Exposing the truth is not a popularity contest. The goal is not to take Ellsberg's place, the goal is to inform the people of what their government is doing with the taxpayers' dollars.
Yes, we already knew about Pakistan's intelligence collaborating with the enemy. But did you know for sure that the Taliban were shooting down U.S. choppers with stinger missiles? I did not. I do now.
Seth Jones has talked about the heat seeking missiles going back to early 2008. The only reason I happen to know this is because he was on NPR a few months ago talking about it along with the Pakistan connection. Certainly didn't see much coverage of this in the mainstream media until now. Wikileaks does a good job getting people's attention at least. Too bad they weren't around in late 2002 / early 2003.
I don't think the problem was so much a lack of raw data (most of this information actually WAS reported in open source publications; just ignored), as much as a lack of any ability to analyze and draw conclusions from that data. This was true within the US Department of State, the CPA, the PCO, etc. Reporters and academia didn't have anyone better. Wikileaks would have been good if there were secret information not being published, but basically everything important was published openly with a 1-3 month lag time.
The only part of US society with any experience at all going into this in 2003 was the military, due to KFOR/Kosovo, and even that was exceedingly limited. Arguably, if the US had more experience in 2003, it might have been less willing to go into Iraq at all.
There were people who were just 100% anti-war in general, or anti Bush, or whatever, but because they were always screaming the same thing, they could be easily ignored -- kind of like calling every single death in a war murder, it degrades the term murder and makes actual murder much cheaper as a result.
Michael Yon (www.michaelyon-online.com) was probably the first to say things were actually going badly from 2003-2005, and then to document the surge and "awakening" which won Iraq.
If anyone won the war in Iraq, it was Iran. The surge only "worked" because Iran allowed it to work. In case the U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, you can count on losing Iraq once again.
Yon takes good photos, and he provides some interesting stories at the tactical level. But he's kind of completely clueless about the grand plan. He's nothing more than a "useful idiot", cheering for a campaign from which he gains very little.
It absolutely went from utter failure to just sort of failure with the surge and awakening.
No one really won (well, the Kurds, and maybe Iran), but sometimes making something really bad suck less is a victory. Given that the people who architected the turnaround were not the people who started it, I'd say they did a pretty good job with what they were given.
Going from utter failure to mere failure is not victory, it is disaster mitigation. What would a victory in Iraq even look like? Iran emerged as a regional power. Saudi Arabia continues to finance terrorism with petrodollars. Millions of Arabs hate the U.S. even more than they did 10 years ago. How could this happen? Where was Congress in early 2003? Where were the checks and balances?
Why is that any sane person who dares to criticize the U.S. foreign policy is labeled as "traitor", when the true traitors were the congressmen who failed to check the executive branch, the intelligence agencies' employees who could but did not blow the whistle, and overall the American people who engaged in hysteria and madness and abstained from rational thought after the 9/11 attacks.
The scary thing is that Pakistan apparently now produces "Stingers" as well (ANZA-II); probably superior to the other foreign MANPADS out there. We let them distribute thousands to the Muj in Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, and they apparently reverse engineered some.
The Anza range of MANPADs is based on Chinese MANPAD designs, themselves clones of Soviet/Russian MANPADs, and not on the Stinger. If you view photos of the Anza system the resemblance to Eastern Bloc weapons like the SA-7 Strela are quite clear, whereas it seems to share very little if anything with the Stinger.
Neither the Anza nor the Stinger (with the exception of the unordered Block II variant) could be regarded as superior to all other foreign MANPADs as both are handily outranged and otherwise bettered by newer fourth-generation MANPAD systems.
People need to get over the idea that any mention of a surface-to-air missile in Afghanistan must mean it's a Stinger. It's unlikely any of those ancient Stingers still work and the Soviet/Russian MANPAD variants were distributed so widely around the world that pretty much every two-bit terrorist has one these days.
Sort of off-topic (it's highly doubtful the Taliban have the latest generation...), but which MANPADS would you consider top for the anti-blackhawk mission? The Starstreak?
Hard to say really, as it's been a while since I dove into this subject. But yes, considering the missile approach warning systems, directed infrared countermeasures and countermeasure dispensers available for use on helicopters today, it's probably fair to say that a beam-riding SACLOS missile like the Starstreak is likely to be amongst the most effective against helicopters.
Good point. I assumed that by "man portable surface to air missiles", they meant "stingers". My mistake. While I am at it, here's some info on Stinger Missiles:
To clarify for other readers, the Stinger is a U.S. made MANPAD (Man-portable air-defense systems). If the Taliban have any, they are 20 year old missiles left over from the war with the Soviets, and they are most likely non-functional, since they have a limited life time. It would be embarrassing to the U.S. to loose aircraft to Stingers, but if there are any left that still work, there probably aren't very many, and the risk is limited. It's more likely that the Taliban has managed to acquire newer MANPADS (probably a Soviet design). This would be especially scary if these missiles were being supplied by the ISI or the Iranians, since it's then possible that the Taliban could acquire quite a lot of them.
"From the total lack of network to handset authentication, to the "Of course I'll give you my IMSI" message, to the iPhone that really wanted to talk to us. It all came as a surprise -- stunning to see what $1500 of USRP can do. Add a weak cipher trivially breakable after a few months of distributed table generation and you get the most widely deployed privacy threat on the planet."
Of course relationships are a game: two players, several actions available to each player, and payoffs dependent on both players' actions. That is, by definition, a game.
But it gets more interesting. Relationships are power games, as the player with the most power will dictate the tempo and pace of the battle. If you have more options and are less invested in the relationship than your significant other, then you have power over her. This power gap translates into luxuries like avoiding visiting her family (too often, at least), or not bothering about remembering her girlfriends' names. Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments, and by abstaining from (too much) philandering. This balance of terror works great for both parties.
Living hell for her, heaven for you!? Not really. My approach makes her obsession last longer. She never knows when she finally has you, so she keeps fighting to conquer your heart. Since this is a lifetime endeavor (or, perhaps, a death march), then the relationship never gets stale, and she never gets bored with you. Makes marriages last longer, is less traumatic for the kids, and (ultimately) is better for society.
PS: next time your s.o. forces you to visit her boring family or some friends of her that you hate, you'll wish you had more power. Enjoy the whipping!!
Your assumptions about my relationship are pretty deeply unfounded--I've never been forced to visit her family, nor do I hate her friends, nor have I ever been forced to visit them. There's no "whipping" involved--I'm every bit as free as I care to be.
It's not a question of power at all--we don't seek power over each other so much as we work hard to keep our autonomy while sharing our lives together. It's difficult, but it's worthwhile as well. Building a strong relationship that respects the freedom of each partner is just as hard as keeping up one side of a power game, but it's more fulfilling in the end. Knowing that someone else truly and deeply loves you is a very comforting feeling, especially when you both know it's mutual. Trying to withhold that satisfaction and make your partner insecure just to keep her (literally) on the treadmill is an asshole thing to do, but ultimately it hurts you too. Winning your power-game style of relationship would be hell to me compared to the relationship I actually have.
Look, I'll just address you point-by-point:
Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her when she hits the magic 30-year-old mark.
Fat girls are underrated in my opinion, but there are plenty of strong women who can and do keep themselves in good shape for their own benefit. Of course, a self-starting woman like that is likely far too strong to put up with the kind of bullshit you're talking about.
You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments
I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!
and by abstaining from (too much) philandering
That's not a special favor; that's a basic part of being in a monogamous relationship. If monogamy is boring, have an open relationship and let the girl have some fun too. It might even spice up your sex life to have the odd threesome!
The kind of relationship you advocate might be the best you can get--it may be genuinely difficult to have a genuinely good relationship like I'm talking about--but personally speaking, if the best relationship I can get is some adversarial power game, I'd rather go completely without. I have no fear of dying alone--I am comfortable with the notion.
Watching them was like watching a sick, evil little puppet show. He goaded her, she attacked him. He ignored her attacks, she escalated. Within minutes, dinner was ruined. They both looked supremely satisfied with this result.
Before I turned to leave, the man reached out with a bony, desperate hand and clutched my arm.
“Never, never get married,” he implored.
I looked at his wife. Instead of looking offended, her eyes widened in tentative agreement. A slight nod of her head was like the period on the end of his sentence.
I am not trying to preach anyone, nor to force anyone to live according to the rules that make sense to me. I will never cease to see any relationship between humans, personal or professional, as a power game. Even if a couple has a deep emotional connection, the one who feels less intensely will have power over the other and be able to dictate the rules. It's the way it is.
"I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!"
I would rather not date stupid / irrational women, either! But the only women I know who are rational, smart, interesting to talk to are in their mid-30s and looking for a husband and father to their future children. Since I have some scruples left, I don't date women who want a family man, because I can't offer what they're looking for.
In any case, I challenge you to find a rational, smart 25 year old woman. You know what they say: you can only understand life looking backwards, but you can only live life looking forwards. You can't have youth and wisdom simultaneously. Pick something in between. It's a delicate tradeoff.
I know lots of counter-examples to your theory. However I'd never be willing to introduce you to them because your theories about how to treat them repulse me.
It's fun to meet people, but maintaining functional relationships with people is not about fun. The "balance of terror" thing was meant not too literally. In other words, if one always fears losing the other, then one will invest in the relationship. If there's no fear, then she'll gain 20 pounds and he'll become a lazy, useless slob... and then it's all doomed. There's nothing unconditional in this world, especially when it comes to "love".
"If there's no fear, then she'll gain 20 pounds and he'll become a lazy, useless slob... and then it's all doomed."
If the only thing that keeps someone motivated in life is the fear of dying alone, I'd rather not be involved with that person. In fact, I'd much rather not even know that person.
"If the only thing that keeps someone motivated in life is the fear of dying alone, I'd rather not be involved with that person. In fact, I'd much rather not even know that person."
I am with you on this one. A 22 y.o. who's in a bland relationship because of fear of dying alone does not deserve my respect. But fear of dying alone is not the only fear. Everyone craves for approval, and everyone is hurt by rejection. Moreover, losing someone with whom one had a deep connection is painful, and normal humans tend to avoid pain. Therefore, I would say that fear in a relationship is a cocktail of various different fears, some better than others. Having said that, I still claim that fearing losing the other is a good thing, as lack of any kind of fear is a symptom that something is fundamentally wrong.
What motivates me to live well is my fear is of losing the respect and approval of myself, and what motivates me to love and respect my partner is the genuine love and respect I feel for my partner. I don't think anything is fundamentally wrong with that.
I'm normally a big proponent of fear, but in other parts of life--not love.
"LOVE, n. A temporary insanity curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder. This disease, like caries and many other ailments, is prevalent only among civilized races living under artificial conditions; barbarous nations breathing pure air and eating simple food enjoy immunity from its ravages. It is sometimes fatal, but more frequently to the physician than to the patient."
It's so easy to take the moral high ground when one has zero power. That briefly summarizes Clay's self-important diatribe. More to the point: who's Clay Johnson? That's right: nobody knows, and nobody cares.
He's in charge of the tech arm of the Sunlight Foundation, a pretty cool group working for increased transparency in government. They're behind projects like opencongress.org.
I'd say he's pretty well known among the "open source government" crowd.
He lost me when he admitted to having been involved in the Howard Dean campaign. He clearly has a very favorable view of governmental entities and aspires to be favored by those in power.
Huh? His comment was critical of Howard Dean's campaign.
Here's what he said:
"No organization like Wikileaks can survive a cult of personality, or one person’s delusions of grandeur. Trust me — I worked on Howard Dean’s presidential campaign."
He's not saying "Trust me, I worked on a political campaign." He's saying, with a bit of dark humor, "Trust me, I know what it's like to be involved in a cult of personality and watch it fail because of it."
"WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a position."
Showing that the U.S. Military makes mistakes helps destroy the dangerous myth that all U.S. servicemen are saints. I have no idea how this meme that "WikiLeaks is bad because it showed U.S. soldiers doing bad things" was born, but it's, frankly, really ludicrous. When you see cold-blooded murder right before your eyes, you do take a stand. If you don't, you're a monster. Or an accomplice. Period.
You missed my point entirely. If they want to leak material showing the government doing "bad things", go ahead. Leak it. All of it. The more the better.
But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.
> But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.
To be fair, both the edited and the complete video of the attack were released simultaneously.
Watching some 40 minutes of a clip mostly filled with inaction vs. the clip containing only the important parts with context, which would you rather watch? I know what I'll choose, time is important to me.
I can almost understand your argument against the editorializing, but the bottom line (at least to me) is that Wikileaks does eventually leak all data in its entirety, you can so choose to ignore all their commentary if you desire.
In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps):
0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.
0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”
1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”
1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).
3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”
4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”
4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.
4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”
5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).
5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”
6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”
6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”
6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, ___Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did___.
Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
"they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material."
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video.
Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it.
Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
your are delusional about the definition of murder and war.
1. Murder is the un-lawful killing of humans by other humans.
2. Murder in war occurs when humans kill other humans by not acting within the confines of the rules of war.
Although most military bodies including US military have to follow Geneva convention that does not mean every war time act is lawful. How many unlawful military acts in Iraq/Afghanistan got prosecuted last year? More than one did.
This specific event has not been ruled un-lawful yet and reporters are always told that in battle areas if they are with the armed enemy they may risk being fired upon.
Hence, the Collateral part of the video name. However, usually in these cases its the organization workings that fail the solider in determining differences between lawful and unlawful acts not the individual solider himself or herself.
Semantics" is pretty important when talking what connotes murder. But, stepping back, your response is a bit non-sequitur. What do you mean legal?
Under Chapter VII, the U.N. doesn't "approve" wars or invasions. They "restore international peace and security." Are the US and all the other countries involved not sovereign? In the scope of the U.N., even more sovereign than most?
So, was the invasion legal in the U.S.? The Iraq Resolution passed congress.
Coalition forces (not just the U.S.) have killed civilians. All actors in the conflict have. That doesn't make it right.
Arguing legality is a bit over the top. The rationales for the beginning of the conflict (WMD, etc.) have been invalidated. But, that doesn't change the reality at hand.
Not an awful lot to do with that specific video; which is our whole point about pushing the agenda. It was twisted from an important video about the killing of civilians into a statement about the legitimacy of the war.
That is exactly what Fox or one of the other big networks do to stories ;)
So you were totally undisturbed by the video because the rules of war were followed? I though the point of the video was to shed light on what that actually means.
In this case something which looks a lot like a fairly hasty series of actions that led up to a callous killing, even though it was within the rules of engagement.
Things like the idea of the "rules of war" exist to help the public believe that war is proper, hygenic and rule-driven... not a bunch of scared-shitless adrenaline charged youth on what is essentially an unchecked rampage.
The title "collateral murder" was intended to focus the viewer's attention on the appropriateness of the killings and thus of the war.
I found it disturbing as well, even though I couldn't really find it in my heart to blame the guys who shot the journalists.
I think the point of the leak was to show the public a side of war that we don't typically see so that we might realize that war is actually quite an ugly, morally shaky undertaking.
If Fox spins the fact to sell war, why would spinning the facts to sell peace be morally wrong?
Because that way lies insanity - it also undermines any arguments against Fox's bias. In fact it becomes even more problematic; if both sides are twisting the story then that risk legitimising Fox's stance. That is dangerous.
Morally it would be... complicated but could be done in good faith. Logically it seems a poor choice.
Assange is aiming at maximum impact. He knows human nature well enough to understand that people love polarization, and he exploits human weaknesses in order to accomplish his goals. Who has ever heard of Cryptome or Steven Aftergood? Very few. By contrast, everyone knows Assange these days. You may find his approach distasteful, but you can't claim it's not effective.
In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal. Ultimately, I don't blame the soldiers, for they were following orders. I blame the American people for blindly trusting their government and failing to demand accountability from the morally challenged elected officials. A docile populace is the first step towards tyranny.
If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. Anger in the face of tragedy is preferrable to utter indifference. If Assange is self-aggrandizing and has an agenda, I am fine with that too, for he has done a great job so far and it would be enormously unrealistic to demand zero self-interest from a person who has amassed such immense power in such a short period of time.
In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal
I think this is the core of our disagreement; because while I agree with you I abhor the idea of pushing an agenda and opinion on anyone. The video could have stood for itself; instead I believe Assange weakened it via it's presentation in an effort to raise the profile of Wikileaks.
If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that.
It matters; it matters a lot. Because the editorial was gleeful and gloating. It was saying "screw you US government" - and that is silly because the video stands for itself.
That Wikileaks has an agenda is, in my mind, wrong - when the information you present/possess comes from secret sources and contains highly controversial material it should be treated objectively.
I don;t care of Wikileaks languishes in obscurity like Cryptome; enough people know of it that anything seriously big (like the video) will make the media.
These sites are important simply by existing because they present a critical danger to those who want to abuse government positions; I don't want someone aggrandizing and pretentious and seemingly biased as those politicians presenting the information.
I disagree that the video could have stood for itself. WikiLeaks sent people to Baghdad to meet the children who were in the van that was shot by the Apache. That's investigative journalism, and it's laudable.
If the Pentagon shows you footage of a combat operation in which insurgents are hiding in a building that is seconds later destroyed by an Hellfire missile and they tell you that there were no civilian casualties, you may believe they're telling you the truth. If someone investigates the attack and finds out there were non-combatants in that building and that the Apache attack was a stupid abuse of force, later releases footage with captions suggesting a version of the facts different from the Pentagon's, then such editorializing is not bias, it's an accurate portrayal of the facts. The problem is that when the mainstream media is so biased and people have grown accustomed to it, then a cold-blooded depiction of the facts may look as an attempt to manipulate people's opinions, as if telling the truth were propaganda.
Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not making that much money. He lives the life of an international man of mystery, which may sound cool until one thinks of the downsides. A person who willingly embraces such lifestyle can only have a strong desire to amass power / fame and deliver impact. Assange is no saint, but he's useful, and that's all that matters.
This probably isn't the place to argue out the difference (for the record the points you highlight are not what I refer to as editorial - I mean stuff like calling it collateral murder etc. which is unnecessary) however...
Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not making that much money.
I'm calling bull on that. Or at least argument from the unprovable. Who knows what he makes or how he lives. I doubt he is a millionaire from all this but he flies around the world a lot.
He lives the life of an international man of mystery
Everything we know and read (mostly from the main himself) paints a picture of a guy living in this in his head. The reality is probably quite different :)
Im not calling Assange bad or anything; but I think he has too strong beliefs to head up such an important movement. He's a good poster boy - but I actually feel his attitude can harm the movement - because the mainstream media have a tough time taking him seriously.
"...because the mainstream media have a tough time taking him seriously."
Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of the) mainstream media. If WikiLeaks could simply bypass the MSM, we'd all be better off.
I don't know if Assange helps the movement more than he hinders it, but at least he has done more for the cause of monitoring centers of power than the MSM in the last 40 years, since Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers. If he's using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care. Donations are voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War.
Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of the) mainstream media.
Sadly that is how you contact most people. Besides - one of the main issues with modern media is bias and vitriol, shouldn't Wikileaks rise above that?
If he's using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care. Donations are voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War.
And that, I think, says it all. My principles are not so easily bent (I'm not convinced he is misappropriating funds btw). I gave them a donation to fund the support of whistleblowers - not to fund a lavish lifestyle. If he is doing that then I am very pissed off :)
Why the rush? It's not like you're gonna be impotent at age 40 or something. The pressure to "do or die" in one year only is likely to jeopardize your effort... unless you date single, childless 40 year old women. But what self-respecting man would do such a thing when there are so many younger, hotter women?
As common wisdom goes, children are created through an act by one male and one female human, and subsequently carry about 50% of each partner's core DNA and 100% of the female partner's mitochondrial DNA.
As a result, neither egocentrical males nor lesbians can bear children by themselves, even though artificial insemination and foster mothers may make it easy to live in the illusion that it's a possibility. (Or were you implying that the backward model of gender roles that is expressed in "carry my child" would be sure to drive any sane woman away unless the OP is a lesbian woman, because lesbian women can get away with chauvinistic opinions without raising any red flags?)
On the other hand, yes, his or her wife may be perfectly able to carry his or her existing child around if he or she is a single parent with a sore back.
And while you may consider yourself witty, I feel I must point out that in the context in which I was using it, "to carry" a child refers to the state of being pregnant with it. Citation: #6 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carry Yet again, something the wombless may have trouble with.
Lesbians can certainly bear children by themselves, just as any woman could. By that point, it does not matter (for the biological notion of conception) if that woman is lesbian, heterosexual, asexual, or anything else.
As opposed to that, the mindset of getting a partner for the sole purpose of having a family, while certainly more often found with those with non-womb reproductive organs, can probably be found with both males and females and in either case is sure to be appalling to the partner (or to other people at large).
While I strongly agree with your basic point, I'm not sure I like the way you make that point.
In my understanding, both the OP and yourself implicitly talk about the whole parenting affair and not just getting pregnant with a child, at which point the social faculty of being a good parent becomes more relevant compared to biological disposition.
If you want to hear pretty lies, go watch Sex and the City. It's well known that 40 year old women are almost infertile. And their pregnancies tend to be riskier. I didn't make the rules, so don't shoot the messenger.
Show me a man starting a family with a 40 year old, and I will show you a man without options.
No one is talking about dating. We're talking about starting a family, which is an entirely different bag of cookies. Wake the f*ck up.
Assuming that women and men are the same, have the same goals, and obey the same rules is an immensely stupid mistake to make, one that could be avoided by observing the real world social dynamics, and one that only clueless feminists such as yourself make.
Why so hostile? Assuming that all women and all men obey the same rules is also an immensely stupid mistake to make. Not all of us are micro-optimising assholes - some of us actually care about the people that we choose to start a family with.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&...