perception wrote:Bill
Please define for me : At what point and under what circumstances does organized dissention become treason?
When the organizers begin to plot against their home state with action, revealing privileged information or some such activity that creates a direct threat to our troops or country. Words of criticism just don't do it. If dissenting opinion becomes popular enough it becomes majority opinion, and then you and I would be the dissenters. In the event that happened in regards to this war; I wouldn't allow the popularity of the anti-war campaign to change my personal opinions one iota. Nor would I feel an obligation to stifle my thoughts or censor my stated opinions. Would you?
So long as it is not inciting to riot or treason, the government should not censor speech in any way. (It does not follow that any organization or entity should not censor speech as they choose.)
As the offspring of the World War II generation and infused with their philosophy and sense of patriotism, my argument is that we should voluntarily temper any public speech that would encourage or give comfort to the enemy or that would discourage and demoralize our troops in harms way on any battlefield.
Foxfire: In an abstract sense, I would tend to agree with you about how we should behave as individuals in that regard. Like you, I also place a high value on freedom of speech, so I have to oppose any organized movement towards that end. Recognizing my own bias in this affair, I have to identify my own principles, using a broader scope
and I feel Dlowan provided excellent examples for doing so.
Being as I am a bit over-opinionated myself; I have little tolerance for intolerance.
Bill wrote:
"If dissenting opinion becomes popular enough it becomes majority opinion".
What about the possible danger posed by the consequences of persuading the majority to withdraw their support for the war. This is what happened after the 1968 "Tet" Offensive. After the initial shock of the North Vietnamese being able to launch such a well organized offensive in so many different locations, the US and South Vietnam forces nearly wiped out the opposing forces BUT and here is the dangerous part----The Media and the dissenters portrayed the "Tet" offensive as a great victory for the enemy.
The war was lost at that point but it dragged on for another 7 years.
My point here is that in the case of Iraq, there are many in the media and in congress that are now portraying the recent bad news as: "THE WAR IS LOST". With enough coverage the media and the dissenters will make that a reality----to you want that? Do you agree with me that this is a very dangerous course of action?
You can have polemic debates ad nauseum about the "right to dissent" and I wouldn't mind one little bit but first let's make the American people aware of the real consequences of with- drawing their support. This is not possible as you well know.........
The short list of consequences:
1. The world will rejoice that the US is knocked down a peg or 3 or 4 as will many on this forum
2. Bin Laden and his band of murderers will gain immearsureable prestige and momentum.
If you think the world is unsafe now----wait until after our defeat in Iraq.
3. The US will no longer be the leader of the world----who will take our place? Again many will see this as a blessing but is it really?
4. There will be a new call for isolationism which could be heeded for a short time-----this would have a huge impact on the global economy.
5. There would be civil war in Iraq which could last for years and Iran would probably become the eventual leader of the ME. If that happens Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons to prevent annihalation.
6. The resultant instability could lead to global economic collapse due to the global dependence on Arab oil.
Our 11 Trillion dollar economy would collapse in a heap of ashes because our money would be useless and we would have a "bartering" economy.
As I said this is just the short list of consequences.
Perception,
That's funny ...
Your list of consequences are my reasons that we shouldn't have entered the war in the first place.
I was talking about these consequences a year ago. You should have listened to me then. It's a little late to wise up now.
Now it is time for us to leave.
perception wrote:My point here is that in the case of Iraq, there are many in the media and in congress that are now portraying the recent bad news as: "THE WAR IS LOST". With enough coverage the media and the dissenters will make that a reality----to you want that?
Hell no! By now I think you are aware that I've agreed with this war from the onset and will be disappointed if we don't see it through. That's why I spend a fair amount of time attempting to persuade friends and arguing the merits online.
perception wrote: Do you agree with me that this is a very dangerous course of action?
Absolutely
but not so dangerous that I'd trade my civil rights to see it through. IMO, you underestimate the resilience of this great nation if you think failure in Iraq would bring it crashing down. Victory here is extremely important, but it's not the beginning or the end of anything. There is much more work to be done. Like you, I hope we have the resolve to do it, but I don't think my nation's survival depends on it.
I consider bringing freedom to oppressed people among the noblest of all endeavors. But I wouldn't trade my own to give it to them. Now let me ask you point blank: Would you trade our freedom of speech for a peaceful democracy in Iraq?
perception wrote:Bill
Please define for me : At what point and under what circumstances does organized dissention become treason?
Wow. You can really talk sh!t.
Bill asked:
Would I trade my freedom of speech for a peacefull democracy in Iraq?
Temporarily ---- yes---if it would ensure victory.
Permanently?----no ----- because like you I can hope that my dire predictions of the consequences would prove in the end to be less than catastrophic. You saw how swiftly freedom of speech can be taken away-----Nick Berg had it up til his last screaming moment.
perception wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Perception; why are you being obtuse? Our politics are not very far apart, and I don't have any trouble understanding the bunny.
Dlowan; I'd discuss it with you... but you've made your point in spades and I concur. While my heart is beating and my mind is functioning I will not stop thinking for myself for any government... or anyone else for that matter.
Bill
I think you are too quick to exonerate Dlowan for her inflamatory comparison. It's not that I can't grasp the reasoning of her argument, I object to her lack of sensitivity. She uses her sharp tongue sometimes with precision and at other times like a "nuke".
As you know we have a little goodie in our constitution which states that during time of war, anyone guilty of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" can be charged with treason. It was during the Vietnam war that I was first confronted with what I considered treasonous acts by Jane Fonda and her crowd and then later on with others such as John Kerry.
I take a reductionist position on war and judge it strictly according to what I consider the intent of the war. If I consider the intent honorable and justifiable, then I believe it is treasonous to publicly criticize the war effort especially by people who have influence. I considered the "intent" of stopping the spread of communism in southeast asia honorable and it is now proven that the dissenters through the culpable media, influenced the American public to the point where they stopped supporting the war and therefore handed victory to our enemy. This to me is traitorous but because "War" was never officially declared it is a moot argument.
The same applies here in the war in Iraq. I and more than half of the American public have judged the "Intent" of the war in Iraq as honorable but here again the Official declaration of war was never asked for by the President and therefore never issued. People say that we are fighting two different wars but actually it is the same war but in several different locations. If we are forced out of Iraq by the dissenters, which then becomes the will of the American people, then I believe the belief of the terrorists that we are weak andhave no stomach for war, will be vindicated. Therefore, any action by the opposition to the war will provide " aid and comfort" to the terrorists.
It is one thing for you or me to criticize the actions and tactical mistakes made during a war. It is quite another to give aid and comfort to the enemy by prominent people and elected officials of the opposition.
I have no idea what Dlowan considers a traitorous action against her country. Perhaps she believes the geographic position of Australia, which makes it akin to being another planet, and their very strict immigration policies will provide enough of a shield against the work of Radical Muslims. On her "planet" she may never be confronted with treason
I don't really care about her beliefs because she is certainly entitled to them but when she dares to compare the actions of this country to nazi Germany, even during a polemic exercise, then she should be challenged.
If I ever see proof that the actions of our gov't are not in the best interests of the American people then you will see me actively protesting.
I remain convinced that any mistakes made during either Vietnam or in Iraq were human failures in tactical decisions and not moral or ethical failures.
And Bill, for the time being I will consider your use of "obtuse" as a jibe, not an affront because from what I have read of your posts our politics are not that far apart.
So, Perception, does this mean you agree that dissension to war when troops are on the ground is not always wrong?
PS I hafta comment on your subjective reaction to "obtuse" - it is fine from a fellow conservative, but not from anyone else? Come on Perc - you hafta agree that is funny!
Foxfyre wrote:So long as it is not inciting to riot or treason, the government should not censor speech in any way. (It does not follow that any organization or entity should not censor speech as they choose.)
As the offspring of the World War II generation and infused with their philosophy and sense of patriotism, my argument is that we should voluntarily temper any public speech that would encourage or give comfort to the enemy or that would discourage and demoralize our troops in harms way on any battlefield.
Ok - fair enough - but - do you hold that we should voluntarily temper our speech thus in ANY war situation - EVEN IF YOU HOLD THAT THE WAR IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Perc wrote:
"I have no idea what Dlowan considers a traitorous action against her country. Perhaps she believes the geographic position of Australia, which makes it akin to being another planet, and their very strict immigration policies will provide enough of a shield against the work of Radical Muslims. On her "planet" she may never be confronted with treason
I don't really care about her beliefs because she is certainly entitled to them but when she dares to compare the actions of this country to nazi Germany, even during a polemic exercise, then she should be challenged."
Lol Perc - we live next door to the largest Muslim country in the world - with a nast cell there with stated links to Al Quaeda - which has the stated aim of making northern Oz a Muslim nation - and wreaking revenge on us for Timor and Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would consider it quite certain that we shall experience more terrorist attacks, and on our shores - despite the generally tolerant nature of Indonesian Islam, and its government's attempts to curb the increasing number of radical actions.
Er - not sure what connection this has to my using my brain and stating that a war my government has chosen to prosecute is wrong and stupid?
I assume the traitorous stuff is just meaningless insult? In case you are really wondering, I would refer you to definitions of treachery under Australian law - I would adhere to those. It is a pretty simple definition. It doesn't include exercising reasonable ethical judgment and stating the results of such.
Challenge away Perc - but it helps if you do so on rational grounds - but, nemmind.
perception wrote:Bill asked:
Would I trade my freedom of speech for a peacefull democracy in Iraq?
Temporarily ---- yes---if it would ensure victory.
Permanently?----no ----- because like you I can hope that my dire predictions of the consequences would prove in the end to be less than catastrophic. You saw how swiftly freedom of speech can be taken away-----Nick Berg had it up til his last screaming moment.
Perception - in all seriousness - how easy do you think they are to get back, once traded?
dlowan wrote:perception wrote:Bill asked:
Would I trade my freedom of speech for a peacefull democracy in Iraq?
Temporarily ---- yes---if it would ensure victory.
Permanently?----no ----- because like you I can hope that my dire predictions of the consequences would prove in the end to be less than catastrophic. You saw how swiftly freedom of speech can be taken away-----Nick Berg had it up til his last screaming moment.
Perception - in all seriousness - how easy do you think they are to get back, once traded?
Like other folks who don't understand the American legislative process--- you just don't "get it" do you?????
Congress would decide, NOT THE PRESIDENT, if it was in the best interests of the country to suspend the right to dissent, but it would only be after it was determined that national survival was at risk. It would also be Congress that would restore that privilege.
Who said anything about president? I don't care who restricts it. How easy is it to get back?
Now it's my turn to say----nemmind!
If dissenters had in any way shortened the Vietnam War I would have been proud of myself and fellow dissenters. I don't really believe they did. Nixon did not listen to them.
If dissenters could bring home the troops from Iraq one day sooner, I would say it was well worth the effort.
Actually, who said anything about AMERICA? I am not talking about ANY particular country - I am attempting to speak of general ethical principles - and, in the case of surrendering rights of free speech, of GENERAL political realities.
Let us swap all the debate to Oz, or a made-up country - perhaps then Perc can drop his defensiveness enough to really think in the abstract.
Perc - you live in Oz - Oz is going to war - unprovoked - against the Zanadians - because it wants the Zanadian lolly-pop wells for itself. The Zanadians have always sold their lolly pops to the Ozzians, for a fair price - but the Ozzian leader loves lollypops.
He invades Zanadia - killing many of its citizens - and seizes the lolly pop wells.
Would you consider it immoral to speak out against Ufus, your leader, and call for Ozzian withdrawal from Zanadia? There ar eOz troops on the ground in Zanadia - fighting a determined Zanadian resistance.
And, while I am on a roll - yes, there are times when I would consider it my clear moral duty to be a "traitor" to my country.
eg (this comes from a novel - "The Year of the Angry Rabbit" - I cannot claim the scenario myself, much as I would like to!)
Australian scientists, in an attempt to counter the growing rabbit rsistance to myxmatosis, accidentally develop a terrifying super-myx bug. They decide to destroy it, in horror - but the Australian Prime Minister has found out about it.
Sick of being a small, weak, country - he decides to use the bug to control the world.
He plans with the similarly disgruntled upper echelons of the military - the plan is to send Oz planes to every country (knowing this will be not raise suspicion because nobody ever notices us) and, when our planes are in the air above major cities everywhere, to announce to world leaders a series of demands, or the bug will be dropped.
I discover this plan.
I consider it my moral duty to let every country in the world know of the plans, and, with British SAS assistance, break into the labs, and destroy every drop of the bug, and all records of its manufacture.
Am I a traitor? If i am, was I right anyway?
(In the real story, the PM meets his nemesis - as does Oz, beause the bug has escaped into the rabbit population, but it mutates, and turns them into blood-thirsty monsters - which drive Australians into refugeedom. Given our immigration policies, this is richly ironic!
The PM remains alone in his office, as the rabbits draw closer.
Death to all Zanadians!
Them murdering bastards have had it coming ever since they invaded the Butterscotch. Nobody would protest that war! Get real.
