Dissent during Troubled Times

[andyfox]

In the thread on Fox News, Bruce Z. has suggested that dissent has a time and place. That the time for it is not now when we're at war with terrorists. That to dissent in certain ways, such as flag burning, gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

To the contrary, dissent is much more important to the well-being of our nation during times of trouble.

It is in time of war when principles are compromised. It is in time of war when a country that pleaded with other combatants to respect cilivian life and not bomb cities burned 100,000 civilians in a single night. It is time of war when a country that claimed to be defending democracy supported authoritarian tyrants and dropped more bombs on the civilians of the portion of the country it was supposed to be defending than were hitherto dropped in the history of the world.

Bruce Z. would have said rally 'round the flag. We elected our leaders, they made the decisions, they are the experts. The fact that innocent people were murdered is, apparently, beside the point.

Without the ability to dissent, we become no better than the terrorists and the communists and the facists.

[adios]

I'd point out that neither Bush nor his administration is seeking to limit the ability to dissent. Maybe you guys will try to pin that one on him too. Neither is Congress, neither is the Federal Judiciary. Don't know about all governments at the state and city level but in New Mexico that's certainly the case i.e. that state and local government isn't trying to limit dissent to Bush policies anyway. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

Might as well answer a couple of other posts here as well. Regarding "honest" politicians, it's highly subjective as to what an "honest" politician is. Nobody is totally honest so I think that the original post was silly and meaningless without stated objective criteria for evaluating honesty. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

As far as deliberate administration lies, why not lie about the evidence you find regarding WMD's i.e. why all of the sudden transform yourself from a compulsive lier to a compulsive truth teller to embarass yourself? Doesn't make much sense to me. Again I'd point out that Clinton basically stated the same things that Bush did about the Iraqi threat. So if Bush is deliberately lying, Clinton did too. I came up with a "prisoners dilemna" choice matrix regarding Clinton and Bush regarding Iraq WMD's. Perhaps sometime I'll share it. Allright I already know the drill. The Bush administration is actually lying about what they've found in Iraq and there's a conspiracy afoot to convince the American people that stockpiles of WMD's actually have been uncovered in Iraq. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

As far as rap musicians go. It was pointed out to me that "gangsta" rap was a fad in rap music and there is very little of this type of rap music being produced today. Also regarding rap musicians shooting each other, there has never been a conviction, let alone a trial where a rap musiciam was accused of killing another rap musician in the states. Not sure if this is true, just passing along what I've been told. It was also pointed out to me that P. Diddy participated in a marathon race on Sunday and raised over $2 million for charity. The Wall Street Journal's leading editorial yesterday was defending P. Diddy and how his designer line of clothes was manufactured if you will. It pointed out that the Honduran workers in question actually worked in quite humane facillities and that the unions admitted that they knew basically nothing about the conditions of the workers in Honduras manufacturing his line of clothes. Then maybe P. Diddy is more hip hop than rap, I don't know.

[ACPlayer]

... who had the poll that showed that the Democrats were more likely to be going down in 2004?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Without the ability to dissent, we become no better than the terrorists and the communists and the facists.

I agree, of course, but have to add that those who criticize dissenters are also exercising their right to free speech.

There is not one single example of dissent being shut down in the US at this point. That's a sharp contrast to WWI, when anti-war protesters were jailed and deported.

We sometimes forget that the right to speak our minds also includes the right of others to call us unpatriotic for doing so. It doesn't make that allegation correct, but those making that allegation should not be restrained, either.

[brad]

'There is not one single example of dissent being shut down in the US at this point. '

simply not true. members of peace activist groups have been placed on 'no fly' lists and been prevented from flying commericial airlines inside USA (intra-US travel).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd point out that neither Bush nor his administration is seeking to limit the ability to dissent

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably true. But, this is the same administration that encourages labelling those who dissent as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. This is no better than calling someone who disagrees with affirmative action a klansman or a nazi.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please cite a source.

One question. Placed on these lists by whom? The US Gov't or the airlines?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This is no better than calling someone who disagrees with affirmative action a klansman or a nazi.

And no more unconstitutional.

[brad]

'Please cite a source.'

youre a lazy bitch you know that.

go on google search for 'activists no fly list'


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=activists+no+fly+list&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bgid0c%242s89%241%40pencil.math.missouri.ed u&rnum=1

'
...
through US airports, and a
71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to
Washington to join an anti-government protest.
...
'

[elwoodblues]

Never claimed it to be unconstitutional...I do find it troubling that the president is resorting to intimidation to stifle dissent.

[brad]

btw, obviously i am close to cracking (for personal reasons)

[Wake up CALL]

Brad you need to get your news from valid news organizations and not rely so heavily on google groups with articles posted by annonymous posters. I did a net wide search and the only relevant articles uncovered were written by the ACLU itself and several other left wing organizations. I was unable to find a single article in a mainstream newspaper. This alone does not necessarily mean it is incorrect but sure makes it difficult to believe the exact circumstances without independent verification.

[Easy E]

"youre a lazy bitch you know that."

Besides, that applies to you as well, making a statement without "proof" and then requiring others to work to refute YOUR statement.

What, brad has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done?
Give me a break

[brad]

u r even lazier since google post was (full) reprint of

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=430073


i think u r not interested in didcussin thats why i called u ahole while back.

[brad]

well half the time ive posted the exact article on this forum.

how hard is google? they brought it up i figured they were interested

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
u r even lazier since google post was (full) reprint of

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=430073


i think u r not interested in didcussin thats why i called u ahole while back.


[/ QUOTE ]

Brad I am very interested in the discussion. Have you even read the link you just posted? Here it is in it's entirety:

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

Now just how useful is this? And how does it show they are on a "no-fly" list? It says special scrutiny! I would hope you are on this list as well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It also references an article written by Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles which I have been unable to locate.

Well I finally found a reference to the original article although the source is still somewhat dubious (Al Jazeerah).

Article Reprint in Al Jazeerah (http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/August/5%20n/US%20anti-war%20activists%20hit%20by%20secret%20airport%20ba n.htm)

In case you are interested I have uncovered a half dozen or so articles by this UK journalist named Andrew Gumbel and they all are skewed far left, this does not mean tey are all inaccurate, simply very biased. Am still searching for a mainstream report.

[brad]

compare and contrast. i can only assume u r either stupid or f'ing with me. in case the formatting is confusing, let me just say that the google newsgroup will give u the whole article (that someone posted), the website will give you beginning only (unless u pay).

--------------------------------


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=430073

US anti-war activists hit by secret airport ban
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
03 August 2003


After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.


Article Length: 480 words (approx.)

. . . . . . . . .

Independent Portfolio Article

This article is available in full to Independent Portfolio subscribers. Access it through BT click&buy.

Already Subscribed ? Click here.


Otherwise, your options are:

£1 for 24 hours' access to this article;

£5 for a month's subscription to all articles in this package (first month free);

£30 for a year's subscription to all articles in this package;

£60 annual subscription to ALL


==============================

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=activists+no+fly+list&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bgid0c%242s89%241%40pencil.math.missouri.ed u&rnum=1


Specific mention of two activists on a "no-fly" list and who work for a
small pacifist magazine called War Times and say they have never been
arrested, let alone have criminal records.

Michael

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=430073

US anti-war activists hit by secret airport ban
INDEPENDENT (London) 03 August 2003
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that
they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has
admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of
names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new
US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively
well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed
to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of
their fellow passengers.

The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the
second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the
government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of
the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning
two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly
detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly
list.

The activists, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, work for a small pacifist
magazine called War Times and say they have never been arrested, let
alone have criminal records. Others who have filed complaints with the
ACLU include a left-wing constitutional lawyer who has been
strip-searched repeatedly when travelling through US airports, and a
71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to
Washington to join an anti-government protest.

It is impossible to know for sure who might be on the list, or why. The
ACLU says a list kept by security personnel at Oakland airport ran to 88
pages. More than 300 people have been subject to special questioning at
San Francisco airport, and another 24 at Oakland, according to police
records. In no case does it appear that a wanted criminal was
apprehended.

The ACLU's senior lawyer on the case, Jayashri Srikantiah, said she is
troubled by several answers that the TSA gave to her questions. The
agency, she said, had no way of making sure that people did not end up on
the list simply because of things they had said or organisations they
belonged to. Once people were on the list, there was no procedure for
trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was important to keep
track of people singled out in error for a security grilling. According
to documents the agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so".

It is not just left-wingers who feel unfairly targeted. Right-wing civil
libertarians have spoken out against the secret list, and at least one
conservative organisation, the Eagle Forum, says its members have been
interrogated by security staff.

The complaints by the ACLU form part of a pattern of protest since the 11
September attacks, with the Bush administration repeatedly under fire for
detaining people on the flimsiest of grounds in the name of the "war on
terror". Many Muslims have had a hard time, especially if they have a
surname such as Hussein

[Chris Alger]

"I'd point out that neither Bush nor his administration is seeking to limit the ability to dissent."[1]

This begs the question of whether and why Bush would need to suppress serious dissent. By "serious" dissent I mean that which attacks a policy's premises, assumptions and foundations.[2] The stated premises were that Iraq likely had a large arsenal of WMD and a willingness to use them against the U.S. or other countries in the region, and was guilty of intolerable human rights abuses.

Now consider the following contradictions about these premises how they were resolved in the public mind by the mass media: <ul type="square"> 1. Iraq posed a threat so grave that it justified killing more civilians than were killed on 9/11, but Iraq had been unable to conquer even the land within its own borders for more than 10 years.

2. Iraq was considered less of a threat to the U.S. when it's military was three times larger and its WMD arsenal at least 10 times greater.

3. That Iraq was a dictatorship that abused human rights was never a problem with the U.S. government for decades, and indeed other countries that fit this bill in the region continue to receive substantial U.S. aid and political support.

4. Although 9/11 supposedly enhanced the threat posed by Iraq, the Bush administration admitted that no evidence linked Iraq to that event. Evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda appeared to be either groundless (the Atta meeting in Prague) or wildy exaggerated (the "terrorist training camps" and the "harboring" of al Qaeda fugitives). Further, despite the interception and capture of countless al Qaeda members, documents, hard drives and communcations, nothing appeared to contradict the pre-9/11 intelligence consensus that Iraq and al Qaeda were implacably hostile toward each other.

5. Iraq's stipend for families of Palestinians killed in the intifada, including families of terrorists, proved Iraq's willingness to support terror (although no one seriously claimed that such support actually caused any suicide bombings). Yet other countries with whom the U.S. continues to have good relations provide the same kind of support for the same families, as well as support for Hamas and other groups associated with terror.

6. Prior 9/11, Bush administration officials (notably Colin Powell, without reprimand or dissent from Bush or other officials) admitted that Iraq was not a grave threat to the U.S., and was contained "inside the box."

7. Despite hundreds and perhaps thousands of proclamations prior to the war that Iraq posed a "WMD threat," neither the Bush administration nor any other source provided any evidence that Iraq possessed any WMD.

8. Iraqi human rights abuses were so grave that they justified war, but when the worst of these abuses occurred, they didn't even justify cutting aid, and indeed aid increased after Iraq's record got worse, even after Iran-Iraq war had ended. [/list]
The foregoing fairly summarizes the premises arguments and the facts that contradict them, sources for them having been cited on this forum ad nauseaum. Now ask yourself how the average person tended to resolve them. For example, imagine the average person having to write a high school level essay explaining the various contradictions in light of the opinion polls cited below without describing a faulty system for disseminating basic facts.

The answer, of course, is that they can't be resolved without invoking reasons diferent from the official ones. (For examples of essays, just look at the tortured rhetoric that war defenders used here, like the vague rhetoric about Saddam being a "madman" or M's raving about how Saddam's "character" proves he has WMD or that we have to take over Iraq because Saddam "declared jihad" on the U.S. -- in the event the U.S. tried to take over Iraq).

In fact, these contradictions never made it into mass consciousness, and that's the reason Bush got his war and doesn't need to suppress dissent.

They were effectively not so much concealed but "back-burnered" by an information system that overwhelms dissent and even intelligent skepticism and debate with a torrent of propaganda and rhetoric that largely repeats the official line. There are subtle variations, but the messages that dominate the press and airwaves fell within a very narrow spectrum. For compendiums of examples, see the many reports on war propaganda provided by FAIR or S. Rampton &amp; J. Stauber, "Weapons of Mass Deception, The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," (New York 2003).

As a result, the public was not only in the dark about the contradictions of the war, it was grotesquely misinformed about the basic facts. As I pointed out no this forum last February, "77% the U.S. public believes that Iraq is 'likely' or 'certain' to have nuclear weapons, according to a recent Gallup poll. Moreover, despite Powell making it clear that the U.S. has no hard evidence linking Saddam to Al Quaeda, 87% percent of the public now believes that such links are likely or certain." In a mid-2002 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 86% said "Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction" is a "critical threat" to the US; another 11% felt the threat was "important but not critical"; and just 1% thought the threat unimportant. In a February 2002 CNN/USA Today poll, more than 80% of those who thought Iraq already has or is developing WMD felt that fact does or would constitute a "direct threat" to the United States. In a September 2002 Newsweek poll, two-thirds (66%) feel that "Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq poses an imminent threat to United States interests"; just 27% felt that was not the case.

Nor has the fact or cost of the war increased public awareness. Incredibly, the University of Maryland conducted a survey in which 22 percent of respondents thought that Iraq actually deployed WMD during the conflict. tompaine.com (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8270). Two years after 9/11 "sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll." Washington Post, 9/6/3.

_______________________
[1] Of course they are. That he doesn't need to stifle dissent doesn't prevent him from trying to stifle even its most innocuous forms, reflecting the totalitarian mentality that dominates this administration. From Common Dreams News Center (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-04.htm): "On Sept. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Philadelphia against the Secret Service, alleging that the agency, a unit of the new Homeland Security Department charged with protecting the president and other key officials, instituted a policy in the months even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of instructing local police to cordon off protesters from the president and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ACLU has identified 17 separate incidents in which protesters were segregated or removed during presidential or vice-presidential events. ...

Besides violating a fundamental right of free speech and assembly, the ACLU says, the strategy is damaging in two ways: "It insulates the government officials from seeing or hearing the protesters and vice-versa, and it gives to the media and the American public the appearance that there exists less dissent than there really is."

Certainly, as television cameras follow a presidential motorcade lined with cheering supporters, the image on the tube will be distorted if protesters have been spirited away around a corner somewhere fenced in for the duration.

Secret Service official deny discriminating against protesters.

"The Secret Service is message-neutral," said John Gill. "We make no distinction on the basis of the purposes or intent of any group or the content of signs."

Further, Gill insisted the establishment and oversight of local viewing areas "is the responsibility of state and local law enforcement."

In practice, it's apparently not that simple, though. Nor is the Secret Service's carefully worded denial of responsibility as definitive as it might appear.

The "establishment of viewing areas" is indeed a local responsibility, but local officials say the Secret Service has in some cases all but ordered them to pen in protesters.

And it appears the Secret Service is making recommendations about how that should be done.

Paul Wolf, an Allegheny County police assistant supervisor involved in planning the presidential visit to Pittsburgh, says the decision to pen Bush critics originated with the Secret Service.

"What the Secret Service does," Wolf explains, "is they come in and do a site survey, and say: `Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters be put in a place that is able to be secured.'"

Wolf's statement was supported up by the sworn testimony of the detective who arrested Neel.

Det. John Ianachione testified in county court that the Secret Service had instructed local police to herd into the enclosed area "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.

"If they were exhibiting themselves as a protester, they were to go in that area."

[2] There's another form of more tolerable dissent where the premises of the policy are either shared or not denied by the dissenter, but the means of implementing them are disputed. These stories take on the appearance of serious dissent because they are often partisan by nature and bitterly refuted by the White House or other war defenders. The unstated assumption of such debates, however, is that the broadstrokes of the policy is justified. Examples include mundane disputes over whether we're using enough troops, or the right ground or air tactics, whether the planning was technically competent, whether the U.S. occupation is better served by dismantling or retaining Saddam's army, and so forth. Another is the constant question about whether the "gains" to the U.S. are worth the "costs" to the U.S. (but not the victims), without considering whether affirmative answers to such questions could justify all manner of atrocities. Despite the heated rhetoric, policy planners generally welcome such disputes because it provides information from a variety of sources about the best means to accomplish the undisputedly desirable end and the limits of acceptable means.

[Cyrus]

Although I'm sure he will find a "mathematical way" of proving he's right, Bruce Z is blatantly wrong here : The right to dissent is what distinguishes the American polity from practically all the other democracies on the planet.

Bruce tried to "explain" the mysterious differences between republic and democracy (both meaning the same thing, by the way, one in Greek, the other in Latin) but his argument concludes by suggesting all those burning the flag under the current circumstances should be shot! Bruce makes the republic come across like any other totalitarian regime!..

Well, actually, dissenting in times of war or national emergencies is an American patriot's supreme patriotic duty, if he feels like dissenting. (Showing disrespect towards the President is yet another mark of the American Way, but I will let others elaborate on this. Maybe Mason.)

Bruce makes additional grossly mistaken statements, trying to promote his position. He argues, for instance that the President makes his decision to go to war or not after getting wise advice from learned and experienced aides, the military, etc. Bruce further argues that after the decision has been taken, openly dissenting against it is treason.

Which is all poppycock and balderdash, actually. It's the Congress, and not "one man", who should be taking such decisions. European monarchs and Otoman sultans used to take decisions on war after consulting with their camarila and the divan, respectively. Not in the Us of A, thank you.

As to closing ranks after a decision to go to war has been made (by the Prez), this is actually very close to the Leninist way of doing things : As soon as the Politburo had decided on a line, the Party was to support it fanatically and without questions! This is why Leninism inevitably leads to Stalinism, as it did.

Remember, folks : When, at any time, we are asked to obey something or someone without dissent, we are being led to tyranny!

--Cyrus

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus one quick polite question if I may. What source helped you come to the conclusion that a democracy and a republic are the same? I noticed Andy fails to understand our system of government as well.

[elwoodblues]

The parsing of whether our country is a democracy or a republic seems to be hitting the air waves a lot lately. The answer to the question is Yes. We are both a democracy (a system of government whose defining characteristic is that the citizenry votes on decisions) and a republic (whose defining characteristic is a group of representatives that make decisions on behalf of the citizenry). The US is a democratic republic in that we popularly elect (democratic portion) our representatives (republic portion). On the radio recently I've heard a lot of things like "well, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic..." Those sentiments ignore a significant part of the equation.

For those interested, the Federalist Papers have substantial discussions about how our system, which incorporates both the democatic and republic ideals, incorporates the "good parts" of each and in turn improves upon each.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In a Democracy, 3 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner

In a Republic, 300 wolves and 100 sheep elect representatives who vote on what's for dinner.

In a Constitutional Republic, dinner is not subject to a vote and the sheep are armed. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Wake up CALL]

Great response KurnsonofMogh! /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I told Bruce that I was unaware that we did not live in a democracy. Please enlighten me.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I told Bruce that I was unaware that we did not live in a democracy. Please enlighten me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&amp;-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit &lt;the French Fourth Republic&gt;
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity &lt;the republic of letters&gt;
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&amp;-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

If any further clarification is necessary please ask.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Andy, please. The US is a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives that make laws. We use a democratic process to do so. In a democracy, each and every law would be voted on by the citizens.

[BruceZ]

All of your responses are of the form "dissent is what makes a democracy great, so you can't enforce a law against certain types of dissent in America". This is logically crap. Free speech makes democracy great, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Just because something is a good thing, doesn't mean it is good or even legal in all circumstances. You can use words like poppycock and balderdash all you like, but so far not a one of you has told me why, if certain actions can be shown to clearly give psychological comfort to the enemy, causing him to persist in a war effort where he otherwise would not, why that is not, by the very words of our constitution, treason punishable by death. I'm not leading anyone to tyranny, I'm trying to comply with our own constitution!

[andyfox]

By one definition of democracy. We know we can't have all 300 million people vote on every law. So we have aished a republic, a representative democracy.

But there is a broader definition of democracy; this is the one most people mean when they use the word, and this is the one that Bruce Z. denies. By popular usage the word "democracy" means a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.

This is what our leaders mean when they refer to us as a democracy and when they say they wish to bring democratic institutions to those countries that are being denied them.

[andyfox]

So we don't have a democracy? Don't we have government by the people?

[BruceZ]

Furthermore, the president of the US is the commander and chief of the armed forces. He doesn't require the input from congress or anyone else to direct his military. The only thing he needs congress for is to declare war, and that isn't usually necessary. End of constitutional lesson 1.

[Utah]

What's your point?

Do you have a right to dissent? Absolutely, that is what a lot of Americans have died for. Can that dissent be counter-productive? Of course. Can that dissenting make you an unpatriotic "hate your country first" ass? Yep.

Defend your argument from a logical standpoint - what exact good comes from this so-called dissent? in general and in the case of Iraq.

All I see in your post is a lot of "hate your country" rhetoric. Your choice of words are very telling. Why do you keep using the phrase "a country"? Its your country bud.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
So we don't have a democracy? Don't we have government by the people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in your wildest fantasy! Andy if we lived in a democracy Al Gore would now be President. This not being the case is a fairly good clue that we live in a Republic. You are welcome to redefine any word you choose however that does not make the true definition inaccurate nor your new definition true.

[andyfox]

The Constitution clearly says something other than what you impute to it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Protestors are clearly not levying war against the U.S. Are they adhering to the enemy? Are they attached to the enemy, devoted to them? Clearly, they are not. They are opposed to a particular foreign policy decision or tactic of the United States.

By your definition, criticism of any action taken by the United States in time of war would be treasonous. This would most assuredly lead to tyranny.

In Cramer v. United States, an American citizen was charged with aiding a Nazi saboteur who was tried and convicted by a Military Tribunal. Although Cramer was convicted by a trial court and his conviction upheld by a Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed, 5-4, because the majority and the dissent disagreed about whether Cramer's conduct had actually provided "aid and comfort" to the Nazis.

In Haupt v. United States, an American citizen, father of one of the saboteurs, was charged with aiding his own son. Haupt, Sr., was convicted, his conviction upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

In Kawakita v. United States, the defendant, another American citizen, became a straw boss over American POWs in Japan, torturing and otherwise brutalizing them. His treason conviction on the "aid and comfort" prong was upheld on appeal, and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In these three cases, the Supreme Court interpreted the "adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort" language of Article III as requiring a treason prosecutor to prove four elements in order to get a conviction: (1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. (A declaration of war is unnecessary; mere hostilities are enough). These are all jury questions. This means that if there is reason to believe the accused's conduct may have satisfied these four proof requirements, he can be indicted, and if a jury agrees that his conduct did satisfy them, he can be convicted.

Certainly, no reasonable person can think that protesting against a foreign policy is betraying the United States. One might argue that if the President suggested we send in 200,000 troops and a Senator said, no, we should only send in 100,000, this "dissension" would give psychological comfort to the enemy.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the people who are fighting against our troops in Iraq would not do so but for disagreements in the United States. This effectively denies any history to the Iraqi people, making their actions only reactions to what we do here.

[andyfox]

I'm not arguing that he can't direct his military. I'm arguing that if he directs his military in a way that subverts the principles of the United States, that I have a right to object to it and protest against it.

Suppose Bush decided to drop 10 nuclear bombs, as a military decision, on Iraq tomorrow. You're saying I can't protest it, because to do so would give aid and psycholoigcal comfort to the enemy?

[andyfox]

There's no question that there are undemocratic features in the Constitution. (Robert Dahl's How Democratoc is the United States Constitutionis excellent.)

I'm not redefining the word at all. I'm using the dictionary definition you provided, which is the way most people use the word.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Fair enough

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There's no question that there are undemocratic features in the Constitution.

I hope you understand that this is a good thing. Part of a free society is the freedom to be different. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority."

Just because 50% + 1 of the population wants something does not necessarily make that thing correct. That's why the Constitution places constraints on the power of the government to make law.

My support for the war not withstanding, if were went by the letter of the law in the Constitution, we would not have troops in Iraq.

The "will of the people" can be flighty at best. Back in '96, Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved a term-limits referendum while simultaneously returning *every* incumbent to office.

Obviously, I believe that the government is our servant, not our master. But at the same time, The People often do crazy things.

[andyfox]

When my country violates its principles, I hate what it does. That does not mean I hate my country. The people who were reponsible for those violations are the ones who hate my country.

Let's take one example from the post where I used the objecitonable "a country." During the Vietnam war, there was a lot of protest. There was flag-burning. There was dissent.

My country violated its principles. Its leaders repeatedly lied. They deliberately murdered civilians. They deliberately refugeed people. They violated the Hague and Geneva conventions rules of war. They claimed they were defending democracy when there was no democracy in South Vietnam. They surreptitiously subverted the Geneva accords. They dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for every man, woman and child in South Vietnan, the "country" we were supposed to be defending.

They claimed that they would never accept the proposals for peace put forward by the Communists in 1969. In 1973, they accepted virtually the same plan, cycnically wanting the agreement sigend so that, when the Communists inevitably violated the plan, they could go back in and start bombing again.

The "hate your country first" asses were the criminals who directed the entire operation. The heroes were those who had the courage to dissent because our leaders behaved just like the Communist criminals we were trying to defeat.

[elwoodblues]

There is a great distinction between yelling fire in a crowded theatre and engaging in political debate/protest. Political Speech is/should be held in the highest regard, being entitled to the greatest protection because it leads to an informed citizenry, which fuels our government with (presumably) better politicians. We need free/vigorous political debate because we elect our government officials - either directly or indirectly - and need to have the opportunity to be fully informed when voting.

President Bush used the words "aid and comfort" to link political dissidence with treason. The most recent Supreme Court case that I could find on the issue stated the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy-- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures [italics in original] profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength--but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the President (implicitly) calls it treason, doesn't mean that it's treason.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no question that there are undemocratic features in the Constitution. (Robert Dahl's How Democratoc is the United States Constitutionis excellent.)

I'm not redefining the word at all. I'm using the dictionary definition you provided, which is the way most people use the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy I believe I have discovered the discrepancy in the definition of the word democracy which is causing our disagreement. I assume you are using the below excerpted definition:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The key phrase which I believe you are overlooking is rule of the majority . This explains why we do not have a democracy. The majority of the people do not necessarily have a final say in what laws under which we are governed. If they did we would have a House of Representatives only, no Senate, no President and no Supreme Court.

Since we do have three well defined branches of government it is a Republic by definition.

[elwoodblues]

I trust that you never used the phrase "wag the dog" under the Clinton administration...that would have been treasonous.

People tend to forget that the same rules should apply when the other guy is in office.

[BruceZ]

This seems to make it pretty clear that flag burning wouldn't be treason. The key is "adherence to the enemy". Thank you.

Becoming a human shield as some have done would be treason if it compromises our military objectives in any way.

When did Bush link dissention with treason? I thought he said dissention was good.

I'm with Utah that even if certain dissent is not illegal, at the wrong time it does no good, and can do a lot of harm.

[MMMMMM]

OK. Now: what is sedition?

[MMMMMM]

^

[Utah]

Okay - better. I like the use of "my country" a lot better as it is far more honest and frankly less hateful or unpatriotic.

Back to my question earlier though - what did the dissent achieve in Vietnam? I am not interested in whether it was morally justified or brave to dissent. I really want to understand what you think the actual effects were of this dissention. I really don't know. However, I can clearly see an argument that this dissention killed a hell of a lot of Americans. I can also see an argument that it made the enemies of the US think that all they have to do is spill some American blood to beat them.

Also, can you kindly give me your rules for attacking another country? Under what circumstances can civilians be killed?

Also, why can't an approach by the US be simply wrong, badly thought out, or based on percentage plays that didn't pan out without that approach being villified by the very people that approach was meant to protect? For example, why is it not possible that the Bush administration really thought that Saddam had WMD?

[adios]

"But, this is the same administration that encourages labelling those who dissent as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists."

Not saying I think you're wrong but can you point to a few specific instances of this? I've heard conservative commentary stating this but can't think of any specific instance from the current administration. I've heard Bush on more than one occasion state that he loves free speech e.g. when he was jeered in the Austrailian Parliment.

[brad]

'
The only thing he needs congress for is to declare war, and that isn't usually necessary. End of constitutional lesson 1.
'

very logical.

btw, do agree with pnac document (cheney, wolfowitz, et al) that we will find a legitimate use for race specific bioweapons? (polite way of saying lets kill niggers and spics and chinks and so on i suppose)

p.s. i hope your son or nephew or something gets to go to syria or n. korea or one of other myriad places US forces are going.

[Chris Alger]

"Vice President Dick Cheney argued that critics of the Iraq war advocate a policy of inaction that could risk hundreds of thousands of American deaths in another terrorist attack." AP, 10/11/3

"Criticism of the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both overseas and from Democrats in the United States, makes fighting the war on terrorism more difficult, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday. Rumsfeld said U.S. criticism could lead terrorist sympathizers to conclude the United States will give in. He said that idea could prompt more fund raising and recruiting for terrorist groups. 'But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate,' Rumsfeld said. 'We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible and as civil as possible.'" CBS News, 9/8/3

Note: criticism of the war must be as "elevated" (?) and "civil" "as possible," so that "we can live with" the criticism. So war critics as mealy-mouthed as Congressional Democrats should check their assertiveness; fanatical expressions of pro-war "patriotism" being another matter.

Perhaps this is an example of maximum elevation and civility:

"Condoleezza Rice, the most senior black woman in the Bush administration, has levelled a charge of racism against critics of the US drive to bring Western freedoms to the Middle East." UK Telegraph, 9/8/3

[andyfox]

The dissent in Vietnam probably shortened the war. And maybe it curbed some of the brutality, although given the incredible ferociousness with which we bombarded the place, it's hard to imagine what a more brutal policy would have been. It's most important result was probably showing the vast majority of Americans that their government could not only be wrong, but do evil things.

Certainly American lives were saved, not lost, by the opposition to the war.

The Communists had been fighting the French for many years. They would have continued to fightr against the U.S. no matter what the anti-war movement did. As in the case of Iraq, to assume that what happened in the streets of the U.S. was a significant determinant of what happened in the villages of Vietnam is to deny that Vietnamese history accounted for anything. Which is exactly what led us into the whole mess to begin with.

I can't give you my rules for attacking another country. I can tell you that I felt the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified and necessary, but that the attack on Iraq was not.

The idea that strategic bombing in order to terrorize an enemy's civilian population would win wars was formulated in earnest in the 1920s and 1930s by several people, most notably Douhet, Trenchard, and Billy Mitchell. The day Hitler invaded Poland, Franklin Roosevelt issued an appeal to Great Britain, France, and Germany to abstain from usiing airplanes to attack cities and innocent civilians. The British prime minister (the immortal Neville Chamberlain) told the House of Commons two weeks later that his government would never do it. And of course, we eventually witnessed the horrors of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo.

I cannot tell you under what circumstances killing of civilians can be justified, but the fire bombing of Tokyo certainly can not. Nor could the United States' war against the people of South Vietnam.

It is certainly possible that the Bush administration thought Hussein had WMDs. It is also possible that the Bush administration came into office with the idea of geting rid of Hussein. Several people in the administration had been calling for it long before they got in to power. And it is possible that their predilection for such a policy influence their reading of the intelligence, and caused them to try to influence the intelligence.

Governemtns lie when they go to war. This is not something that happens only in non-democracies or in Republican administrations. One would be hardpresssed to find three bigger liars than Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy.

[andyfox]

How about if we agree that there are both republican and democratic features of our governmental system?

[Cyrus]

"In a Democracy, 3 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner."

This is only valid in so-called People's Democracies. Not in a Democracy, as such. If, for instance, you actually believe that this is how things were done in the Athenian Democracy, you have a lot to catch up to.

"In a Republic, 300 wolves and 100 sheep elect representatives who vote on what's for dinner."

First of all, I note that Republics, in your mind, are much more populous than Democracies! (The real reason, of course, is that the functions of a Democracy, as you described it, would fall apart if you had to deal with 400 citizens instead of 4.)

But, seriously, what you just described is Representative Democracy --or Representative Republic. In fact, a number of political theorists have come to use the term Republic as short-hand for this. If you this is what you meant (and how polite am I this morning?), then kudos, you are a political theorist...

"In a Constitutional Republic, dinner is not subject to a vote and the sheep are armed."

Why are the wolves not armed??

If they are not, then this is not a Constitutional Republic, it's a Dictatorship of the sheep. If they are, what's stopping the wolves from killing the sheep?

I will let others elaborate on the reasons why.

--Cyrus

PS : For more, in case you are seriously interested, on the extremely important subject of direct representation, I would humbly recommend the philosopher of modern times with whose work John Cole has only recently become familiar! (Now, is that intriguing or what?!)

[Cyrus]

For your information, the two entries you just bestowed upon us, are not the end-all. A Democracy can be, too, like a Republic, "led by a chief of state who is not a monarch. A Democracy can be, too, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

And tell me, please, why would you object were I to define Republic as being a "government by the people; the rule of the majority ; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" ? Beware, it's a trick question!

You also claimed, in all innocence, that "if the United States was a democracy, we would have Al Gore as President."

You are more than a little imprecise, sorry. The US Constitution is after the equal representation and power of States, hence the Electoral College, etc, whereby Nevada=New York, sorta speak... This type of electing the supreme executive officer/body is not unique and certainly not indicative of the difference between a democracy and a republic: It is how federal republics are theoretically run. (Check some links on the federal union of states known as European Union, which aspires to be a single nation, whereby Luxembourg=Italy, sorta speak...)

I will not elaborate on the differences between the two terms' meanings in the modern political text. They do exist, no matter how oblique and mysterious Bruce was in trying to enlighten us /images/graemlins/grin.gif. I will only point you to the direction of this notion : protection of minority rights. So, direct your search engine's little nose towards some notable writers of yore, Locke, de Tocqueville, et al.

Take care.

[BruceZ]

For the last time, in the context of our discussion, you used the term democracy to describe the right of the people to have input into political decison making even beyond the scope of electing officials. I used the term republic to indicate that the people do not rule directly in the way that you are suggesting, but only through elected officials. Any other discussion about how a democracy can be a republic, and how a republic can be a democracy, is correct but irrelevant. Our government is more precisely termed a republic, and if you go by the CIA World Factbook, you will see it listed as a constitutional republic. If you believe that the terms republic and democracy always have the same meaning, then you must also suppose that a democrat is the same as a republican.

[Cyrus]

"I believe that the government is our servant, not our master. But at the same time, The People often do crazy things."

Although, I agree with you, we simply cannot accept, at least not de jure, a system whereby we elect representatives to express the people's will and the representatives are allowed to act against the people's will! It's contradictory. (So we mask this by complicating the issue of What The People Want.)

We must accept that whenever the representatives go against the people's will, we inject a form of minority rule into the regime. A little dose of disctatorship.

Again, as I said, I agree that we, the people, do a lot of stupid things a lot of the time. But this is our right, you know! To be stupid, I mean.

[BruceZ]

[Cyrus]

Very good, Mr Fox!

I'll see you in the Greek Team yet!..

"We know we can't have all 300 million people vote on every law. So we have created a republic, a representative democracy.

But there is a broader definition of democracy; this is the one most people mean when they use the word. By popular usage the word "democracy" means a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.

This is what our leaders mean when they refer to us as a democracy and when they say they wish to bring democratic institutions to those countries that are being denied them."

As a matter of trivial interest (not really...), the philosopher I alluded to in another post came up with an arithmetic rule to the political problem. Yes, Bruce licks his lips, as he reads this, but it's true. The philosopher submitted that democracy can function at a maximum of a citizenry of 10,000 approximately. This is the number of citizens that can directly interact and exchange views with one another and take decisions without undue functional obstacles in a stadium gathering (aka the demos). It has been tried already. It was called the Athenian Democracy, and it was quite successful, in both peace and war. It's been a subject that has been dear to me and my research ever since I came across it, I blushingly admit. It also implies that we may be losing the battle in numbers! (But not all hope yet, technologically speaking.)

[Cyrus]

You will get it, eventually.

[BruceZ]

Go to hell.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Although, I agree with you, we simply cannot accept, at least not de jure, a system whereby we elect representatives to express the people's will and the representatives are allowed to act against the people's will! It's contradictory.

That's why we have periodic elections and some opportunity for recall elections in between.

Again, as I said, I agree that we, the people, do a lot of stupid things a lot of the time. But this is our right, you know! To be stupid, I mean.

We do agree on this.

[elwoodblues]

Hey Tom ---

The biggest example that jumps to my mind is this: During the debates over passage of the famous PATRIOT act, John Ashcroft stated on the floor of the Senate that people who argued against passage of the act were "helping the terrorists and giving aid and comfort to America's enemies."

[MMMMMM]

Ashcroft is over the top on a number of things, IMO.

[adios]

Ok perhaps trying to quell dissent about the war on terrorism which I don't think their were too many protests about. Perhaps a pre-emptive action to quell dissent about future engagements but I don't think it's an attempt to quell dissent about the war in Iraq specifically. Chris Alger, Cyrus and brad will let us know whether or not the administration already decided there would be a war in Iraq and anticipated the subsequent problems there and the resulting dissent /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
How about if we agree that there are both republican and democratic features of our governmental system?


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Andy, as long as it is clear that we live in a Republic and not a democracy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm afraid democratic rule would lead to anarchy.

[Utah]

Certainly American lives were saved, not lost, by the opposition to the war.

How can you be so sure? Maybe we could have won the war without the constant protests? Maybe it diminished American perceived military strength around the world? Maybe it let ruthless dictators operate freely because they need not fear the wrath of the US?

Lets take Iraq. Maybe, if the US people had been a 100% behind Bush prewar, if there hadn't been worldwide protests, if France and Germany had not fought against the US, if Saddam knew that the US could be ruthless, if Saddam knew the US was coming with 100% certainty - the entire battle might not have to have been fought in the first place.

You simply cannot deny scenarios where dissent can cost lives.

Bombing - but the fire bombing of Tokyo certainly can not Unfortunately, brutality works in war. You notice how quickly the Pacific War ended after we destroyed a few cities? How do you know that didn't save lives? I believe the estimate to invade Japan was to cause something like 500,000 American lives. Also, how do we know that Japan was not also developing atomic weapons? Should we have taken that chance? How are to judge decisions made over 50 years ago and it much more difficult times? Would you not say that the US goes to great pains now not to kill civilians?

[andyfox]

I am sure that lives were saved by the Vietnam era dissent because I have studied it at great length over a long period of time. The war was not winnable. France lost to the Communists in 1945 and again in 1954. They were on the verge of victory again in 1964.

We had no idea how to win the war. We had no idea about why the Communists were fighting. We had not idea about the history of the Vietnamese resistance to colonialism and to foreigners. For a while, we had no "expert" there who even spoke Vietnamese.

This was, and still is, part of our hubris. We assume that we can control events if only this or that didn't happen. In this case, there are some who insist we could have won in Vietnam had our government not been hamstrung by the opposition to the war. This is just not ture. We were not hamstrung at all.

The war in the Pacific did not end quickly after we destroyed a few cities. And it was not a few, it was every one (except for Kyoto). What ended the war was the blockade and the entry of the Russians into the Pacific War.

Sometimes brutality works and sometimes it doesn't. There's a very good analysis of when strategic bombing has worked and when it hasn't by Robert Pape called Bombing to Win.

The 500,000 American lives figure is a complete fantasy, made up by Harry Truman. All of the military leaders gave estimates much lower. Truman used figures at random whenver it suited him. At one time he used the figure of 1,000,000. He also claimed Hiroshima was a military target in his initial announcement of the bombing.

We knew a lot about what was going on in Japan, having broken their secret codes. We knew there was a good chance that the blockade, coupled with the Russians' entry into the war, would do the trick. There were many reasons the atomic bombs were used: we were at war and they were weapons that we had spent a great deal of money on; we wanted to keep the Russians out of east Asia and to manage them after the war; the psychological barriers against killing of civilians had been broken by the strategic bombing carried on by all the combatants; there was a racist element that made us treat the Japanese differently than we did the Germans; there was an element of revenge for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the brutal way they fought the war (against us and China in particular); and having killed as many as 100,000 people in a single night with conventional bombs, there was no great moral reason, in the minds of the decision makers, not to use a weapon which would not have had a more destructive result.

In general, it is much easier to judge decisions made fifty years ago than at the time they were made. In times of war, secrets are kept. The information comes out years later as either the participants reveal their inside information, or documents are released. For example, we now know a great deal more about Soviet spying in the United States than we did in the 1950s because many documents have become available to us (with the collapse of the Soviet Union) that were not at that time. Our judgments, therefore, about whether or not the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss (to name two famous examples) were guilty or not are apt to be much more accurate now than they were at the time.

I reject outright the argument that dissent should be stifled in time of war because it gives comfort to the enemy. Even a wonderful country like ours makes mistakes. To not allow people to question and criticize behavior that may be at odds with the principles that have made us great is unAmerican. I see no evidence that our country has been less effective in fighting a war, or has not been brutal enough, because of internal dissent.

I know the U.S. goes to great pains to give the impression that it goes to great pains not to kill civilians, but I honestly don't know whether it does or not. I believe 8,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That's an understatement. The man put pants on statues.

[Wake up CALL]

I generally like you and your posts Andy but to hear you write that you know so much about the war in Vietnam because you read about it just sickens me. Next time try visiting thier nice little Asian country during the conflict and perhaps your post will mean something.

[Utah]

I reject outright the argument that dissent should be stifled in time of war because it gives comfort to the enemy.

I don't disagree. My point is only that dissent can conceivably have negative consequences. Again, it is conceivable the recent war would have been avoidable if there was no dissent, and thus Americans and many other died because of that dissent.

I am not saying that you shouldn't dissent. However, you should not be guilty of the same type of Hubris you discuss in your post.

I disagree with Wakeup Call. You do not need to engage in a war to understand it, although I am sure that gives you the advantage of different perspective. It that was the case, we would not understand the civil war or the revolutionary war.

[Cyrus]

I will not follow you there... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But I'll grant you this. You have maybe began to understand the true meaning of self-weighting strategies and how easy it is to fall for one in real life. No need to thank me for my help in educating you, it's all your doing.

Now don't lose the path.

[Cyrus]

"I generally like you and your posts, Wake Up CALL, but to hear [?!] you write that you know so much about the war in Iraq because you read about it just sickens me. Next time try visiting their nice little Asian country during the conflict and perhaps your post will mean something."

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[andyfox]

"My point is only that dissent can conceivably have negative consequences."

OK, no argument there.

"it is conceivable the recent war would have been avoidable if there was no dissent, and thus Americans and many other died because of that dissent."

Absolutely. If everyone agreed that there shouldn't have been a war, there would have been no bloodshed. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

There just isn't going to be any situation, involving a war, especially a preemptive war, where there won't be any dissent. I am sure there are people who were opposed to U.S. involvement in World War II.

[andyfox]

One doesn't have to be a chicken to recognize an egg. One can read the Pentagon Papers, issued by the United States government. One can read the reports by journalists who were there, both during the French phase and the American phase of the war. Ther are many excellent works by scholars who worked for our government there, such as David Marr and Jeffrey Race. One can consult documentary records and the many reports by diplomats and soldiers who served there, on both sides of the conflict.

You mean there are no living experts on the Russo-Japanese War, or the Renaissance in Italy? Obviously not, since they didn't visit neither of those nice little coutries during the events they study.

[John Cole]

Nor does one need be a chicken to lay an egg. Certainly, we can also read any number of novels written about Vietnam. Our knowledge of the Greek and Roman world would be impoverished without Homer, or Martial, or Sophocles. Indeed, direct experience can often blind people, and art can strip the haze of familiarity from our eyes.

I am discounting, of course, the effect of vivid, first-hand testimony.

John

[nicky g]

Yeah Andy. Next time drop some napalm on some peasants. That'll give some much needed credibility to your posts.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Andy. Next time drop some napalm on some peasants. That'll give some much needed credibility to your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, how about we choose some Europeans instead? /images/graemlins/smile.gif Heck with that idea, roasted Arabs is more in vogue these days. I love the smell of napalm in the morning!

[nicky g]

Go for it; I'm sure if you join the US military you'll have the chance.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Go for it; I'm sure if you join the US military you'll have the chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in the military and killed a few gooks in my time. The memory is neither pleasurable nor repulsive it simply exists. My suggestion to improve Europe would be to require all the snot nosed liberal kids to serve in a foreign country for a couple of years. If during a time of war or conflict it would be even better but at least instill some discipline and exposure to other cultures to help them understand life (and death).

[nicky g]

I can assure you that as a "snot-nosed liberal European kid" I've had plenty of exposure to foreign cultures and intend to get a lot more. If you think the best way of doing that is by killing "gooks", that's just sad.

Maybe that's what's wrong with Bush; he stayed at home and didn't kill any gooks. Perhaps we could remedy that by sending him and his cabinet on the next chopper to Tikrit.