Merry Andrew wrote:OK, Brandon, I'll grant you that my use of the word "treasonable" might have been a bit hyperbolic. What I meant was that criticising the critics is counter-productive.
You were wrong about that. You were wrong about everything else. It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
Before you accuse people of treason based on the constitution Brandon you might want to go read the document.
Quote:
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The constitution requires that you adhere to the enemy and give them aid and comfort and the act be OVERT and witnessed by 2 people. Disagreeing with the government in no way is treason under even the most liberal reading.
What is sickening is people accusing others of Treason when they have no idea what treason really is. It shows a complete lack of argument to accuse treason. Merry apologized for the use of the word. Your turn now Brandon.
Brandon9000 wrote:Merry Andrew wrote:OK, Brandon, I'll grant you that my use of the word "treasonable" might have been a bit hyperbolic. What I meant was that criticising the critics is counter-productive.
You were wrong about that. You were wrong about everything else. It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
"Anti-American" might be closer, Merry, as I thought freedom of expression is one of the founding principles of the nation.
parados wrote:Before you accuse people of treason based on the constitution Brandon you might want to go read the document.
Quote:
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The constitution requires that you adhere to the enemy and give them aid and comfort and the act be OVERT and witnessed by 2 people. Disagreeing with the government in no way is treason under even the most liberal reading.
What is sickening is people accusing others of Treason when they have no idea what treason really is. It shows a complete lack of argument to accuse treason. Merry apologized for the use of the word. Your turn now Brandon.
I didn't accuse them of treason. My apology, please, parados?
Brandon9000 wrote:It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
Yes, it certainly is.
I happen to think that the enemy, whose objective is to bankrupt us by keeping us involved in a never-ending war, would be more comforted by the actions and words of our president, who keeps doing the same thing over and over, with the same negative result, playing right into their hands.
So yes, I agree. George Bush sickens me.
kickycan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
Yes, it certainly is.
I happen to think that the enemy, whose objective is to bankrupt us by keeping us involved in a never-ending war, would be more comforted by the actions and words of our president, who keeps doing the same thing over and over, with the same negative result, playing right into their hands.
So yes, I agree. George Bush sickens me.
And, of course, shrieking that it was a crime to undertake the war, and that we're losing doesn't comfort them at all.
Kicky, you have earned new respect from me on this thread. The other posters with similar points of view are also well spoken and I respect them also.
Brandon9000 wrote:Merry Andrew wrote:OK, Brandon, I'll grant you that my use of the word "treasonable" might have been a bit hyperbolic. What I meant was that criticising the critics is counter-productive.
You were wrong about that. You were wrong about everything else. It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
Don't get a swelled head, Brandon. And don't mistake my good manners for weakness or acquiescence to your silly point of view. I was certainly not "wrong about everything else" or
anything else, for that matter. My only other mistake, besides calling your post "treasonous", was in assuming that you were a gentleman and capable of undertsanding such things as civilized discourse. Don't worry. I won't make that mistake again.
Merry Andrew wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Merry Andrew wrote:OK, Brandon, I'll grant you that my use of the word "treasonable" might have been a bit hyperbolic. What I meant was that criticising the critics is counter-productive.
You were wrong about that. You were wrong about everything else. It is sickening to hear people who actually do give aid and comfort to the enemy declaring themselves patriots.
Don't get a swelled head, Brandon. And don't mistake my good manners for weakness or acquiescence to your silly point of view. I was certainly not "wrong about everything else" or
anything else, for that matter. My only other mistake, besides calling your post "treasonous", was in assuming that you were a gentleman and capable of undertsanding such things as civilized discourse. Don't worry. I won't make that mistake again.
I note that this ad hominem doesn't address any of the points of my argument. How about if we all just stick to the ideas under discussion?
Ok Brandon, read the CIA report below, do you still believe, going to war in Iraq based on the analysis on WMD, was the right thing to do ?
Surely the CIA cannot be wrong, they had access to highly classifield intelligence data.
CIA Report Criticizes Bush Over Iraq War
Quote:October 12, 2005 3:01 p.m. EST
Andrea Moore - All Headline News Staff Reporter
Washington, DC - (AHN) According to USA Today, a report published and released by the CIA strongly criticizes the Bush administration for not listening to pre-war intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
The report says the administration was more concerned with making the case for war, particularly with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than intelligence on cultural and political issuses and planning for the aftermath.
In what the report calls, "an ironic twist," it says the analysis on weapons of mass destruction was wrong, but on cultural and political issues the analysis was correct.
Former CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report, which was completed as Tenet ended his tenure at the agency. It was written by a team of four former CIA analysts who had access to highly classified intelligence data.
allheadlinenews
freedom4free wrote:Ok Brandon, read the CIA report below, do you still believe, going to war in Iraq based on the analysis on WMD, was the right thing to do ?
Surely the CIA cannot be wrong, they had access to highly classifield intelligence data.
CIA Report Criticizes Bush Over Iraq War
Quote:October 12, 2005 3:01 p.m. EST
Andrea Moore - All Headline News Staff Reporter
Washington, DC - (AHN) According to USA Today, a report published and released by the CIA strongly criticizes the Bush administration for not listening to pre-war intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
The report says the administration was more concerned with making the case for war, particularly with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than intelligence on cultural and political issuses and planning for the aftermath.
In what the report calls, "an ironic twist," it says the analysis on weapons of mass destruction was wrong, but on cultural and political issues the analysis was correct.
Former CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report, which was completed as Tenet ended his tenure at the agency. It was written by a team of four former CIA analysts who had access to highly classified intelligence data.
allheadlinenews
Yeah, listen to the CIA, like in
this report outlining Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs...
The CIA was right then too, weren't they freedom4free? Surely "they had access to highly classifield intelligence data."
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, listen to the CIA, like in
this report outlining Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs...
The CIA was right then too, weren't they freedom4free? Surely "they had access to highly classifield intelligence data."
Aug 1983 - Mar 1988 and
Mar 1988 - Jan 1991
Surley you can do better then that.
So Saddam was gona take over the World with this right ?
freedom4free wrote:Ok Brandon, read the CIA report below, do you still believe, going to war in Iraq based on the analysis on WMD, was the right thing to do ?
Surely the CIA cannot be wrong, they had access to highly classifield intelligence data.
CIA Report Criticizes Bush Over Iraq War
Quote:October 12, 2005 3:01 p.m. EST
Andrea Moore - All Headline News Staff Reporter
Washington, DC - (AHN) According to USA Today, a report published and released by the CIA strongly criticizes the Bush administration for not listening to pre-war intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
The report says the administration was more concerned with making the case for war, particularly with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than intelligence on cultural and political issuses and planning for the aftermath.
In what the report calls, "an ironic twist," it says the analysis on weapons of mass destruction was wrong, but on cultural and political issues the analysis was correct.
Former CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report, which was completed as Tenet ended his tenure at the agency. It was written by a team of four former CIA analysts who had access to highly classified intelligence data.
allheadlinenews
Are you people constitutionally incapable of following a single thread of logic? Even supposing, which I do not, that the decision to invade was incorrect, that does not make the Americans any less disloyal who ignore any success we have, ignore any Iraqi who likes us, and gleefully trumpet any potential military or other failure.
I am anything but gleeful over the debacle in Iraq.
DrewDad wrote:I am anything but gleeful over the debacle in Iraq.
Then perhaps you're not one of those who has posts that quote various potential miltary setbacks with comments like, "Look, we're failing here," and "looking we're getting creamed here," and "Ha ha look what jerks we made of ourselves here." In fact, wasn't there an A2K liberal thread for a long time with some title like, "I Want Us to Fail in Iraq?"
Who gives a shet about "setbacks and getting creamed?" Most of us care about 1) our military men and women being sacrificed for some unknown goals (that have changed several times), 2) the cost of this war at $5 billion every month - at a time when we can use that money at home for our children and health care, and 3) no foreign policy by this administration that makes any sense. "Stay the course" is not a policy. It just leaves the present quagmire into the future.
Two-thirds of Americans question our involvement in this war. Why is it that you, Brandon, still support it? Are most Americans wrong and you are right? You'd better shrink that head a bit.
Don't get tricked into being on the defensive, DD.
This tactic would be hilarious if the subject matter were not so serious.
I wonder if the same tactic was used in the days of the Civil Rights struggle in the US?
"We discriminate against black people here!"
You are unpatriotic.
"Huh? Whatever, as a country, we need to face this issue>"
Why do you hate America?
"What? Look at the way black people are prevented from voting in the south."
You scum! Why do you always look only for the bad in your country! Ameruca, love it, or get fucked!
The right certainly began using this tactic a few years ago here: talking about a "black arm band view of history" when the realities of the white invasion here were looked at...only, in the schools where the rich go, you are supposed to say "settlement" not invasion. Invasion is UNPATRIOTIC, WHY DO YOU HATE AUSTRALIA!
Raising disturbing matters for discussion is not bad, and needs no defense.
So, what about the limits of coalition power in Iraq, then?
It was an interesting discussion until this ridiculous side tracking began.
There is no more insidious or wrong-minded slogan than that old shibboleth "My country, right or wrong." I cringe any time I hear that. It clearly implies that I, as a citizen, am duty-bound to support and applaud any action whatsoever that is undertaken in the name of my country -- be it slavery, abrogation of civil liberties, military adventurism abroad or outright dictatorship. That smacks of Stalinism and of the idol-worshipping of Mao Zedong. These people who claim to hate the "left" so much use all the tactics of the old "left" -- in other words, the tactics of the thankfully defunct Communist bloc. If my country is wrong, I will certainly not run around, saying, "My country, right or wrong." I will strive to point out the wrongs to my fellow citizens as well as to the administation running the country and ask that administartion to cease and desist. Which, in effect, is what we're doing on these threads. I have been accused of being gleeful when American soldiers are killed. How does advocating that those soldiers be taken out of harm's way brand one as anti-military or, worse, anti-American?
But, dlowan is quite right, of course. This bickering over what is and what is not "patriotic" has distracted us nicely from the original subject of the thread. Nice work, Brandon and McGentrix.
MA, A well writen post that I agree with. It's interesting that although the majority of Americans now realize the futility of this war, some will hang on to their last thread of advocacy for a war gone haywire. They continue to use such ridiculous arguments such as "you support the enemy, you are gleeful when our soldiers are killed (or when things go wrong), you are not patriotic, and if you're not with us, you're with the enemy."
I wonder what they think we are winning in Iraq?
