Reply
Fri 28 May, 2004 08:05 am
This sounds like right-wing propaganda to me: "if you don't stand with Bush, you're not a decent American citizen!" LOL. Say what?
I dunno. The only peoople I've ever seen or heard mention that nonsense have been on the left.
Maybe it's really left-wing propaganda?
Some people think bashing Bush is being American.
So your point is.....
Well, there is nothing left for me to add...
jora
It's an axiom... a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
Jora:
There's an old saying "Where youy stand depends on where you sit".
Many Americans (too many IMHO), rely on AM-Radio, FOX News and other corporate media outlets for news an ideas. They therefore see opposing Bush or the war in general as being "unamerican".
But there is a growing number of folks who are realizing that the internet can be a source for news and views that coroporations "filter out". Sites like
BuzzFlash and
CommonDreams
The US Constitution guarantees every American the right to speak his mind on any subject, as well it should.
However, for those from countries which are actually participating in the war, particularly if you believe that in some sense you are fighting a dangerous enemy, it has generally been believed historically, that you do not do things which would have the effect of making the war more difficult to fight, or of increasing the chances of losing.
For instance, traditionally, while actually fighting a war, you don't throw rocks at the people conducting it on issues directly connected to the war, nor do you say that the war is stupid, even if you believe that, nor do you crow at every reversal, nor do you do things that a reasonable person would think give aid and comfort to the enemy, nor generally do things that tend to undermine the will to fight. If you actually believe that your country is in a war, and particularly if it is with a dangerous opponent, I believe you're obligated to roll up your sleeves and help win it. I'm sure there are particular exceptions to this, but in general it is what people have historically believed.
If you actually believe your country is in a JUSTIFIED war then you have an obligation to 'roll up your sleeves.'
If you believe your country is in an UNJUSTIFIED war, then you have a responsibility to not only voice your opinion but to actively work to end that war.
The actions in Iraq right now are not indicative of ME, and my moral beliefs, that's for sure. So yeah, I'll talk bad about whatever group of morons brought us there all I want. If that weakens resolve, boo frickin hoo. Amazing to me how the U.S. troops, supposed to be the toughest and most effective fighting force in the world, have a morale that is so controlled by my opinion. And if enough people agree with me, and troop morale does fall, maybe that's because we shouldn't be there.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:If you actually believe your country is in a JUSTIFIED war then you have an obligation to 'roll up your sleeves.'
If you believe your country is in an UNJUSTIFIED war, then you have a responsibility to not only voice your opinion but to actively work to end that war.
The actions in Iraq right now are not indicative of ME, and my moral beliefs, that's for sure. So yeah, I'll talk bad about whatever group of morons brought us there all I want. If that weakens resolve, boo frickin hoo. Amazing to me how the U.S. troops, supposed to be the toughest and most effective fighting force in the world, have a morale that is so controlled by my opinion. And if enough people agree with me, and troop morale does fall, maybe that's because we shouldn't be there.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, you absolutely represent the phenomenon I am talking about.
I believe that if one's own country is in a war with an opponent that one considers potentially dangerous, in fact it is disloyal to make statements which give comfort to the enemy and may encourage them to fight harder or longer, or demoralize one's country's effort to conduct the war. I believe that the first Amendment gives you the right to do these things, but I believe that they repesent disloyalty. And I believe that this is the traditional point of view on this subject.
And although I can't predict your future statements in this thread, please, don't go on and on about "Are you calling me disloyal?" "How dare you?" etc., etc., because I
am calling you disloyal.
Heh. You can call me Susan for all I care. It just shows your lack of understanding of the difference between patriotism (which is supporting your country) and blind loyalty (which is supporting your country even though you know it is doing bad things).
There have always been plenty of people who think like you.
Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Thanks for denouncing me for my lack of patriotism. If I am disloyal, you sir are a Nazi.
And although I can't predict your future statements in this thread, please, don't go on and on about "Are you calling me a Nazi?" "How dare you?" etc., etc., because I
am calling you a Nazi.
Happy now?
Cycloptichorn
Brandon's argument is untenable from a number of perspectives.
First, as regards the First Ammendment. Free speech is meaningless where it holds only that one should speak freely when what one says is in accord with those in power, or with some majority, or when it causes no discomfort. To state "free speech is good", but then decry an example of it as 'disloyal' is non-sensical.
Second, to whom or to what ought one to be loyal? Ought one to owe loyalty to a fellow elected to some post, or to one's constitution, for example? Or to standards of civil and human rights which might be violated by that elected official?
If a far left government was elected in the US, and it initiated a war with some smaller right wing government, and in the commission of that war had set to murdering all males over 12, would one be disloyal to decry that administrations' war?
Thus, as I said earlier, many of us would hold Brandon to be more appropriately labeled disloyal.
Blatham, are you actually equating the war in Iraq to "a war with some smaller right wing government, and in the commission of that war had set to murdering all males over 12"?
I don't really see a comparison.
First of all, quoting someone else, and then attributing the sentiments to me, is illogical. Secondly, what I am trying to point out is the difference between an abstract debate, and deliberately weakening a war effort in progress. Possible consequences of weakening one's country's efforts in a current war include a larger number of military casualties than might otherwise have occurred, having one's nation as a whole in a weakened position in the future because of a poor outcome to the war, and emboldening an enemy to press the attack to other venues in the future. My thesis would be that when one is in a country at war with a dangerous enemy, one should not take actions which would tend to put the enemy in a stronger position and one's country in a weaker position. I believe that a more responsible course of action would be to campaign for the candidate or party challenging the president's bid for re-election, rather than trying to weaken my country militarily.
Cycloptichorn wrote:....And if enough people agree with me, and troop morale does fall, maybe that's because we shouldn't be there.
Cycloptichorn
Most likely this would result in more deaths of American troops. Personally, I think we owe them as much support as we can give them.
He's not making a comparison, he's drawing a line to see if you'll step over it.
I would respond to this thread but I'm too busy laughing.
Bah.
If we lose an extra thousand troops because noone said anything, then more troops will be dead in the end.
If we don't pull out of the region, and we do continue to pursue the same policies we have, then more troops will be dead in the end.
You seem to think that arguing against the set course weakens the country militarily. It doesn't. Noone in Iraq gives a damn what I am writing here.
But... if what I write here makes a difference to someone (yeah right. This place is mostly preaching to the choir), and the ripples spread, and our country decides not to be at war there anymore, that's not disloyalty. That's democracy, which you apparently only want when things are going well. You can't have your freedom sometimes, and not other times according to the whims of those in power. That isn't America.
Remember that none of the troops in Iraq, NONE of them, HAD to die. None of them even had to go in the first place. We CHOSE to invade, based on spurious and suspicious logic. To say that the logic should not be questioned, is to be a shill.
You can feel free to keep your mouth shut on this matter all you want if you don't think that logical, reasonable discourse is a good thing for society. But to say that we should ignore arguments against the war, just becuase they challenge our position in Iraq, is short-sighted. Have fun blindly marching with the other folks who know to keep their mouths shut.
Cycloptichorn
blatham wrote:Brandon's argument is untenable from a number of perspectives.
First, as regards the First Ammendment. Free speech is meaningless where it holds only that one should speak freely when what one says is in accord with those in power, or with some majority, or when it causes no discomfort. To state "free speech is good", but then decry an example of it as 'disloyal' is non-sensical.
Second, to whom or to what ought one to be loyal? Ought one to owe loyalty to a fellow elected to some post, or to one's constitution, for example? Or to standards of civil and human rights which might be violated by that elected official?
If a far left government was elected in the US, and it initiated a war with some smaller right wing government, and in the commission of that war had set to murdering all males over 12, would one be disloyal to decry that administrations' war?
Thus, as I said earlier, many of us would hold Brandon to be more appropriately labeled disloyal.
You have attributed to me statements to the effect that:
"One should speak freely when what one says is in accord with those in power, or with some majority, or when it causes no discomfort."
You are attributing opinions to me which I do not have. I am saying that there exist occasions in life when a good person will voluntarily refrain from saying certain things. An example would be saying things that would weaken one's country militarily during a war. I absolutely believe in every citizen's right to criticize the government, or even abolish the government and institute a better one (see the Declaration of Independence). I am specifying an instance in which one ought to refrain from saying certain things. If my government initiated a war so odious that no decent person could countenance it, I would try to get them to pull out of it. I would not do things which would tend to have the effect of making us lose, and I would be even more careful not to do this if I believed that we were fighting a dangerous enemy who could harm the country in the future, which I believe is true of radical Islam.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Bah.
If we lose an extra thousand troops because noone said anything, then more troops will be dead in the end.
If we don't pull out of the region, and we do continue to pursue the same policies we have, then more troops will be dead in the end.
You seem to think that arguing against the set course weakens the country militarily. It doesn't. Noone in Iraq gives a damn what I am writing here.
But... if what I write here makes a difference to someone (yeah right. This place is mostly preaching to the choir), and the ripples spread, and our country decides not to be at war there anymore, that's not disloyalty. That's democracy, which you apparently only want when things are going well. You can't have your freedom sometimes, and not other times according to the whims of those in power. That isn't America.
Remember that none of the troops in Iraq, NONE of them, HAD to die. None of them even had to go in the first place. We CHOSE to invade, based on spurious and suspicious logic. To say that the logic should not be questioned, is to be a shill.
You can feel free to keep your mouth shut on this matter all you want if you don't think that logical, reasonable discourse is a good thing for society. But to say that we should ignore arguments against the war, just becuase they challenge our position in Iraq, is short-sighted. Have fun blindly marching with the other folks who know to keep their mouths shut.
Cycloptichorn
You might be surprised at how many friends you will find here. Stick around. I'm not quite sure what choir you think we are preaching to, but I'm guessing it's not the one you are thinking of.
Cycloptichorn wrote:But... if what I write here makes a difference to someone ... and our country decides not to be at war there anymore, that's not disloyalty.....Remember that none of the troops in Iraq, NONE of them, HAD to die. None of them even had to go in the first place. We CHOSE to invade, based on spurious and suspicious logic....You can feel free to keep your mouth shut on this matter all you want if you don't think that logical, reasonable discourse is a good thing for society.
In general, I do believe that logical reasonable discourse is a good thing for society. Once again, I am saying that I believe a loyal citizen will not make statements or take actions which would tend to weaken one's country's ability to succeed in a war in progress against a dangerous enemy.
You say that if we just didn't go to war in these cases, fewer would die, but you do not appear to be considering the possibility that more people might die in future terrorist attacks against the US.
If you think we are combating terrorism in Iraq at all right now, there is no real point in continuing this conversation. We are CREATING more terrorists.
We should have stuck with hunting down Bin Laden, crushing Al Quaeda, finished the job in Afghanistan. But we didn't. You don't hear anyone on these boards saying we shouldn't go after Al Quaeda.
But Al Quaeda /= Iraq!!!!! When will people realize this. You cannot use terrorism as a justification for anything we do there.
Quote:Once again, I am saying that I believe a loyal citizen will not make statements or take actions which would tend to weaken one's country's ability to succeed in a war in progress against a dangerous enemy.
Yaknow what? I think I figured out our differences. You see yourself as an American. I see myself as a HUMAN. I love America but that doesn't make us right all the time, and what kind of person is afraid to call out someone they love when they are doing something wrong?
Cycloptichorn
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace