Brandon9000 wrote:...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....
I have a question about this. What would you consider "a sizeable number of citizens? Do you think that the twenty or thirty people here on A2K who fall under your definition are enough to "damage the war effort?
Brandon9000 wrote:My stated opinion is that one should not criticize a war that one's country is currently in, or the people who are running it, in such a way and to the point of undermining the war effort.
And where is that point, Brandon? Are we past that point now? Do you believe that you know where that point is? If so, please explain to me how much criticism is too much.
And once you do that, please explain to me what credentials you have that would give you the authority to know this.
kickycan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....
I have a question about this. What would you consider "a sizeable number of citizens? Do you think that the twenty or thirty people here on A2K who fall under your definition are enough to "damage the war effort?
No, that would not be enough. But the number of Bush/America bashers doing it in America now is a sufficiently large number.
kickycan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:My stated opinion is that one should not criticize a war that one's country is currently in, or the people who are running it, in such a way and to the point of undermining the war effort.
And where is that point, Brandon? Are we past that point now? Do you believe that you know where that point is? If so, please explain to me how much criticism is too much.
I think that we are far past that point. Everything Bush does is labelled as evil and stupid, every miliary setback or goal not yet achieved is trumpeted as proof that we have failed, and the war is incessantly referred to in the media by the left as being (a) something that should never have been undertaken, and (b) initiated based on deceit. That, in my opinion is enough to undermine the war effort. I can't give an equation to describe where the point is, but I know it when I see it.
kickycan wrote:And once you do that, please explain to me what credentials you have that would give you the authority to know this.
Being a human being with the ability to reason for himself.
parados wrote:Brandon,
How about we be honest and go post your ENTIRE statement and not just the ellipsed shortened version..
I resent the implication that I am being dishonest. Nothing was left out with the idea of bolstering my position. Include anything you like.
parados wrote:You said
Quote:I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.
We will leave off what you disagreed with for now.
Your standard is that anytime citizens disagree substantially with an administration about a war then they are undermining the war effort.
No, not true. My standard is that one should not publicly criticize either a war or the people conducting it to such an extent that it undermines the ability to conduct it. I believe that we are at that point in the left's criticism of Bush and the war.
parados wrote:
I asked.
1.) Did you think that the GOP undermined war effort under Clinton? Certainly they pointed out failures etc. So do you think the GOP met your standard of undermining a war effort? In no way did I use the term YOU in respect to criticism of the war in this question. I only asked about your feelings to such criticism.
My recollection is that the criticism of Kosovo did pass such a point, although I no longer recall whether it came from the right or the left. I do believe that Republican attempts to blacken Clinton's personal reputation during the time that the war was going on did pass this point, and I was bitterly and publicly critical of the people doing it for exactly the reason that we were at war. I believe the principle is even more important now than then, since, Serbia didn't put up the same level of fight that the insurgents are in Iraq or that the Islamic extremists are in general.
parados wrote:2.) Is in direct response to your "honest and good intentions" claim. If you oppose the war then you would probably think criticism IS honest and well intentioned. Since you claim you have never opposed a war while holding your standard this is still a hypothetical. Again it has nothing to do with you criticizing but your response to others doing so. I contend your standard of what kind of criticism would undermine a war effort would change if you opposed the war. Politics are in the eye of the beholder. The opposition is only political if you are on the other side.
I strongly disagree. Not everything is relative. There are standards of behavior that are not just a matter of viewpoint. I believe that what is being done by the left regarding Bush and the war in Iraq is grossly wrong. Criticism is fine, but this is clearly now in the realm of giving aid, comfort, and hope to the enemy, and probably affecting Bush's own effectiveness, since everything he does is instantaneously labelled wrong and stupid. Furthermore, there is nothing in my behavior that is inconsistent with the standard I have enunciated.
(1) Personally and in writing submit to the Congress--
(A) a detailed statement explaining the national interest of the United States at risk in the Kosovo conflict; and
(B) a certification to the Congress that all United States Armed Forces personnel so deployed pursuant to subsection (a) will be under the operational control only of United States Armed Forces military officers.
(2) Submit to the Congress a detailed report that--
(A) in classified and unclassified form addresses the amount and nature of the military resources of the United States, in both personnel and equipment, that will be required for such deployment;
(B) outlines and explains the military exit strategy that would control the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces personnel from Kosovo ;
(C) certifies the chain of command for any such deployed United States Armed Forces personnel; and
(D) provides the percentage of United States Armed Forces participating in any NATO deployment in the Kosovo peacekeeping operation, including ground troops, air support, logistics support, and intelligence support, compared to the other NATO nations participating in that operation.
(3) Submit to the Congress a detailed report that--
(A) in classified and unclassified form addresses the impact on military readiness of such deployment;
(B) provides the timeframe in which withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces personnel from Kosovo could reasonably be expected;
(C) in classified and unclassified form provides an unambiguous explanation of the rules of engagement under which all United States Armed Forces personnel participating in the Kosovo NATO peacekeeping operation shall operate; and
(D) in classified and unclassified form provides the budgetary impact for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter for the next five fiscal years on the Department of Defense, and each of the military services in particular; on the Intelligence Community; and on the Department of State as a result of any such deployment.
(4) Submit in classified form, to the Speaker, the Minority Leader, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, a detailed report that addresses the threats attendant to any such deployment and the nature and level of force protection required for such deployment.
Brandon9000 wrote:And I resent the fact that you have basically called me a liar and demanded I show evidence of something I never said. I'll apologize for the implication when you apologize for your statements that you delivered as if factual. I was willing to drop it but you seem to want a confrontation.parados wrote:Brandon,
How about we be honest and go post your ENTIRE statement and not just the ellipsed shortened version..
I resent the implication that I am being dishonest. Nothing was left out with the idea of bolstering my position. Include anything you like.
So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?
Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.
Quote:A sizable number of citizens doesn't relate to one. I don't see how one person can undermine a war effort with criticism. The entire point of your argument seems to be that the criticism must reach a critical mass before it undermines. Are you now arguing that ONE person can't criticize? What is the difference between 25 and 26 if 26 is the critical mass? Can the other 25 continue to criticize?
parados wrote:You said
Quote:I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.
We will leave off what you disagreed with for now.
Your standard is that anytime citizens disagree substantially with an administration about a war then they are undermining the war effort.
No, not true. My standard is that one should not publicly criticize either a war or the people conducting it to such an extent that it undermines the ability to conduct it. I believe that we are at that point in the left's criticism of Bush and the war.
Quote:
parados wrote:
I asked.
1.) Did you think that the GOP undermined war effort under Clinton? Certainly they pointed out failures etc. So do you think the GOP met your standard of undermining a war effort? In no way did I use the term YOU in respect to criticism of the war in this question. I only asked about your feelings to such criticism.
My recollection is that the criticism of Kosovo did pass such a point, although I no longer recall whether it came from the right or the left. I do believe that Republican attempts to blacken Clinton's personal reputation during the time that the war was going on did pass this point, and I was bitterly and publicly critical of the people doing it for exactly the reason that we were at war. I believe the principle is even more important now than then, since, Serbia didn't put up the same level of fight that the insurgents are in Iraq or that the Islamic extremists are in general.
parados wrote:2.) Is in direct response to your "honest and good intentions" claim. If you oppose the war then you would probably think criticism IS honest and well intentioned. Since you claim you have never opposed a war while holding your standard this is still a hypothetical. Again it has nothing to do with you criticizing but your response to others doing so. I contend your standard of what kind of criticism would undermine a war effort would change if you opposed the war. Politics are in the eye of the beholder. The opposition is only political if you are on the other side.
I strongly disagree. Not everything is relative. There are standards of behavior that are not just a matter of viewpoint. I believe that what is being done by the left regarding Bush and the war in Iraq is grossly wrong. Criticism is fine, but this is clearly now in the realm of giving aid, comfort, and hope to the enemy, and probably affecting Bush's own effectiveness, since everything he does is instantaneously labelled wrong and stupid. Furthermore, there is nothing in my behavior that is inconsistent with the standard I have enunciated.
Your standard is subjective. It requires you to judge when it undermines the war effort.
Kicky's questions of you prove how subjective it is. I find it interesting how you have forgotten if it was the left or right criticizing during Kosovo. I specifically asked about GOP actions and you failed to answer the specific question. There were many speeches given on the floor of Congress about the war effort and how Clinton was using it for personal gain to take people's mind off his personal problems. There were bills introduced requiring an exit strategy. "wag the dog" was a phrase used by many politicians on the right. A bill was introduced by 8 GOP House members to prevent expenditures for Kosovo troop deployments. You seem to want to downplay your standard and accuse both sides in the case of Kosovo.
I may have been wrong about your precise intention here, but it is undeniable that you were speculating that I only support my standard during wars that I approve of. That is to say, you were describing my probable behavior at a time during the past for which you know nothing of my behavior - describing behavior for which you have no evidence. This is not proper.
So what? I can analyze situations I encounter in the world. You don't have to have a PhD in Political Science to form an opinion.
Bush/America bashers -- so if one bashes Bush, they are automatically bashing America? Like I said earlier, Brandon, this is intellectually dishonest to more than a fault.
Lightwizard wrote:Bush/America bashers -- so if one bashes Bush, they are automatically bashing America? Like I said earlier, Brandon, this is intellectually dishonest to more than a fault.
I never said anything of the kind. I am getting pretty freaking tired of talking to people who either don't bother to read posts before responding or else can't understand anything.
Brandon9000 wrote:
I may have been wrong about your precise intention here, but it is undeniable that you were speculating that I only support my standard during wars that I approve of. That is to say, you were describing my probable behavior at a time during the past for which you know nothing of my behavior - describing behavior for which you have no evidence. This is not proper.
Oh? Is it proper to decide what I meant by reading something else into the statement? Let me pull a Brandon on you here...
"That is a misrepresentation of what I said, and I have to believe you know it. I hope that misrepresenting what your opponent says is not your preferred method of arguing."
I was speculating on your behavior based on facts that anyone that has spent any time with other people would know. People tend to be more lenient towards causes they support. When a standard is subjective then they are even MORE likely to do so. Your standard is subjective. You have no objective standards, only your estimation of when it reaches that point. Since it is NOT objective then if you agree with a cause you will change your standard. You might lie to yourself and claim you don't but you will. It is human nature. Everyone does it. Being in a science field you should know that without being told. Why do you have objective standards in science if subjective ones would work as well? Would you trust a scientist that says his results are based on "I'll know it when I see it?"
Are you willing to argue that subjective standards are good enough Brandon? I doubt you would when it comes to OTHER people. In fact I KNOW you don't let others make claims based only on opinions. This board is filled with your demands that others provide evidence.
parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
I may have been wrong about your precise intention here, but it is undeniable that you were speculating that I only support my standard during wars that I approve of. That is to say, you were describing my probable behavior at a time during the past for which you know nothing of my behavior - describing behavior for which you have no evidence. This is not proper.
Oh? Is it proper to decide what I meant by reading something else into the statement? Let me pull a Brandon on you here...
"That is a misrepresentation of what I said, and I have to believe you know it. I hope that misrepresenting what your opponent says is not your preferred method of arguing."
I am not "reading something else into the statement." I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and I think my characterization is pretty close to what you said. Either my above characterization is right or wrong. Let's assume for a moment that it is wrong. Then your statement to which I took exception was not "speculating that I only support my standard during wars that I approve of" or at least that I support it more during wars that I approve of. Is that your claim, that you were not implying this?
parados wrote:I was speculating on your behavior based on facts that anyone that has spent any time with other people would know. People tend to be more lenient towards causes they support. When a standard is subjective then they are even MORE likely to do so. Your standard is subjective. You have no objective standards, only your estimation of when it reaches that point. Since it is NOT objective then if you agree with a cause you will change your standard. You might lie to yourself and claim you don't but you will. It is human nature. Everyone does it. Being in a science field you should know that without being told. Why do you have objective standards in science if subjective ones would work as well? Would you trust a scientist that says his results are based on "I'll know it when I see it?"
1. If you're only saying that I am subject to the same human nature as everyone, then it's a comment of little moment.
2. Just because it is human nature to be more lenient to causes one supports, it does not follow that during wars I don't support, I rabidly attack the president and the war to such a point as to weaken the war effort. In fact, as I said originally, it is against my principles to do so. That's what you lot do and it's grossly disloyal to your country. Criticism is fine and often necessary, but undermining the ability to fight a war in progress is disloyal.
parados wrote:Are you willing to argue that subjective standards are good enough Brandon? I doubt you would when it comes to OTHER people. In fact I KNOW you don't let others make claims based only on opinions. This board is filled with your demands that others provide evidence.
Yes, I am. I have said that if your country is fighting a war, when criticism of the administration and the war, and crowing that your country is losing reaches the stage that it undermines the war effort, it is very disloyal. The fact that I cannot give you an equation for when the point is reached doesn't mean that my basic tenet is not true. Your position that subjective standards are not valid is naive and false.
Brandon9000 wrote:So what? I can analyze situations I encounter in the world. You don't have to have a PhD in Political Science to form an opinion.
Oh, I see.. You get to form opinions but if I form an opinion about you it isn't allowed? Sorry Brandon, it doesn't work that way. I stated an opinion about how you would react if you supported a war. I analyzed the situtation and formed that opinion. (see my previous post as to how I came to that opinion.) Too bad for you if you don't like it. It is MY opinion.
Brandon9000 once wrote...
"Anyone can claim any expertise; anyone can lie; anyone can exxagerate. That is why, as everyone knows, each debater who claims facts is required to support them on demand or withdraw them."
It appears Brandon doesn't understand that when someone says "Somehow I think" it is NOT a statement of fact but is an opinion.
1. If you're only saying that I am subject to the same human nature as everyone, then it's a comment of little moment.
2. Just because it is human nature to be more lenient to causes one supports, it does not follow that during wars I don't support, I rabidly attack the president and the war to such a point as to weaken the war effort. In fact, as I said originally, it is against my principles to do so. That's what you lot do and it's grossly disloyal to your country. Criticism is fine and often necessary, but undermining the ability to fight a war in progress is disloyal.
...I never said once that you would criticize. I said your response to criticizm by OTHERS would change. You basically called me a liar when you misrepresented this the first time and I thought we had sorted it out and now you repeat it again.
"You lot"? ROFLMBO.. thanks for proving my point about your lack of objective standards.
Are you willing to argue that subjective standards are good enough Brandon? I doubt you would when it comes to OTHER people. In fact I KNOW you don't let others make claims based only on opinions. This board is filled with your demands that others provide evidence.
Yes, I am. I have said that if your country is fighting a war, when criticism of the administration and the war, and crowing that your country is losing reaches the stage that it undermines the war effort, it is very disloyal. The fact that I cannot give you an equation for when the point is reached doesn't mean that my basic tenet is not true. Your position that subjective standards are not valid is naive and false.
If your tenet is true then so is mine. A subjective standard is just that, SUBJECTIVE. That means you change it based on your opinion of what is being criticized.
Brandon,
Your standard was NEVER about Brandon criticizing to the point it undermined a war effort. It was about OTHERS criticizing to undermine the war effort. Since it is OTHERS any reference to YOUR STANDARD can NOT be directed at Brandon.
Go back and read YOUR statement and what the standard is. Not only is your standard subjective it isn't even a standard from the looks of it. You change its meaning at will from referring to others to referring to yourself. Since ONE person can't undermine the war effort it can't refer to ONLY Brandon.
For you to claim I meant YOU criticized a war effort is ludicrous based on what you claimed your standard was.
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. If you're only saying that I am subject to the same human nature as everyone, then it's a comment of little moment.
2. Just because it is human nature to be more lenient to causes one supports, it does not follow that during wars I don't support, I rabidly attack the president and the war to such a point as to weaken the war effort. In fact, as I said originally, it is against my principles to do so. That's what you lot do and it's grossly disloyal to your country. Criticism is fine and often necessary, but undermining the ability to fight a war in progress is disloyal.
parados wrote:...I never said once that you would criticize. I said your response to criticizm by OTHERS would change. You basically called me a liar when you misrepresented this the first time and I thought we had sorted it out and now you repeat it again.
If you are not stating that I would violate my standard by engaging in the kind of almost treasonous condemnation of the administration, the war, and the progress of the military that you do, then I don't consider your comment of much interest. I do not have to criticise others who violate my standard in order to be faithful to it myself.
Since I have supported every American war that comes to mind during the past few decades, there is no example to draw on, but I do believe that I would criticize friends and allies for grossly disloyal behavior. I certainly criticized Republican efforts to impeach Clinton very, very strongly, even though I wished he had not been elected.
parados wrote:"You lot"? ROFLMBO.. thanks for proving my point about your lack of objective standards.
I have some objective standards and some subjective ones. Big deal. How does my use of the phrase "you lot" indicate anything negative about me at all? I presume that you are smart enough to know that I am referring to the A2K liberals.
parados wrote:Are you willing to argue that subjective standards are good enough Brandon? I doubt you would when it comes to OTHER people. In fact I KNOW you don't let others make claims based only on opinions. This board is filled with your demands that others provide evidence.
Brandon9000 wrote:Yes, I am. I have said that if your country is fighting a war, when criticism of the administration and the war, and crowing that your country is losing reaches the stage that it undermines the war effort, it is very disloyal. The fact that I cannot give you an equation for when the point is reached doesn't mean that my basic tenet is not true. Your position that subjective standards are not valid is naive and false.
parados wrote:If your tenet is true then so is mine. A subjective standard is just that, SUBJECTIVE. That means you change it based on your opinion of what is being criticized.
My tenet: Too much criticism during a war hurts the war effort and is disloyal.
Your tenet: I, Brandon, do not argue against people who make such criticism if they refer to a war in progress that I don't support.
Now, in clear language, please explain how the truth of my tenet proves the truth of your tenet.
parados wrote:Brandon,
Your standard was NEVER about Brandon criticizing to the point it undermined a war effort. It was about OTHERS criticizing to undermine the war effort. Since it is OTHERS any reference to YOUR STANDARD can NOT be directed at Brandon.
Go back and read YOUR statement and what the standard is. Not only is your standard subjective it isn't even a standard from the looks of it. You change its meaning at will from referring to others to referring to yourself. Since ONE person can't undermine the war effort it can't refer to ONLY Brandon.
For you to claim I meant YOU criticized a war effort is ludicrous based on what you claimed your standard was.
Everything you've just said is wrong. My standard is that this behavior is wrong for anyone to engage in - either me or others. I have not changed it. You say "it isn't even a standard from the looks of it." Please tell me why "the looks of it" indicate that my assertion does not qualify as an ethical standard.
Lightwizard wrote:Bush/America bashers -- so if one bashes Bush, they are automatically bashing America? Like I said earlier, Brandon, this is intellectually dishonest to more than a fault.
I never said anything of the kind. I am getting pretty freaking tired of talking to people who either don't bother to read posts before responding or else can't understand anything.
