href='http://www.lp.org' target='_blank'>http://www.lp.org</a>


Here's some good daily reading:

<a href='http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm</a>



<!--EDIT|RebelKev|Apr 30 2003, 09:31 AM-->

One more...

<a href='http://www.cato.org/' target='_blank'>The Cato Institute</a>

Dang link party,what the hell heres one more.<a href='http://www.commonconservative.com/' target='_blank'> commonconservative.com</a>

<a href='http://www.newsmax.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.newsmax.com/</a>





<!--EDIT|RebelKev|Apr 30 2003, 07:58 PM-->

And again .<a href='http://www.wbt.com/shows/showhome.cfm?showID=4&showcat=sak&breadcrumb=spires'..' target='_blank'> wbt.com</a>. :cheers:Check out theyre forum page.