War. And. Me.

I'm anti-war and anti-death penalty. I think I pointed out why on the Mickie post. I have no problems with women fighting along side men in hand to hand combat. I have Celtic genes, some of the greatest women who ever lived were my ancestors, women warriors and religious leaders fight right next to men. Yet, in the modern world, with money, with oil, with American dominance and technological dominance war seems wrong to me. Revenge, I don't necessarily view as wrong either. If someone wrongs you or your family, kills a member of your family, in some societies you do have the right to kill them. However, the death penalty isn't killing killers. It often killed innocent men, while letting guilty (often rich, white men) run free.

They handle it like crap, of course. But I'm very strongly for the /idea/.
In my utopia there would be a death penalty. But only those who really have killed would die, and no man would walk free. No woman would, either.
I must agree, war has become less honourable with technology. Unfair war is something I hate.
I'd much rather just see a couple countries flip-flopping than the USA going out and conquering some poor aholes who never had a chance at all.
But really, I don't see a problem with real war. What you're talking about is conquer. I'm talking about a real fight.

Is it not traditional that women will not fight? A woman should have every right to fight for what she believes in! If she believes in a conutry, if she believes in fighting to prove everyone wrong, if she believes in...she should act upon it.

I think if you read the comments to Micki's post, no one was saying that there is never a reason to fight for what one believes in-- just that war is not the best means of fighting, particuarly since things like rape have traditionally been a tool of war, and this sort of tradition will tend to continue, not matter the cause you're fighting for.

I'm sure you've seen pictures of the killing that has taken place in Lebanon over the last couple of weeks. If you keep track of things via the internet, you may see some pictures that the western media doesn't want us to see. Thing is-- war looks like this whether it's done in the name of causes we agree with or not. Many of the people fighting today's wars are fighting for things that they believe in, things that they believe are right and good. It doesn't make war any prettier. You may say that these people are just part of the 6 billion that you don't care about, but in saying that, you'd need to say that someone would be justified in doing the same to you and your few loved ones, simply because they believed in their cause, and they perceived YOUR loved ones as being in the way.

We're overpopulating the planet. If nobody dies, then we'll overpopulate it enough that we'll run out of resources.

I'm not sure, but are you using this argument to justify war? Honestly, if you're worried about overpopulation (and I am too), the best way to go about fixing the problem is not by killing people but through education, particularly in countries that have the highest birth rates-- which tend to be the least wealthy nations. Did you know that a woman who has had only THREE YEARS of schooling is far more likely to have fewer children than a woman who has had no education at all? Now, if western countries were to put the same resources into this sort of education as we (unfortunately) put into war, we'd improve lives instead of destroying them, we'd improve the status of women in countries where women often have very few rights, AND make an awfully good headway into overpopulation problems.

As much as I would like to have the lives of every rapist, murderer, etc ruined, I am still against the death penalty.

My reason?

We should not have a perfect punishment in an imperfect legal system.

The way the courts are in the US, things are heavily, heavily biased to favor wealthy white men. Plus with CSI-educated juries looking for things that aren't there? With people socialized from birth, learning that "criminals" are black and latino men?

I do not think I need to tell you what my then-four-year old brother said when he saw a black man in the mall wearing an orange shirt.

Our whole legal system needs an overhaul. And when corporate criminals get off with little more than a slap on the wrist because the judge attends their dinner parties? I'm sorry, but there are far worse crimes in this country (or, more accurately, in Saipan and the Philippines and Indonesia and Africa) than a single mother of three, holding down two jobs, but thrown into jail for four months because she didn't pay thirty-something dollars in taxes because she chose to pay the electric bill instead.

(For the record, PepsiCo. pays no taxes to the US government. Instead they write it off as "charity" donations in the form of grants to schools.... which often hinge on the agreement that they sell PepsiCo. products in the schools.)

When these great wrongs go unnoticed by the people and the government and the judicial system, how can we expect them to care if an innocent black woman is put in jail or an innocent latino man sent to die. Just one less n***** off the streets, right?

(This wasn't a personal attack, just my feelings. And when I get passionate about an issue, I get forceful and aggressive and kinda stop caring about hurting others' feelings when I do.)

other than these few minutes, so this is all I can do per the AGA until Sunday evening or so. But I wanted to clarify something for you, Dianna. (Later, we will need to, as we have once before, talk about your posts like this, and why some of the ways you are speaking and things you are purporting/celebrating are not appropriate here, and are clearly not in line with the site's policies: I'll leave this post and your other up for now, but they will not be promoted to the front page.)

But then Heather and Irmelin believe that war is unfeminist in many ways. But why?

Pacifism and feminism are completely seperate.

Please understand that this simply is a false statement, and let me explain why that is to you. It is not about my personal belief system.

While how any given woman enacts her feminism, how much nonviolence is or is not a part of her feminist action and personal feminism differs (much like how much a given neo-pagan gives credence to the primary tenet "as it harm none, do as thou wilt," for example), and thus for each woman, these things are clearly debateable, it is completely fallacious to state what you have said here, because throughout the vast majority of feminist history (and antiwar/antiviolence activst history) and in the vast majority of feminist theory, these things are very much linked and not separate.

So, that is the "why," per when you hear many feminist women talking in this way: because it always HAS been a major tenet of feminist theory and activism and very much continues TO be. This is one arena where if a person does not have a basic background in feminist history and theory (and stating something like this is an easy way to identify that a person does not), we're going to have some problems per discussing feminism overall.

Yes: there have been some feminist actions historically, and some feminist theorists who either were not advocating nonviolence, or who were advocating violence (though I cannot off the top of my head think of a one advocating violence against women, and it shouldn't be a stratch to figure out why not: it'd be pretty tricky to justify raping or maiming another woman or girl as feminist, since clearly, that is not empowering for women as a class). But those exceptions are exactly that: they are the rare exception. The rule, per history and the history of feminist theory DOES link nonviolence and/or resistance against violence and feminism.

Whether or not, again, a given woman prescribes to these links or to what degree is one thing: but feminism, as a movement, since its inception HAS nearly always been.

On the issue of whether feminism and pacificism are separate, there are a number of different ways to take it. Some prominent feminists have argued that women are naturally more nurturing, peaceful, etc, and are therefore natural pacifists, a stance with which I do not agree. Other feminists have argued that women are in a unique position to see the harms of war, given the effects of losing their fathers, husbands, and sons (ie, traditional breadwinners) and now even their mothers and daughters, and given that a number of harms of war disproportionally affect women. I find this accurate, as it is more a "position" thing and less an "essential nature" thing.

Moreoever, some really fabulous feminists such as Carol Cohn and Cynthia Enloe have looked at how women have ALWAYS played a significant and nontraditional role in war by, for example, serving in the extensive system of base brothels, acting as an indispensible part of modern militaries in their capacity as officer's wives, and of course, holding down the home front. Then we have nurses, and women's corps, and all of the women who have fought throughout history to boot. For the most part, these roles have not been roles celebrated by feminists. (Heather is also correct, of course, that historically feminism and pacificism have been closely connected, though that need not remain the case).

Personally, my pacifism has been somewhat separate from my feminism in that I was raised in a progressive Catholic family and spent my childhood protesting nuclear weapons and such in the name of seeing every single person in the world as a child of Christ and a vessal of the Holy Spirit, and therefore not to be killed. This is actually where my feminism was born as well, in the realization that we are all intrinsically holy and that the world hasn't, to put it mildly, treated women as such.

You are welcome to support war and/or violence, obviously, but I would strongly encourage you to explore your thoughts about how that support affects women and your own notion of feminism, given how these things have traditionally been AWFUL for women everywhere.

Heather. The Wiccan Rede "as it harm none, do as thou wilt" is WICCAN. Not Pagan. Pagan is not Wiccan, Wiccan is one of the more commonly known branches of Paganism. However Paganism is a blanket term which means, to put it simply, a religion that's not Christian/Muslim/Jewish.
They've also been awful for men, just in different ways.
As long as there's not rule about how many children you can have, we'll still overpopulate the planet. Which is why I look up to women who DON'T want children: because they're going to help the planet, and because they remain an individual without traditional values.
I think very, very low of tradition.
Just so you know...I don't reall keep track of the news. I only ever watch two mock news shows, and they care mostly about making fun of politicians. So you asking me if I've seen these things is a pretty definite "no I haven't".
Adrienne, I appreciate your sentiment. The US court is hevily swayed. I hate it. My core beliefs are against racism, classism, basically anything with ism at the end of it. Politicians are useless. Courts are often pointless. But I support a death penalty, I don't support just trying to get n*****s off the streets, because that's racist. Some of my best friends have been black/latino/east indian etc. Anyone who would suggest harming them for any reason would get hurt upon doing so. I punched a racist kid in the nose twice for telling me I was better than my best friend because she was east indian.

Just so you know...I don't reall keep track of the news ... So you asking me if I've seen these things is a pretty definite "no I haven't".

I can only suggest, that if you are going to comment on war etc, that you START READING THESE THINGS. It may be that your opinions will be the same once you're a bit more informed, but how is it really sound to say "I think this about war?" when you've made absoultely no effort to inform yourself about the realities of war?

And I'm not saying I'm a huge expert either-- but I do read the news, I have seen some pictures that the news won't show, and as a result of that. I really don't think it's at all responsible to say "war is okay (so long as it's for a cause that I believe in)" when you aren't even willing to look into what the reality of such a war might mean.

I've already asked questions relevant to this post elsewhere, but for now I'd like to suggested, Dianna, that there are a lot of Buddists (and other nonChristian religion practioners) out there that might object strenuously to being labelled "pagans." Arguments are always given greater consideration when their facts are correct.

Contre tout le monde, je me defendrai...je suis le dernier homme, je le resterai jusqu'au bout! Je ne capitule pas!
- Ionesco, Le Rhinoceros

Dictionary definition. Which is closest to the truth.
It may not be all those religions, but it is many.
Agnostic and atheist are not pagan. Buddhist is sometimes classified as such, but I feel it's up to each person to choose their calling.
As for information about war: I've heard about the wars, I've seen things-maybe not about this one. But I did a lot of research into Gulags a while back, and I've done a lot of research into the war of 1812 and a little into holocaust. Which just makes me sick 'cause it's like 'we're perfect blah blah blah everybody else should go die blah blah blah blah blah blah.'
I'm of the opinion that when people fight for what they believe in, that's the right thing to do. No matter what type of fighting-that said, fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. Nothing will change that opinion. I know enough to realize there was always much suffering in war-death camps, labor camps, but still. I also realize that as long as there are humans there are going to be wars. Humans fight, it's something we do. If there are masses of us there will be bloodshed. History is doomed to repeat itself. So I'm not going to bother-it wouldn't sit with me. It would be like going against myself, as I tend to be violent and rude. It would mean saying that everything I said before was bull. I don't like doubling back on my word, and unless I have a damn firm belief that it's the right thing to do it's not happening.
Besides, if everything was peaceful it wouldn't be very inspiring.

that I will have to come back to it. I had surgery on my eyes in 2002 and still get blurry spells. I just wanted to put in my two cents while I had the the idea running through my mind.

How can any person judge another?? How can any person kill another human being, unless they are completely insane?? That goes for anyone who enforces murder also. My own family has been affected. My uncle is a murderer. He is a very sick man; however, he does not deserve to be killed. Unfortunately, neither did that man.

But the death penalty is atrocious. Death is not a consequence; it is a easy release. A quick solution. Killing is not solving the problem; it is only pushing a monstrous problem under the rug. Besides the fact that I am a total advocate for rehabilitation; I do not believe that any one person or group of people should have the authority to order the death of another.

As for overpopulation: If only we could get off this stupid tradition that every woman must give birth to children; then, maybe we could save the millions of children who are suffering, even dying due to starvation and lack of medical attention.

You know, we shouldn't be afraid to revise our opinions, simply because they might involve admitting that we were wrong in the past. People who let this sort of fear dictate their opinions are close-minded.

I'm of the opinion that when people fight for what they believe in, that's the right thing to do.

So, if there were Nazis who honestly believed they were doing the right thing when they exterminated Jews, homosexual people, Jehovah's Witnesses etc-- indeed, there were people who believed with all their heart that this was the right thing to do-- then these people were justified? If someone believed with their whole heart that your closest, most beloved friends should be murdered in their beds, then they would be doing the right thing by committing those murders?

Furthermore-- sure, people probably always will kill each other violently. People will also probably always die from disease-- does that mean that doctors should stop trying to cure disease? By the same token, I think it's still a worthy cause to prevent as many violent deaths as possible. And seeking to prevent war is a great way of preventing violent deaths.

They are still doing the right thing for them. Sure I would try and stop them, sure I would hate that they can believe these things-but I would know that they were doing what they believe in. I admire that-sometimes I don't like what they believe, but the only time I object is when they try and force these things upon me.
I'd also be giving up a part of who I am. I am violent, I am a Gunn-I an a warrior. I do not love peace or war. I believe in both in different places and different times. I refuse to give up that part of me that is violent, that is defensive, that is a warrior and a ready fighter, without a damn good reason. Give me one and I might. But the fact that people die from it? In the end, everybody dies anyway. One way isn't that much worse than another-except, of course, when you have to watch them suffer and die.
As to the children who are dying, the women...I hate to say it, but I want one child. If we limited the numbers of births you could have, then we could pay attention to the children suffering. Because we wouldn't be worrying so much about stopping new children from being harmed.
Doctors are useless. The only useful thing doctors have come up with are pain killers and allergy medication. I have a firm hatred of doctors, but that's another matter...
In China they have a two children only rule. That's something I agree with. I agree with legal abortions, and I agree with the death penalty. Or, better yet, torture and then death. I have to admit it, it's a rather fascinating subject. I'm very, very morbid.

Doctors are useless.
Perhaps you wouldn't say that if you had ever had to live with the reality of smallpox? Or if you had ever had to live without antibiotics? Doctors can't solve all of our problems, but they aren't useless because of that. Personally, given that both myself and my mother would have died during my birth if it wasn't for modern medicine, I'm willing not to write doctors off completely. ;)

As for the fighting as a part of your being: I don't think anyone is saying that shouldn't be part of you-- but I really don't think that you have really taken a good hard look at war. It's not just that people die in war, it's that women, and sometimes men too, are raped, it's that families are torn apart, people starve and people are oppressed. This has always been a reality of war. It's not like battles occur in a vaccuum; the raping, the slaughter of civilians, the oppression are all part of it, and they always have been.

I think that there are far better paradigms for fighting than war. It's not a matter of either going to war or giving up. Hell, there are even some instances in which I, personally, do think that military invention can be justified (for instance, I think it would have been justified to stop the 1993 slaughter in Rwanda)-- but I think that there are other, better ways to fight, because when it comes to war, there is no side, no matter how noble their initial intentions may be, who do not engage in the raping, the slaughter and the oppression to some extent. Sure, the winners always make themselves out to be different, but the victims generally tell a different story.

Is that really what you want from yourself as a fighter Dianna? Do you want your fights to leave a trail of pain and horror? I'm not talking about killing someone in isolation here, but the whole parcel that always goes with war? Maybe that is what you really want, or perhaps you've just convinced yourself that you don't care, but I suspect that you just haven't considered the all the implications of that very deeply. I think you see yourself as the mythical Dianna, but haven't looked at what sort of reality might lie behind that myth.

And I also think that the reality of you, the real person Dianna the Fighter, has the potential to do a lot more with her fighting capabilities than making war.

War benefits only the victors. Even them it doesn't always benefit.
How many of those victims survive? How many of the survivors-ultimately-learn to live with it, and how many commit suicide?
When you understand war there are two ways. You can protest or you can believe in it. I believe in it because of the change it brings. People see through wars their flaws. You're more likely to realize a Nazi is an asshole when he's trying to invade your country. People realize the evils of certain beliefs which truly are horrible and skewered, and people reach out to other people.
It's like this one poem I wrote after the tsunami last year. Maybe two years now. It said that, basically, everything bad is also a good thing. Everything that horrifies us and disgusts us-it brings humanity closer together. Humanity reaches out to help survivors, humanity tries to keep them alive and well. They realize the effects of what they're doing. They realize that they were wrong, that Hitler was wrong, that America was wrong in 1812. That always, trying to invade without provocation or for something as stupid as 'you're not me' is assholery and dishonourable and I will frankly not tolerate it.
Yes, I do try to envision myself as the warrior and huntress that is Diana. She is strong, she is herself, she does not see the need to give herself to a man, and she scorns the way men treat women. She is a powerful woman, a huntress with both cruelty and compassion, the moon and all it encompasses. What woman does not wish to be like Diana in their hearts? The Goddess Diana is the embodiment of everything that I am. She is the guiding light, the original feminist if you will.
My fights already leave a trail of pain and fear, not horror but fear. People in my area fear me. Thus they leave me alone. I'd rather be left alone then used, mistreated, or popular with a crapload of fake friends. I think that this trail is a good thing, because it inspires me. Now the cut off is that I can't do anything that might jeopordize me in school at all or I'm in big shit, but I have a good enough reputation that inconsistency will hardly be noticed.
A lot more with my fighting capabilities? Should I pretend to get what the hell you're saying? 'Cause I don't and won't. Tell me what, exactly, is 'more' than warfare.

May I suggest a miniproject at this point, Dianna?

First, reread the AGA mission statement and posting policies closely. Do you believe your words are in accordance with these guidelines (guidelines you agreed to abide by when you applied)? If so, I would like you to respond in a comment below: I would like to see you articulate your belief in a supportive community and in feminism in general very much at this point. Please also explain what these terms mean to you. Give concrete examples of how you see these terms playing out in social interactions on this site, and also in society in general. Please consider your response carefully: proofread for contradictory statements, incorrect facts, and baseless generalizations.

I understand that you may not like answering questions: I note that you've been uninterested in answering any of those I posted on your GTA post. However, at this point in this thread I think it is necessary for the entire community of AGA- bloggers and moderators- to hear you articulate how your beliefs coincide with the goals of this community.

Contre tout le monde, je me defendrai...je suis le dernier homme, je le resterai jusqu'au bout! Je ne capitule pas!
- Ionesco, Le Rhinoceros

A lot more with my fighting capabilities? Should I pretend to get what the hell you're saying? 'Cause I don't and won't. Tell me what, exactly, is 'more' than warfare.

Should I tell you, when you claim that you won't listen? I have in fact already given you a few ways that you can fight without war-- for instance, fighting to educate people (particularly women, who are often doubly overlooked) in the third world, which would have a significant impact on the overpopulation problem.

My fights already leave a trail of pain and fear, not horror but fear. People in my area fear me.

How do you know that your victims aren't feeling horror? Have you actually asked any of the people you've bullied into fearing you whether or not they're feeling horror? And even if you did, don't you think they might be so scared of you that they wouldn't give an honest answer?

At the same time though, I don't think you can say that you have an idea of the horror of war simply because you've bullied a few kids in your area into fearing you. Probably it's something that none of us who have been lucky enough never to have seen a warzone can fully understand, but we can at least make an effort to read and keep ourselves informed about what things are like for people who aren't as lucky as us.

You seem very happy to keep yourself ignorant, however, preferring to wrap yourself in myth rather than reality, and using that myth-- from what you've said here-- to justify bullying others.

Humanity reaches out to help survivors, humanity tries to keep them alive and well. They realize the effects of what they're doing. They realize that they were wrong, that Hitler was wrong, that America was wrong in 1812.

Thing is, people COULD recognise these things before wars take place-- this is (if you're willing to listen) one way that we can fight without going to war: by raising awareness BEFORE war happens. (On a side point, there are also a lot of people who DON'T think the war of 1812 was wrong-- not sure that it raised any sort of universal awareness). I think it's really easy for you to say "War is okay because it raises awareness" when you and none of your loved ones are currently threatened by any of the wars in the world, and when you are actually making an effort NOT to learn about what things might be like for the people who actually are affected by war.

It's interesting about World War II-- by the time Hitler started the war in Europe, a huge war was pretty much inevitable, but if people (particularly people in Germany) had been willing to fight sooner-- not with guns, but with words, raising awareness BEFORE it came to war, it all could have been averted. Hannah Arendt has written some pretty powerful stuff about this-- I think it's in On Violence (I think you must like that title), which is probably her most accessible work, though you'll probably have trouble finding it outside of an academic library. She points out the potential that people had to do things before it became a matter of concentration camps and war-- and how no one did those things. Surely, raising awareness before it comes to war, while people want to keep themselves blind, is a way of fighting?

Dianna, I found an article in the news today that might interest you:
(Be warned folks, this is gut wrenching stuff-- potentially triggering for some.)

Blasted by a missile on the road to safety

How do things like this-- the violent reality of war-- fit in with feminism? Is this what you see when you see the goddess Diana fighting for women? Because this is war.

That's still not 'more' than war. Different, but not 'more'.
At most it is the same amount as war. But not more.
Horror is something I know well. Horror is not my road; I don't torture.
I am not wrapping myself in myth. I know the truths of war-you don't research Gulags, and read about WW2 without running into horror and violence. You can't avoid it in life for the simple fact that it's everywhere. Stories of cover ups get into discussion and the news. Not graphically, maybe not well-covered, but I know they're there. Still, nothing convinces me pacifism is a good thing. Actually, I would believe in it more if it were environmentally friendly. I read your article. Everyone experiences death and pain. Often I wonder if the instant deaths are better than fates they may have had forced upon them. Disease and the long-term pain it brings are, in my mind, far worse than deaths caused by the military. I've seen it and I've seen war deaths, read about them. In my opinion the quicker the better.
I would die happily with the knowledge I fought for what I believe in. I would die happily knowing that I influenced many lives. I would die happily without pain, because the suffering is worse when you just see their condition deteriorating. I would die happily knowing that, in my life or death, I have somehow helped at least one person. I would die happily in any of these conditions, happiest in all of them. I accept death, I welcome it. When death comes, I will be ready. Until it comes, I will do my best. No point whining over how it's going to happen.
I see Diana as supporting herself. She fights by eaxmple. By being independant, strong, and free from sterotypes. Diana is a role model. She fights by example, and when she feels it is the right decision-by force. By inspiration, example, and-yes-force. That is the goddess I know. Most of my life is fashioned from hers. I try and follow in her footsteps by being independant, strong, and forceful in my presantation of my beliefs. She knows that I cannot follow in all her directions, that now things are different, that I have a different role in life. She accepts it and emplores me to follow her example. I believe in the kind of character she was/is and I try to. I see Diana, with an ivory bow, knocking down the enemies. I see Diana taking all precautions. I see no technological warfare for her simply because she does not fight that way. She fights with honour. Honour has been lost, so she does not fight these fights.

I understand that you might be taking some time away from this discussion, but I wanted to point something out: speaking for myself, I'm not trying to turn you into a pacifist. I'm not sure that I can be considered a pacifist myself (though I am certainly anti-war and pro-peace), since I do personally think that there are times when military intervention can be justified (as I mentioned before, I think such interventions should have occurred in Rwanda, and I also agree with the Australian-led UN peacekeeping force sent into East Timor). Again, speaking for myself, I would also use force/violence to protect myself or a loved one from a direct violent attack from another person, if that was the best way I could see of stopping such an attack.

What I have been trying to do is get you to do is justify your argument, which as far as I can make out goes "I love war and violence because I hate people and I think it's justified and feminist because the goddess Diana was a warrior-figure." You haven't said anything about how you think that war and violence can help you achieve ANY objective (except perhaps the objective of making all the kids in your neighbourhood scared of you-- which in turn, of course, means that they're not going to be very receptive to you if you try to, say, raise environmental awareness among them).

I see Diana, with an ivory bow, knocking down the enemies. I see Diana taking all precautions. I see no technological warfare for her simply because she does not fight that way. She fights with honour. Honour has been lost, so she does not fight these fights.

I take it, from this statement, that you don't see Diana supporting any of the recent world conflicts-- but I would suggest to you that while there may be individual people who have conducted themselves according to a particular code of honour in warfare (or maybe I'm just an optimist), warfare itself has never looked any different in terms of the fact that it involves opression, rape, and destruction, whether fought with ivory bows or long range missiles-- and I want to know, what exactly you see that achieving for the goals that are important to you? You've spent a lot of time asking for a type of fighting that does "more" than war, and you've dismissed examples that have been given to you, but you haven't told us exactly how you see war achieving "more." So tell me-- how does war and violence do "more" for the causes that you believe in than peaceful action?

Rather than simply saying "I support war because I don't care if people die, and I have no empathy for the victims of war," are you able to tell us what you see war-- real war, not the myth a battle fought with an ivory bow, not non-existant enviro-warheads-- achieving for the causes that you say you support?

Right now the only war is rather stupid and pointless.
The war on terrorism is a joke. By reacting, we are simply proving to them that terrorism works. Good going, Bush.
I don't really pay attention to other wars. There are a few, but right now this is the big one.
War has been honourable in the past. Of course it depends on what you mean by honourable. I will often tell you that I have a strong but skewered sense of honour.
War has been fought for the right causes and the wrong ones in the past.
I have little empathy for anyone, simply because in my experience, let's just say I'm a strong empath which can be a little annoying.
The bow was long an important part of war. I only see an ivory bow in Diana's hands. Her wars are real wars, too. Different but equally real. Different because she fights with her ethics. The ethics she has shown me to believe in. I follow the lady in all her truths. Is there something wrong with this?
The American civil war-it brought about the end to slavery.
If a war, if the military were to be changed so that men and women were on equal footing-it would be done from within more easily than from without. From without they would say 'what do you know about war' and they would be absolutely right. Until you have been in any situation, you can be well learned and completely chocked by the reality.
War can and should be used as a tool to change things for the better and stop things like Rwanda.
Many wars should never have been fought. They should never have fought the war in Iraq-they sure as hell shouldn't still be fighting it. We have more important things to do than sit around harping because one-ONE-group of /insert ethnicity here/ did whatever so we invaded their country. Really? All that should have been done there was removing Sadam and helping find a new leader. Not...this.
I support war because it has been effective in the past; things that work well once often work well again. If the civil war ended slavery, is that not a good thing? If the world war two showed us the evils of discrimination so well, shouldn't we see the benefits? Not only that, but feminism was given a huge boost during world war two-when all the men were off fighting, who worked in the factories to send them materials and keep the world running? Women. Is it not a good thing that women were in factory jobs, seeing what it was like despite the years when only men were allowed to do those jobs?
Anything-anything at all-that teaches humanity the vital lessons we need to learn is a good thing. When all else fails the military can be the only way to prove your point. It drives it home that, yes, you are willing to go to ANY lengths for what you believe. And it makes people conform to your rules-and eventually realize how stupid they were. That good? There's your justification. Completely justified. And I've never studied military history very much.

Dianna, it's very clear to all of us that you've never studied military history much. Since you're already interested in it, I would highly recommend that you read some history.

Also, remember how we were discussing in your other post your tendancy to make contradictory statements that end up looking disingenuous to your readers? Here's another set:
"Or, better yet, torture and then death. I have to admit it, it's a rather fascinating subject."
Compare that to this:
"I don't torture."
You wrote both in separate comments above. So. Can you explain the apparent contradiction in your statements?

Contre tout le monde, je me defendrai...je suis le dernier homme, je le resterai jusqu'au bout! Je ne capitule pas!
- Ionesco, Le Rhinoceros

I have little empathy for anyone, simply because in my experience, let's just say I'm a strong empath which can be a little annoying.

Okay, fine, but how does your lack of empathy justify your love of war, as you were claiming it does?

The bow was long an important part of war. I only see an ivory bow in Diana's hands. Her wars are real wars, too. Different but equally real. Different because she fights with her ethics. The ethics she has shown me to believe in. I follow the lady in all her truths. Is there something wrong with this?

Can you clarify what you mean by "different but equally real?" If you mean that her fighting with her ethics means that her status as a warrior has a metaphorical significance, then that is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about ways of fighting without war-- arguments which you dismissed out of hand.

As for "in all her truths?" what exactly are you basing these on? I don't think that there is one canonical text in which Diana sets out what she believes are a set of universal ethical truths, so is it more a case that you are choosing to see certain things as Diana's "truths" because they fit in with the way that you personally want to be? Furthermore, a lot of unnecessary wars get started simply because people do feel like the "truths" of their deity compels them (the Crusades, for instance).

If the civil war ended slavery, is that not a good thing? If the world war two showed us the evils of discrimination so well, shouldn't we see the benefits? Not only that, but feminism was given a huge boost during world war two-when all the men were off fighting, who worked in the factories to send them materials and keep the world running? Women. Is it not a good thing that women were in factory jobs, seeing what it was like despite the years when only men were allowed to do those jobs?

All these things, such as the end of slavery, the civil rights movement and feminism are good things, in my opinion, but I do not think it is a good thing that war was supposedly "needed" as a catalyst for them-- I think that they all could have been achieved without that, if more people had only been willing to fight for these things before it came to war. I've said before, that it's my belief that by the time 1939 came around WWII was pretty much inevitable, but this doesn't make me love war-- it just makes it into an even huger tragedy that it could have been prevented earlier, but wasn't.

Remember too, that the greatest advances in things like civil rights arose out of peaceful action-- Rosa Parks, for instance, did huge things by simply refusing to stand up one day. Martin Luther King Jr too, was peaceful in his calls for equality.

By the way, it's important to recognise that while American and Australian women may have been working in factories (at reduced pay, mind you), women in France, Germany and many other places all around the world were raped, starved and homeless. In many parts of the world, they still are, because of war. Even if you have no empathy, surely you can see in a cold, analystical sense that this is not a Good Thing.

It drives it home that, yes, you are willing to go to ANY lengths for what you believe. And it makes people conform to your rules-and eventually realize how stupid they were. That good? There's your justification. Completely justified.

Doesn't this also justify the recent wars, such as the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq, that you claim to disagree with? How then, do you distinguish between the wars that you claim are not justified, and those that are? Because I'm pretty sure that ANY war will have people agreeing with you on this point-- in fact it sounds remarkably similar to the rhetoric used by both George W. Bush AND Al Qaida. So, I am afraid that I have to disagree with "completely justified."

By the way, if your differences are that YOUR war is honourable, please tell me exactly what it is that makes your wars honourable, and others not?

I will address the last in another entry.
But as for 'truths' I mean that what she is/was and believes/believed is true. She is not the universal truth-maker, however I believe she stands for many truths despite the fact she never was viewed that way.
Not all mythological representations are true.
This means that the reasons Diana fought were different from others. She was mainly a defensive fighter, but she would intervene when necessary. Diana fought for survival and the essentials of survival.
Also the factories information was from my mom. She randomly threw it at me when I mentioned this. Mom knows little about war, but it's still a good point.
May be similar to their arguements, I disagree with what they believe but I agree with them on that point. I believe that while some of the things they have spoken are true, they are fighting the wrong wars. Or, at least, Bush is. Al Qaida is not really something I've researched, but from what I have heard, they /seem/ to be fighting the wrong wars. Some wars are best realized through diplomacy but when that fails and ONLY when that fails should we move on to war. Bush just went too far because he's too power-hungry and he wants oil.

The concept of honour is very interesting, and I look forward to hearing more about the way that you see it.

Not all mythological representations are true.

That's what I've been arguing all along, by the way.

You know, I think it might be really interesting to come back to this once you have done a bit more research into both war and into the relationship between the representation of religious figures and the way in which those can manifest in your life. I'm not saying that you will agree with me or anyone else after that process-- but I do think that your perspective will be a lot richer for doing some more research.

And while you're doing it, remember these things:

+Don't be afraid to ask questions.
+Don't be afraid to admit you might be wrong.
+Even when you think you have reached the right answer, keep asking questions, just in case.