Dissent in Time of War

[BIGJACK]

Least we forget, the dissent in the late sixties regarding Vietnam was basically because of the same reasons that we see today, except maybe a little less responsible. In Vietnam we could have won by exerting maximum force against the north and bringing china into it(full force)., but eventually getting a surrender from the north, things that the congress would not allow. Just let our troops set their and get picked off one by one, so to speak.
In Iraq we have no plan, cannot hypothesize a successful end. Our government has fumbled this ball so many times it is rediculous, "Stay the Course"----what course? wher does it lead? "Win the war on terrorism"---how do we know when we have won? Why are we not after the known leader of the terrorist and the perpetrator of 9/11--OBL, who is probaly living in luxury in a swank cave (enjoying his 72 virgins here on earth) somplace in northern afganistan--far far away from Iraq.
The gwb bunch is losing the public debate because of the many "misfires", failures and claiming the war in Iraq equates to the war on terror. There is no easy solution to the mess that the gwb crowd of "chickenhawks" have created, even if you assume that there was no dishonesty in casting us into this costly war. To coin a couple of old phrases, "You don;t send good money after bad and when you are in a hole the smartest thing to do is to stop digging."

 

[Eghad]

I see I have another choir member there BigJack....

Roll Tide or War Eagle? hehe

 

[roy reali]

It Depends On Who?

I should have been more clear. If some Marin County, sandal wearing tree hugger is out protesting the war it is one thing, it is a different thing when an expresident is doing the same on foreign soil. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the insurgents in Iraq are fully aware of who says what about the war. If they percieve weakness or indecision on our part they could emboldened to attack further. After all, if one bomb causes a leader to say we should quit maybe another bomb might convince someone else.

 

[model 25]

Least we forget, the dissent in the late sixties regarding Vietnam was basically because of the same reasons that we see today, except maybe a little less responsible.

I lived through the sixties and am here to tell you that the biggest part of dissent was about the DRAFT. Pure and simple people didn't want to be forced into a war and the more that died the more scared the liberal side of the country became.

Again it was liberals like Jane Fonda that convinced the Commies to keep fighting.

In Iraq we have no plan, cannot hypothesize a successful end. Our government has fumbled this ball so many times it is rediculous, "Stay the Course"----what course? wher does it lead? "Win the war on terrorism"---how do we know when we have won?

You are sure not going to hear a plan from the liberal media and this has to be true because you don't know of one. Suppose we cut and run, would we be better off givng over IRAQ and all its natural resources and stategic placement to the terrorist and IRAN? More rediculous to cut and run!

So how has the plan worked in Afganistan? Oh have you heard anything on our success in Afganistan where is the media?

The gwb bunch is losing the public debate because of the many "misfires", failures and claiming the war in Iraq equates to the war on terror.

There is very little even sided public debate as 90% of the media is liberal. Tell you what if you don't believe that then answer this"How many pro gun stories have you ever seen as opposed to anti"? The media hates Bush and would rather see the country fail than have him for President.

"You don;t send good money after bad and when you are in a hole the smartest thing to do is to stop digging."

So are you saying that we should forget 911 and quit fighting the terrorist because it cost too much?

25

 

[MoW]

For me it's an easy answer-----

Argue as loud as you want before
Say nothing but support(for the troops) during
Argue as loud as you want after

 

[noone]

Im curious mow:

if our leaders ordered our troops to invade canada because they dont like canuks, we should sit back and relax?

edit: forgot to add. I would not fight for a country that didnt have critical people looking at the government. honestly it suprises me that some of you feel the way you do.

"OH NO THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR MY GUNS".

" DO NOT QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT DURING WARTIME TRAITOR HIPPIE SCUM".

weird, or no?

 

[BIGJACK]

Model 25, our official envolvement in vietnam began in 1963 (unofficial before that) when the draft was enacted protest was in many forms. Thousands fled to canada, mexica, south american and other parts of the world to avoid (dodge) the draft. Mostly because all of the billets in the national guard, which at that time for the most part was a non-combative force for the protection of the home land,were taken by the rich and famous (like gwb) and they could not get a deferment for college. Jane fonda and her bunch came on the scene about 5 years later after it was obvious that our government had a "no win" policy and our troups were getting picked off one by one.
As for giving up the natural resources (oil) of Iraq one would ask, "are we gonna take it when we leave?" also, what plan has worked in afganistan? Its common knowledge that the ONE person that we went there for still remains free.
It is an undisputed fact that there is absolutely no proof connecting Iraq and 911 other than the fact that they are also Muslin and the "gwb regardless radicals" should find another excuse for being there.

ROLL TIDE ROLL

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The right of peaceful dissent is absolute. That's very simple. It is as simple as all the gun nuts who bellow : What part of not infringed don't you understand?

Just because someone speaks against your crap, gives the state no right to silence them.

Perhaps if Germans dissented against Hitler, that war wouldn't have happened. Now I'm not comparing this war to that but it shows that dissent is a fundamental right.

How about this - I support the war and the troops. However, I think GWB and company are such damn strategic and tactical idiots that if we can't do it right - then we should get out. Why should I lock step be hypnotized to support a leader who is a failure in the War on Terror?

Taken action against our troops as Jane did is quite different from speaking about the incompetence of our current leadership. However, the current administration tries to paint criticism of their stupidity as attacking the troops. It speaks to their lack of moral compass.

 

[BIGJACK]

"A fanatic is someone who will not change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill----is gwb a war fanatic?

 

[MoW]

noone--if our leaders ordered our troops to invade canada because they dont like canuks, we should sit back and relax?


Cmon now--not even a tangible arguement. The debate as to whether or not to go to war is fine before and after. In this instance for example, the Left is argueing that we should have never gone to war. Exactly how does this debate change the fact that we are already there? Again, debate whether or not we should have gone to war ahead and after---BUT NOT DURING. BTW, the Left voted with the Republicans to go to war. So if you disagree with the fact that we did go to war, then you should have MORE of an issue with your own party:barf:

 

[BIGJACK]

James Madison said,"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."---Gentlemen, the "Patriote" act, in some ways is tyranny.

"First they arrested the communist--but I was not a commie so I did nothing--Then they arrested the trade unionest --and I did nothing because I was not one--then they came and arrested the socialist Democrates, but I was not one so I did nothing. And then they came for the Jews and Catholics but I was neither jew nor catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested ME--and there was no one left to do anything about it."
Rev. Martin Niemoller----Survivor Nazi Prison Camp

"When People speak to you about a "preventive" war, you tell them to go and fight it themselves. After my experience I have come to hate war." Dewight Eisenhower

 

[gc70]

by BIGJACK:
It is an undisputed fact that there is absolutely no proof connecting Iraq and 911

You are absolutely correct!

The only time I see this is when Democratic politicians and their supporters claim that Bush said there was a link. Maybe this news story, which is clearly not friendly to Bush, will clear up the misperception:

President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.

 

[noone]

mow--- why is it not a tangible argument? I am arguing that dissent is good, even during war.

I was not debating that we shouldnt be in iraq.....it was just a statement. I may have been debating that dissent during war is good(because i said this).

my party? exactly which one is that? I swear no allegiance to any party, i am critical of both. although most of the time my views are more in line with the dems. are you trying to put words in my mouth again?

 

[noone]

gc70-- huh?

Bush said the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should be considered part of the war on terror "because of the nature of Saddam Hussein."

"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."

this may have been what some where refering too.

 

[gc70]

noone,

A lot of people consider Bush an absolute moron. But many of those same people turn around and misunderstand Bush by trying to read something extra into what he says. View Bush as a simpleton and what he means is clear - it is nothing more or less than the exact words that come out of his mouth.

Case in point: the resolution approving war with Iraq. Bush asked Congress for permission to go to war with Iraq. A lot of Democratic politicians have complained that they thought Bush wanted a war resolution for leverage with the UN or to bluff Iraq. Amazingly, Bush wanted permission to go to war with Iraq ... in order to go to war with Iraq.

 

[model 25]

Big Jack

As for giving up the natural resources (oil) of Iraq one would ask, "are we gonna take it when we leave?" also, what plan has worked in afganistan? Its common knowledge that the ONE person that we went there for still remains free.


Of course we are leaving the resources but in whos hands do you want it left Zawaquiri or someone we support? Little known here is that the country is rich in minerals and it also has four growing seasons. Which means if the country was farmed right it could feed the whole middle east. That is something to build on.

I don't think Osama is free with a 25 million dollar bounty on his head nor would I want to live in a cave the rest of my life. However if you look at Afganistan and the social improvements there then we have won a victory but unknown because of the media.

Model 25, our official envolvement in vietnam began in 1963 (unofficial before that) when the draft was enacted protest was in many forms. Thousands fled to canada, mexica, south american and other parts of the world to avoid (dodge) the draft. Mostly because all of the billets in the national guard, which at that time for the most part was a non-combative force for the protection of the home land,were taken by the rich and famous (like gwb) and they could not get a deferment for college.

No doubt that all you have said is true, even Bill Clinton dodged the draft and run to England and while he was there he protested America.


It is an undisputed fact that there is absolutely no proof connecting Iraq and 911 other than the fact that they are also Muslin and the "gwb regardless radicals" should find another excuse for being there.

I am sure you remember Sadam attacking Kuwait in the early 90s and that we sought a peaceful course but to no avail. Gulf war one drove him out of Kuwait and set terms for peace that Sadam didn't follow. When Bush senior was booted Clinton took over and did nothing for 8 years to hold Sadam to the promisses Sadam made.

When we were attacked on 911 it was plain as day that most of the terrorist were of Saudi citizenship. To me Sadam was just unfinished business that had the plus of all the terrorist in the middle east that wanted to die stepped up and got their virgins.

Don't get the impression now that because I support the troops that I am a GWB radical, I want to finish this fight and win it and at least someone is fighting back and not letting us be murdered in our own country.

I support the war but if the republicans don't do something about the border then I won't vote for them in the next election.

25

 

[noone]

model 25: this is just an observation, but you say that clinton did nothing and then continue on to say that the repubs need to lock up the border. what do you see as more dangerous. clinton not bombing saddam enough, or the current admin. letting anyone with two feet into the country? which was more damaging?

 

[GoSlash27]

25,
You should have another go at this one:

It is an undisputed fact that there is absolutely no proof connecting Iraq and 911 other than the fact that they are also Muslin and the "gwb regardless radicals" should find another excuse for being there.

Because at no point in your response did you even attempt to justify the reasons you were given for going.

I called shenanigans during the runup. I sat there shaking my head once the invasion was underway. You want a reason to stay there? I have already given it to you. But you have to concede the fact that it was an ill-advised undertaking that has been botched in order for it to carry any weight.
That also puts you in an odd position: exactly opposite the Dems, yet highly critical of the Bush administration.
The voting public is not going to accept trite platitudes about supporting the mission or staying the course. They either need a rational reason to stay or they need to know when our troops are coming home. Any politician who does not provide one or the other will be voted out next cycle.

 

[model 25]

model 25: this is just an observation, but you say that clinton did nothing and then continue on to say that the repubs need to lock up the border. what do you see as more dangerous. clinton not bombing saddam enough, or the current admin. letting anyone with two feet into the country? which was more damaging?


I like to keep things straight, neither Clinton or Bush has done anything about the border. Bush however is supposed to at this time secure us from future attacks by closing the border. If he doesn't then when we get attacked he is a criminal in my opinion.

Looking at the truth though if you add up all the people killed and all the expenses of haveing illegals here it is much more than 911. Don't believe it then check me out.

I would like to give Clinton a break but geez the guy was the worst president in my life IMHO.

25

 

[noone]

i wasnt arguing with you just trying to see your position.

I do love how all these threads turn into "clinton sucks" threads.

I believe when bush was up on his pedestal after 9/11 he said he would "keep us safe".

hmm more terrorists, not enough closing up the borders=?

granted it is not just his fault the entire gov. right now is incompetent in my eyes.