Are war critics helping the enemy?

[ImaginalDisc]

From the article:

After his opening remarks, Bush fielded about 10 questions from the audience of invited groups. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the questions were not prescreened. Bush said no topics were off-limits, and even invited a question about Iran, but nobody asked one.

No speech writers, no prepared statements. It was an answer to a question.
[\QUOTE]

Alright, I'll concede then that the President didn't have a handler at the time.

Where are you disqualified as an American?

I cannot point to that statement, because that is what I inferred from his disingenuous invitation to sham debate.

I have addressed your point. Would you please address the point that if Osama acted the way Bush did during that speach, it would not construed as a genuine invitation to debate?

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, I've found you to be a polictal analyist with generally high quality critical thinking skills, and extensive knowledge of many subject. that, or you have strong google fu.

First of all, thanks.

One of the fundamental differences between the two organizations is that membership in Al Qaeda is voluntary and chosen by people who's individual ideology matches that of Al Qaeda, so expressing dissent that radical would disqualify them from membership. US citizenship, on the other hand, is mostly something you’re born into, and nothing you say can revoke it.

I find your quip dissapointing. Not because I disagree, but because I expected you see that when our leader attempts to quash dissent, it's at least as bad as when out enemy's leader does so.

I don't see our leader as trying to quash dissent in any way that's outside the normal operation of his job. He’s a politician, as a politician he’s supposed to convince people of his point of view. In doing so, he’s supposed to speak up for his point of view.

The truth is that expressing dissent can and does embolden the enemy and demoralize our own troops. The question isn’t if this is true or not, but how we should modify our behavior based upon this information.

Should we make dissent illegal? Of course not, and nobody is suggesting we should.

Should we, as individuals, be more personally aware of the effects of our speech? Yes, and in doing so we don’t harm our individual freedoms, and we leave the decisions on what is and is not acceptable to the individual, just like we did before Bush made this statement and just as in appropriate in a free and democratic society.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

First of all, thanks.

One of the fundamental differences between the two organizations is that membership in Al Qaeda is voluntary and chosen by people who's individual ideology matches that of Al Qaeda, so expressing dissent that radical would disqualify them from membership. US citizenship, on the other hand, is mostly something you’re born into, and nothing you say can revoke it.



I don't see our leader as trying to quash dissent in any way that's outside the normal operation of his job. He’s a politician, as a politician he’s supposed to convince people of his point of view. In doing so, he’s supposed to speak up for his point of view.

The truth is that expressing dissent can and does embolden the enemy and demoralize our own troops. The question isn’t if this is true or not, but how we should modify our behavior based upon this information.

Should we make dissent illegal? Of course not, and nobody is suggesting we should.

Should we, as individuals, be more personally aware of the effects of our speech? Yes, and in doing so we don’t harm our individual freedoms, and we leave the decisions on what is and is not acceptable to the individual, just like we did before Bush made this statement and just as in appropriate in a free and democratic society.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Why would it be bad for our troops to be demoralized, if the war is truely amoral? Why should we curtail honest and frank debate, and avoid telling the truth, if the truth could cause the war to come to an end? Is victory worth that price?

 

[Mycroft]

Um...wow. (Emphasis mine)


http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2063.shtml


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1001571054

I would say that Cindy Sheehan is not just any American expressing any criticism.

I would also not hold all conservatives responsible for Ann Coulter.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I would say that Cindy Sheehan is not just any American expressing any criticism.

She is still an American however. If she's wrong, it makes more sense to refute her using reasonable debate than it does to ask her to shut up. If she's wrong, and Bush is right, than clearly Bush should be able to defend his poisition against her, right?

I would also not hold all conservatives responsible for Ann Coulter.

I agree. I would also not hold Ann Coulter responsible for the deaths of any troops in Iraq.

 

[Mycroft]

Perhaps I'm missing something. Why would it be bad for our troops to be demoralized, if the war is truely amoral? Why should we curtail honest and frank debate, and avoid telling the truth, if the truth could cause the war to come to an end? Is victory worth that price?

If your purpose is to end the war by causing the US to lose it, then I would postulate that you're guilty of the worst that any conservative, including Ann Coulter, has charged against liberals.

 

[Mycroft]

Edited for redundancy.

 

[Mycroft]

I have addressed your point. Would you please address the point that if Osama acted the way Bush did during that speach, it would not construed as a genuine invitation to debate?

It's not an invitation to a debate,(Bush's statement) it's another point in the debate.

We live in a free society. We allow freedom of speech, we allow people to disagree with government policy even during wartime.

However, we are also allowed to discuss the consequences of those freedoms. One of the consequences is that criticism the war can have the effect of encouraging the enemy and demoralizing our own troops.

You like freedom of speech when it cuts your way, you just don't like it when it cuts the other way. Nobody is saying you can't say what you want, Bush is just saying there are consequences for saying certain things.

She is still an American however. If she's wrong, it makes more sense to refute her using reasonable debate than it does to ask her to shut up. If she's wrong, and Bush is right, than clearly Bush should be able to defend his poisition against her, right?

Lot's of people have refuted her, and lot's of other people continue to promote her. That's not the point. The point is that she and others like her can encourage the enemy and demoralize US troops.

I agree. I would also not hold Ann Coulter responsible for the deaths of any troops in Iraq.

Oh, but you'd better believe that if someone figures out a way to do that, they will.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If your purpose is to end the war by causing the US to lose it, then I would postulate that you're guilty of the worst that any conservative, including Ann Coulter, has charged against liberals.

Saying that we're wrong isn't saying that the terrorists are right. That's a false dilemma, Mycroft. I think A) Bush is a liar. B) The intelligence that was used to justify the war was cherry picked. C) The war has been conducted in a terrible manner. D) The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam. E) The terrorists are scum.

 

[Mycroft]

Saying that we're wrong isn't saying that the terrorists are right.

I didn't say that, but I will say that working for the US to lose is the same as working for the enemy to win. You said, "Why would it be bad for our troops to be demoralized, if the war is truely amoral? " Wow, that's shocking! I assume you don't mean that!

That's a false dilemma, Mycroft. I think

A) Bush is a liar.
B) The intelligence that was used to justify the war was cherry picked.
C) The war has been conducted in a terrible manner.
D) The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam.
E) The terrorists are scum.

Okay, I can agree with that, but if we are to withdraw our troops from Iraq it should be because we have utilized the democratic process to change the policies of our government, and not because we have demoralized our troops and ensured the victory of our enemies.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't say that, but I will say that working for the US to lose is the same as working for the enemy to win. You said, "Why would it be bad for our troops to be demoralized, if the war is truely amoral? " Wow, that's shocking! I assume you don't mean that!

If we're doing something wrong, why should we be happy about it? I hope every solider returns home healthy, having fulfilled their duty. If the truth about the sitatution causes our troops to regret the war, than I think that's alright.

Or, "Better the lies that exalt us than a thousand truths" -Pushkin?

Many soldiers in Vietnam questioned the meaning of that war. Did the critics of that war cause soldiers to die, or did the government which sent them into an ill thought out and unwinnable situation do that?

Let's put the responsability for the deaths of soldiers where it belongs.

Okay, I can agree with that, but if we are to withdraw our troops from Iraq it should be because we have utilized the democratic process to change the policies of our government, and not because we have demoralized our troops and ensured the victory of our enemies.

Not all situations are zero-sum games, not even wars. I hope the terrorists lose. I hope we build a free Iraq. I hope we can utilize a democratic process here at home to do that, rather than accept whatever the President tells us.

 

[DavidJames]

Should we, as individuals, be more personally aware of the effects of our speech? Yes, and in doing so we don’t harm our individual freedoms, and we leave the decisions on what is and is not acceptable to the individual, just like we did before Bush made this statement and just as in appropriate in a free and democratic society.

I'll leave the discussion with this. Without loud and vigorous dissent, how many more thousands of Americans would have died in Vietnam? How long would we have been killing Vietnamese?

I have to add - I'm not comparing Iraq and Vietnam, I'm pointing to the impact of allowing dissent. Whether the dissent is valid is a different issue.

 

[Mycroft]

If we're doing something wrong, why should we be happy about it?

A soldiers is not like other citizens. Within limits, his job is to be the instrument of his governments policy, not to make that policy. We want him to do his job as well as he can, regardless of our agreement with those policies. That's what "Support the Troops" means.

I hope every solider returns home healthy, having fulfilled their duty. If the truth about the sitatution causes our troops to regret the war, than I think that's alright.

Such reflection is better done after he comes home, not on the battlefield where it could cost lives.

Many soldiers in Vietnam questioned the meaning of that war. Did the critics of that war cause soldiers to die, or did the government which sent them into an ill thought out and unwinnable situation do that?

Do you think soldiers in Vietnam were not demoralized by activities at home? Do you believe demoralized soldiers do their job as well?

Not all situations are zero-sum games, not even wars. I hope the terrorists lose. I hope we build a free Iraq. I hope we can utilize a democratic process here at home to do that, rather than accept whatever the President tells us.

All of these goals are made just a little more difficult if our soldiers are demoralized.

At the same time, I think you're still not understanding my point of view. As a free society, we have no choice but to tolerate dissent. People who are against the war will speak against the war, and there is no alternative that is acceptable to us.

However, introduced into the dialogue is an awareness of the effects of that dialogue on the conflict itself. That, in my opinion, is every bit as appropriate as the right to dissent that you’re speaking for. The free exchange of ideas goes both ways.

Short of actual treason, the government will not decide for you what you are and are not allowed to say. However, there is nothing wrong with the government trying to persuade you by making you aware of the effects of your words. What effect will that have on us and what we say? Well, like any persuasive argument, the effect is up to the individual, but my personal home it that it will encourage portions of the anti-war crowd to distance themselves from those elements that really do support the enemy.

 

[Mycroft]

I'll leave the discussion with this.

Coward. Stick around and face the consequences of your words.

Without loud and vigorous dissent, how many more thousands of Americans would have died in Vietnam? How long would we have been killing Vietnamese?

I have to add - I'm not comparing Iraq and Vietnam, I'm pointing to the impact of allowing dissent. Whether the dissent is valid is a different issue.

Not everybody was against the war in Vietnam, and it's not a universal given that withdrawal from Vietnam was a good thing. It could be argued we might have won Vietnam had the opposition at home been less fierce.

You have the right to speak your mind to sway the policies of your government. At the same time, others have the right to speak their minds and to try to sway your opinion. That's what freedom of speech is.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

A soldiers is not like other citizens. Within limits, his job is to be the instrument of his governments policy, not to make that policy. We want him to do his job as well as he can, regardless of our agreement with those policies. That's what "Support the Troops" means.

No. I support our troops by opposing this farce of a war.

Such reflection is better done after he comes home, not on the battlefield where it could cost lives.

Tennysen, so early in the evening?

"Theirs is not to wonder why, theirs is but to do and die"

Do you think soldiers in Vietnam were not demoralized by activities at home? Do you believe demoralized soldiers do their job as well?

I think the solidrs in Vietnam were primarily demoralied by being sent into an unwinnable war, and asked to fulfill unreasonable expectations by their government, not demoralized by honest critics of the war.

All of these goals are made just a little more difficult if our soldiers are demoralized.

Does this justify lying to them?

At the same time, I think you're still not understanding my point of view. As a free society, we have no choice but to tolerate dissent. People who are against the war will speak against the war, and there is no alternative that is acceptable to us.

However, introduced into the dialogue is an awareness of the effects of that dialogue on the conflict itself. That, in my opinion, is every bit as appropriate as the right to dissent that you’re speaking for. The free exchange of ideas goes both ways.

Short of actual treason, the government will not decide for you what you are and are not allowed to say. However, there is nothing wrong with the government trying to persuade you by making you aware of the effects of your words. What effect will that have on us and what we say? Well, like any persuasive argument, the effect is up to the individual, but my personal home it that it will encourage portions of the anti-war crowd to distance themselves from those elements that really do support the enemy.

I have seen many war critics who I dissaprove of, such and Cindy Sheehan, but I have never once seen any who support the enemy. That is a strawman.

 

[Mycroft]

No. I support our troops by opposing this farce of a war.

How do you support the troops that disagree with you?

Tennysen, so early in the evening?

"Theirs is not to wonder why, theirs is but to do and die"

Yes.

I think the solidrs in Vietnam were primarily demoralied by being sent into an unwinnable war, and asked to fulfill unreasonable expectations by their government, not demoralized by honest critics of the war.

What made the war unwinnable? What made the expectations unreasonable?

Does this justify lying to them?

I have not advocated lying to anybody.

I have seen many war critics who I dissaprove of, such and Cindy Sheehan, but I have never once seen any who support the enemy. That is a strawman.

How about when Sheehan calls the Iraqi terrorists “freedom fighters”?

I’ll see if I can track down some more examples for you.

 

[billydkid]

First of all, thanks.


I don't see our leader as trying to quash dissent in any way that's outside the normal operation of his job.

So you don't think the creation of "free speech" and the actual ellimination of genuine free assembly and free speech and you don't see the infiltration with assault with the intent to incite violence and thereby discredit the movement as outside the normal operation?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

How do you support the troops that disagree with you?

By opposing the war. Did I stutter?

Yes.

I take exception with the idea that soldiers should not be allowed to think, and should not be allowed to hear the truth.

What made the war unwinnable? What made the expectations unreasonable?

We could not possible defeat "the insurgents" without killing every single person in North Vietnam. The people of North Vietnam were adamantly against democracy. Imagine we were invaded by the U.S.S.R. in the 50's. How would the invaders have won that war of occupation?

I have not advocated lying to anybody.

You have advocated keeping soldiers ignorant. That's willfully withholding information. At best, that's being misleading.

How about when Sheehan calls the Iraqi terrorists “freedom fighters”?

I’ll see if I can track down some more examples for you.

She can call the terrorists Care Bears for all I care. Bullets, bombs and knives kill people, not rhetoric. I think she's wrong, but I don't think calling the terrorists freedom fighters constitues supporting them in deed, only in word.

 

[billydkid]

Coward. Stick around and face the consequences of your words.



Not everybody was against the war in Vietnam, and it's not a universal given that withdrawal from Vietnam was a good thing. It could be argued we might have won Vietnam had the opposition at home been less fierce.

You have the right to speak your mind to sway the policies of your government. At the same time, others have the right to speak their minds and to try to sway your opinion. That's what freedom of speech is.

We had not choice but to withdraw from Vietnam. The people of the country did not want us there just as many Iraqi's if not most do not want us there.

 

[gnome]

He identifies two ways in which criticism can harm the war effort: 1) by emboldening the enemy and 2) by demoralizing our own troops.

Is there any doubt as to the truth of those words? In my opinion it’s self evident that criticism on the home front can both embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops.

In my opinion, the only issues are where to draw the line and what methods of enforcement are allowable in enforcing that line.

This leaves you with the dilemma: if the criticism is true, which is worse: to possibly embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops by revealing it, or to allow unsound policy to drive us to similar folly by leaving it unquestioned? I would argue that the truth is always better, despite the consequences.

Therefore I suggest that if the President has a problem with criticism affecting the troops--instead of saying "It's bad for the troops to criticize policy during war" he should be defending his policy: "Your criticism is mistaken and here's why--" or he should consider changing that policy. To argue that it's dangerous to question him, is to argue that it's better to have poor leadership decisions, than dissent. I submit that BOTH are harmful to the war effort, and we should err on the side of truth.

(i've been waiting FOREVER to use that smilie)