dlowan wrote:mysteryman wrote:Nice dodge Edgar,but you didn't answer my question.
Are you saying then that the dissent by Tokyo Rose was ok during WW2?
That got marines killed in WW2.
I have not said,nor will I ever say,that dissent is wrong.BUT,it must be reasonable.
Dissent can take many forms.It can be vocal protest marches,it can be someone that destroys weapons or munitions somehow,it can be calling returning soldiers "baby killers",it can be feeding information to a third party,hoping it reaches enemy forces.
Tell me,which one of those methods are you willing to say is wrong,if any?
Honest,reasonable dissent is part of what made this country great,and I will always support that.Nut,when that dissent has the ability to get people killed,then it becomes wrong.
For you to claim that dissent has never gotten any soldiers killed is to be both blind to history and willingly ignorant of the dangers.
So,you can dissent all you want,but if it causes men to die needlessly,then I will call that exactly what it is.
Lol!
Which Tokyo Rose? Most "Tokyo Roses", (which was the name generally given by Allied troops in the Pacific to the English speaking Japanese women who broadcast propaganda to them) as I understand it, were doing exactly as you prescribe - being good citizens and supporting their country, right or wrong.
Ah - you mean the American born Tokyo Rose? Clearly, she was betraying the country she was born in - are you suggesting that those of us who are against the war are broadcasting misinformation to Allied troops in Iraq in sultry tones?
You aren't?
Well, what, then, is your analogy worth?
Nothing, I hear you say.
Good answer!
Oh - PS - HOW did the Tokyo Roses - most of whom remember were good rightly acting Japanese citizens - get "marines killed"?
The
american born Tokyo Rose was practicing a form of dissent,wasnt she?
She broadcast ship movements,and then those ships were attacked by Japanese planes.Men died in those attacks.
I am NOT saying that those of you opposed to the war are doing that,but dissent is dissent.
She practiced one form,and you practice another.
Tell me,is the destruction of private property a legitimate form of dissent?
I dont believe it is.But,if you wont condemn that,then you must condone it.
That makes you no better then the ones committing the destruction.
During the invasion of Iraq,and the liberation of Kuwait,I talked to several Iraqi prisoners that said that the only reason they fought as hard as they did is because they heard and saw the reports on the news that said we wouldnt fight if we took casualties,that Iraq outnumbered us,that we would take thousands of casualties,etc.
All of those statements came from "dissenters" here in the US and Europe.
American soldiers,including 3 in my platoon died.
So,as I said,dissent all you want.If its peaceful,doesnt destroy private property,is willing to listen to the other side,and doesnt get Americans,either here or overseas killed,then I will support it.BUT,if it doesnt meet all of those criteria,then I will oppose it and call it exactly what it is.
