Are war critics helping the enemy?

Year Zero said:
This is incredible. You actually believe that someone voting in an election is the ultimate expression of "democracy".
Click to expand...
I made no such claims though I think it arguable. I'm pointing out that having an opportunity to effect their future they have acted.

Do you have any idea how many dictatorial or corrupt governments throughout history(including our own) have been ELECTED in just such a manner? Were you aware that all these elections were rife with complaints about corruption? It is insane to believe that there is some kind of sacred meaning behind someone voting in an election- an illusion of democracy. If the government survives, and it is to keep Iraq united, it will inevitably degenerate into another dictatorship suppressing various forces in the same way that Saddam did. Never forget that we put that man in power.
Click to expand...
I don't hold that there are any sacred meaning. This is just a straw man. I hold that given freedom to vote people will vote. People like freedom. That there are complaints isn't proof that there was corruption though I don't doubt that it existed. Corruption happens in democracies.
 
Year Zero said:
Not really because you like talking about the "evil" dicators of the world who need punishment but you don't advocate punishment, sanctions, or regime change for the US.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably untrue. I have stated many times before the election that if the American people were upset with George Bush they should throw him out of office. People threw his father out of office. They were pretty happy with that decision. I was happy with the results of the Clinton presidency.

Our system isn't perfect but we have the power to change it. We can speak out against it. I can call the President of the United States a prick and not get thrown in jail. Here's a little experiment. Go to North Korea and call dear leader a prick.

I have not the time to educate you on the entire history of the 90's Balkan wars.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand correctly, you come to a skeptics forum, make claims and then refuse to back them up, correct?

North Korea did not let it's people starve to death. They were hit with a massive disaster.
Click to expand...
And according to human rights organizations the government exacerbated the problem causing the deaths of millions.

Right when someone points out America's wrongs and suggests that maybe America ought to tend to its own problems at home before telling the rest of the world how to live, it must be bias.
Click to expand...
That would be fine if that was all that you have done. You clearly display a lack of objectivity. That fact is demonstrable.
 
Last edited:
Year Zero said:
The question of standards should be posed to the US government if anyone- since it is they who seem to enjoy changing regimes around the world for the past 50 years. Ask them why a democratically elected popular government can be an "evil dictatorship" while a general who takes power in a coup, or an unpopular figure who wins a corrupt election are considered "free and democratic" if they support the US and Western status quo.
Click to expand...
Have there been any elections that are not "corrupt" according to you?

America has involved itself with foreign nations with disastrous result. America has involved itself with foreign nations with good results.

Is America morally superior to other nations? No, not necessarily. Do we have the right to be the worlds police? Perhaps not. I would not completely limit our options.
 
RandFan said:
Have there been any elections that are not "corrupt" according to you?
Click to expand...
Which is why I asked my question. My bet is that this is just mindless blather, without much actual thought behind it. If he wants to convince me I am wrong about that, he is going to have to discuss some democracies that he considers to be good examples, so I can see what the gap is between them and us.
 
Freakshow said:
Which is why I asked my question. My bet is that this is just mindless blather, without much actual thought behind it. If he wants to convince me I am wrong about that, he is going to have to discuss some democracies that he considers to be good examples, so I can see what the gap is between them and us.
Click to expand...
Yeah, his method seems to be throwing a lot of accusations arround without any context or framework and accusing anyone who questions him ignorant of history. He has a point that America can be argued to be inonsistent and hypocritical. We did support the Shah and Saddam. We did back the Mujahideen and Afghanastan in their struggle against the Soviet Union. Many of our problems are of our own making.
 
Year Zero said:
If the government survives, and it is to keep Iraq united, it will inevitably degenerate into another dictatorship suppressing various forces in the same way that Saddam did. Never forget that we put that man in power.
Click to expand...

No, we didn't.

If you care to dispute the point, please follow the link and tell me which of Saddam's steps to the Iraqi presidency we were responsible for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this can go in a different direction: say (hypothetically) we were all agreed that certain kinds of opposition help the enemy. Let's furthermore suppose that nobody's proposing restricting free speech. To be a patriotic American, that doesn't wish to unduly hurt the war effort--what kinds of criticism ARE valid? What standard should an America-loving citizen follow voluntarily?

My answer is the only reasonable standard is truth-- Exaggerations, and either lies, or disregard for the truth (if you don't believe the lies were intentional) got us into this war. That cannot be properly opposed without greater regard for truth than we accuse the opposition of.

So: I say that if you wish to object to Bush's wartime policy, the responsible way is to make sure the facts are with your argument. Are there any other criteria anyone would like to propose?
 
Mycroft said:
I'll agree with that.

I'd also add solution oriented criticism.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere...
Though, do all appropriate criticisms HAVE a solution? What about something that's a done deal and the damage has already occurred?
 
A difficult problem for a political party whose only anwers are increase taxes, cut defense, and increase transfer payments.

They are reduced to complaining, knowing that eventually they stand a good chance of being voted back into power by the vagaries of fortune.
 
hammegk said:
A difficult problem for a political party whose only anwers are increase taxes, cut defense, and increase transfer payments.

They are reduced to complaining, knowing that eventually they stand a good chance of being voted back into power by the vagaries of fortune.
Click to expand...

Hammegk, I'm curious about something. Do you really believe that these sweeping generalizations about the left are true, but similar generalizations about the right, are not? For example, I could just as easily say that the Republicans' party's only answers are to screw the poor and make them vote for it by trumping up cultural issues like abortion and homosexuality.
 
gnome said:
Now we're getting somewhere...
Though, do all appropriate criticisms HAVE a solution? What about something that's a done deal and the damage has already occurred?
Click to expand...

Then the criticism should be how to avoid doing it again.

One of the problems I have with much anti-war criticism is the critics seem to be stuck in a time warp, still arguing over that going to war with Iraq is a bad idea and something we shouldn't do. Well, it's done, so what's the point? Unless they honestly think immediate and unconditional withdrawal is a viable option, they should be concentrating on what we're doing, how we're doing it, and how it can be done better.
 
gnome said:
... I could just as easily say that the Republicans' party's only answers are to screw the poor and make them vote for it by trumping up cultural issues like abortion and homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Your choice, and the First Amendment gives you every right to believe that that characterizes the Republican platform, and to convince others you are correct. And you have broadcast tv, all major newspapers by news coverage and by editorial content helping you. It's odd you can't get a real majority of legal voters to share your opinion and act on it.

Mycroft said:
Unless they honestly think immediate and unconditional withdrawal is a viable option, they should be concentrating on what we're doing, how we're doing it, and how it can be done better.
Click to expand...
They do: cut defense, raise taxes, incease transfer payments, and continue to follow the courses of action that Society, not the individual, is responsible for that individual's lot in life.
 
hammegk said:
Your choice, and the First Amendment gives you every right to believe that that characterizes the Republican platform, and to convince others you are correct. And you have broadcast tv, all major newspapers by news coverage and by editorial content helping you. It's odd you can't get a real majority of legal voters to share your opinion and act on it.
Click to expand...

Way to change the subject. I asked you about your opinion, not my rights.
I'll admit that what I just said about Republicans is full of crap. It's a broad generalization that is (I hope) mostly untrue. Do you stand by your own broad generalizations?
 
hammegk said:
You mean that the Democrat platform is raise taxes, cut defense, raise entitlement payments .... and make every effort to ensure equal outcomes rather than provide equal opportunities? Yup, I stand by them, broad generalizations or not.

Hmm. I forgot kill babies, free killers.


eta: a little light reading http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/suzannefields/2006/01/16/182460.html
Click to expand...

Would you please quote the part of the Democratic platform that calls for cutting defense and ensuring equal outcomes, not opportunities? I must have missed it.
 
What we have here is someone that thinks he is the only one allowed to make broad generalizations and expect to be believed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom