Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Let's look at those 'silly arguments'

By Ruby Hamad - posted Friday, 19 September 2008


“Iraq and Afghanistan? Clinton and Palin back interventionism when it counts, and millions of Kurdish women are very grateful … In reality, this idea that Clinton will bring us back to the ‘peaceful’ 1990s, and that all of Hillary’s supporters reject Palin’s support of Bush’s ‘hawkish’ policies is a joke, miles removed from reality. Indisputably, they all support interventionist foreign policies. Thus, Hamad’s anti-war Hillary is pure fiction.”

I never actually stated that Hillary was “anti-war” in all cases. Once again Terpstra puts forward an overly simplistic argument. One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that any candidate in a major American party would favour a completely non-interventionist foreign policy. However, while Clinton has not hesitated to say that she would use force “when necessary”, she has long being critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

In her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Palin stated that she believed that Bush was doing the best he could to handle Islamic extremism. Clinton ran on platform that included staged withdrawal while Palin is running mate to a candidate who famously stated that the US could be in Iraq for another 100 years.

Advertisement

The major difference in Clinton and Palin’s positions on foreign policy and National security is in the approach the US should take and can perhaps best be summed up in the following quotes:

CLINTON: “Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests ... But soldiers are not the answer to every problem. Using force in lieu of diplomacy compels our young men and women in uniform to carry out missions that they may not be trained or prepared for. And it ignores the value of simply carrying a big stick, rather than using it”.

PALIN: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God … That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Regardless of whether or not Palin’s remarks explicitly state that the US is on a mission from God in Iraq, they nonetheless display an astounding naivety and idealism regarding her stance on where the US stands in world affairs and does nothing to appeal to supporters of Clinton who take a far more pragmatic approach.

Finally, to “silly” argument six and Terpstra’s claim that my criticisms (stating that the way in which he refers to Palin is detrimental to the advancement of women in the workplace) are more “excessive” than Michael Moore. The tactic of guilt by association aside, the only possible response is, it is not enough to simply call an argument “silly”, you actually have to provide a counter argument. Which, of course, Terpstra fails to do - again.

Most pertinently, he ignores the first part of my statement, where I say that the major problem in his original article was the way it focused on Palin’s gender and ignored her politics. Thus making it extremely sexist. Thus bringing us full circle once again.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

45 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ruby Hamad is a freelance writer and recent graduate from the Victorian College of the Arts, where she majored in film writing and directing. She also has a Bachelor's degree in Political Economy from the University of Sydney. Ruby lives in Melbourne where she is working on a new feature film script.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ruby Hamad

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ruby Hamad
Article Tools
Comment 45 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy