• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are war critics helping the enemy?

Criticism can help the enemy, but it's not automatically wrong.

For example, in the broadest sense, if opposing a war causes the President to end it, that helps the enemy because we stopped the war. That doesn't mean it was the wrong decision, and certainly doesn't mean it was wrong to say.

An example of "wrong" criticism--generally for me it surrounds criticisms that are untrue. For example, saying we're over there lining up babies and executing them... that would be unpatriotic propaganda that helps the enemy.

In my opinion, speech that "helps the enemy" is only wrong if it is a) untrue or b) reveals secret tactical or strategic information.

To argue otherwise is to suppose that finding common ground with the enemy and negotiating for peace, is treasonous, because it helped the enemy.
 
Beerina said:
They're both right -- the Democrats are right to criticize, and the President is right that this helps the enemy. Of course the knowledge the country might get out prompts the enemy to entrench harder. Of course it does, and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't.

So, although you have freedom of speech, with it comes the responsibility to know that, if you open your mouth, you may be making it difficult over there as those opposed to the US are looking for any help they can get, and dissention over here leading to political pressure to pull out prematurely is indeed help. Entrench and wait. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
sooooo, what are you saying?
 
One thing's for sure; "War is not the answer" bumper stickers and people that claim that Bush lied about WMD's sure aren't helping either way.
 
strathmeyer said:
One thing's for sure; "War is not the answer" bumper stickers and people that claim that Bush lied about WMD's sure aren't helping either way.
Click to expand...

How so? Is it not important to question the President on such matters? Does he not have an obligation to the American people to answer questions regarding the validity of his statements as it was his claim that Iraq had WMDs that led the country to war? Should he not be held accountable if he did lie?
 
strathmeyer said:
One thing's for sure; "War is not the answer" bumper stickers and people that claim that Bush lied about WMD's sure aren't helping either way.
Click to expand...
As opposed to yellow ribbons, "I support the President and Our Troops" stickers, etc?
 
In America we are supposed to have civil liberties; that is what is supposed to make us better...so how can exercising those liberties be an aid to the enemy?

I should think eliminating those liberties---thereby making us more like our enemies---would ultimately be far more of an aid.
 
Mark said:
In America we are supposed to have civil liberties; that is what is supposed to make us better...so how can exercising those liberties be an aid to the enemy?
Click to expand...

You have GOT to be kidding me. Are you seriously taking the position that it is not possible to aid the enemy with speech?
 
Ziggurat said:
You have GOT to be kidding me. Are you seriously taking the position that it is not possible to aid the enemy with speech?
Click to expand...

More willful ignorance from zigg.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether expressions of free speech help the government's enemies. If Bush and the government are suffering criticism, it's their fault for conduction government business is such a deplorable manner. Criticism of incompetence and corruption is practically obligatory in a free society. If criticism helps the enemy, it's Bush's fault for not conducting the war in a humane, democratic, honest, American and transparent way.

In this case, Bush's beef isn't with the alleged criticism, it's with free-speech and the idea of holding government accountable when it f**ks up.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I heard something last week I think where one of the generals claimed that Murtha's opposition was "hurting moral of the troops" and therefore helping the enemy. He said, "It sends the wrong message."

If opposing the war sends the wrong message, then I guess the "right message" must be to support the war, eh? That's a nice situation. Everyone must support every war we are in, regardless of whether we support being in that war or not.
Click to expand...

I notice there is a particular ilk of human obsessed with "sending messages" and seem put more stock in message sending than they do substantive activity. The way things seem is more important than the way they are.
 
Tony said:
Personally, I couldn't care less whether expressions of free speech help the government's enemies.
Click to expand...

But do you care if particular speech aids the enemies of the people of the United States?

In this case, Bush's beef isn't with the alleged criticism, it's with free-speech and the idea of holding government accountable when it f**ks up.
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't get: Bush answers speech with speech, and you think Bush has a problem with free speech? Sorry, but I don't buy that argument for a second. Show me some actual, you know, censorship, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, this simply isn't a free speech issue at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
Here's what I don't get: Bush answers speech with speech, and you think Bush has a problem with free speech? Sorry, but I don't buy that argument for a second. Show me some actual, you know, censorship, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, this simply isn't a free speech issue at all.
Click to expand...
Bush isn't advocating censorship. He's playing politics. He is not so gently insinuating that criticizing his policies hurts America. He is laying the ground work for TV and Radio ad's in future elections. He is preaching to his choir (political base). He is demonizing his opponents by turning free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed free speech into an attack on America. He is trying to stifle debate of his policies using soldiers as pawns.

He seems to have your full support.
 
But you acknowledge that's he's factually correct when he says it, right? So my advice to the targets of his speeches would be to grow a set.
 
Ziggurat said:
But do you care if particular speech aids the enemies of the people of the United States?
Click to expand...

Not really. Free speech is free speech. What enemies were you talking about?

Here's what I don't get: Bush answers speech with speech, and you think Bush has a problem with free speech?
Click to expand...

Notice here how Zigg dishonestly whitewashes Bush's demagoguery of free speech.

Bush didn't answer speech with speech he answered by attaching and demonizing speech and passing the buck for his stupidity and criminal behavior.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument for a second.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, you're a true believer.

Show me some actual, you know, censorship, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, this simply isn't a free speech issue at all.
Click to expand...

There doesn't have to be censorship for it to be a free speech issue.
 
Last edited:
manny said:
But you acknowledge that's he's factually correct when he says it, right?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's Bush's incompetence and corruption that aid the enemy.

So my advice to the targets of his speeches would be to grow a set.
Click to expand...

I guess it's too much to ask that Bush grow a set.
 
DavidJames said:
could you be more obtuse?
Click to expand...
Not sure. We were obtusing each other up to our ying yangs in that other thread before we finally understood each other, so I might be almost out. :D

I'll try again. You said, "If I was fighting a war and I saw my opponents squabbling over their participation, no doubt I would feel some level of comfort." The President said, ""But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy." I read that as the two of you being in agreement. So are you saying that his statement is accurate but he shouldn't make it, or what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom