Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (173953)	11/2/2005 3:37:05 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Cummings, when it comes to thoughtful discussions you're a wrong number but a useful foil. Take your irresponsible use of the word "traitor," for instance. From your simplistic, "for us or against us," post your underlying thesis is all too clear: once a nation forms a policy and goes to war anyone who disagrees must stay silent or be labeled a traitor for undermining morale and comforting the enemy. And, in your pretend world, once decided the issue stays decided. Circumstances may change and information may prove to have been erroneous but so what? Only a traitor would raise such issues and risk undermining morale and comforting the enemy (who, by the way, may have been right since the initial policy was founded on bad info and poor projections, but that's of no import.) And, of course, in your see no evil-speak no evil-world policies may turn disasterous but we always "stay the course" because to articulate a negative reality would be traitorous in that "morale for troops" and "comforting the enemy" sense that overrides everything else. Now let's turn the tables and see how well your thesis performs in some real-world situations: The Germans who tried to oppose Hitler during the early days of WW11 were traitors to Germany? The anti-Castro Cubans living in this country were all traitors to Cuba when Cuba was in a cold war with America? Nelson Mandella was a traitor to S. Africa when the government was fighting a popular insurgency? The many Americans who came to oppose the war in Vietnam and who voiced their views were traitors to America when our troops were fighting in Vietnam? The many Americans who oppose the war in Iraq and voice their views are traitors to America while our troops are fighting in Iraq? I gather you'd say "yes," but if the policy of America changes you'll just shut up, nod your head and remain a loyal, silently seething, non-traitor? And then there's always that pesky question that you cover with the unsupported assumption that this is a war which CAN be won. The bottom line is that Americans like you with an arrogant sense of righteousness along with a profound inability to grasp, much less honor, the essential values and freedoms upon which America was founded constitute the greatest danger we face today. So I'd say that you aren't a "good guy" as Karen attests and, in fact, I'd say you were exponentially a more destructive threat to our forefather's America than those you so freely brand as "traitors." But I wouldn't call you a traitor. Unlike you, I understand the true meaning of that word and I know when it applies. Ed

To: greenspirit who wrote (173953)	11/3/2005 8:37:25 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you think we as a nation would win the war faster, and with less casualties if the American people closed ranks and supported the decision we made collectively? Whenever we go to war, there will always be dissent. We will never get 100% of the people to agree. There will always be people who are absolutely against going to war for any reason. And of course there will be people that are opposed to war for malevalent reasons of all sorts. Nevertheless going to war is a serious matter. If we go to war, we have to make the case for war. We can't say Nigel said this, Carmen said that, and Wilma said such and such and that is why we went to war. We have to use the latest intelligence and we have to be man (or woman) enough to own up to making the case for war. Even under the best of circumstances - if we use the latest information, if we make the best reasonable case for war, we get proper approval for the war - we could still get it wrong and make mistakes. That is the nature of being a human being. We make mistakes. Having said all that, it is not unpatriotic to: 1) Question the case for war 2) Question the planning for war (including budgeting and manning) 3) Question the exit strategy That's the problem I have with all these anti-Iraq military posters. NOT ONCE! NEVER have I seen them patriotically get behind the effort, knowing full well to do just the opposite does nothing but decay the morale of our troops and support the enemy. Life is complex. You can't lump all people who are against what you believe together just as you can't lump all people who seem to support the war together in one group. Life is not a binary system. You are not just patriotic or not patriotic. There is a full and complex spectrum of patriotism. But that is one of the most glaring problems with the right wing. They just can not fathom such reality. Life cannot be defined using only a binary view. Take the case of our liberal mainstream media. What cause is served when they do nothing but run around and film every bombing in Iraq, yet neglect the thousands of other acts of kindness from Iraqi's which happen every day? That alone should make you think. Why should the media - made up of some of the smartest people in world - people who can live virtually anywhere in the world - choose to live in American and have views that differ from you? The same can be said for those in Academia - the cream of Western Civilization - why do they seem to be opposed to your point of view? I am not asking you for an answer. All I am asking you to do is to think about it. Protecting minority opinions has nothing to do with it. Those opinions have been expressed fully and completely. Protecting minority opinion is what democracy is all about. A democracy is all about not having the majority go around killing the minority. By minority I mean in terms of POV, skin color, religion or non religion, national origin, etc, etc. Recognizing when those expressions undermine the morale of our troops and give support to our enemy is. 1). Is it good for our troops to be put into a war that we can't win? We can't win this war because there is no definition of what winning this war means. (by your definition - I assume - we have already won the war. We got rid of Saddam Hussein and we got rid of his army. But we can't leave - we are still fighting because there is no definition for "winning" this war), 2). Is it good for our troops to be sent to war without a proper budget to fight the war? When a general said that we needed several hundred thousand troops, he was not only ignored - he was sent into retirement. But again, my main point here is that life is complex. The road to hell is paved with great intentions.

To: greenspirit who wrote (173953)	11/3/2005 8:42:18 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you think we as a nation would win the war faster, and with less casualties if the American people closed ranks and supported the decision we made collectively? Did you notice that Losing is not an option has been dropped? What is being said with more frequency by the Administration and US military commanders is that the insurgency will be defeated by Iraqis probably after the US has left. In other words, they already know we lost. The Bush Administration is just hoping to drag it out long enough that the loss isn't recorded on their watch. If they can't drag it out for the next three years, then they've set up the Iraqis as losing the battle. This is where you're supposed to say..."At least we tried." jttmab