Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
the bad guys (and good guys) ARE listening to everything we say. I guess the real question is what DO we say. I do know we should not use terms like "quagmire" or "we are war criminals" or "prisoner abuse"..


Dan, are you saying that we should not allow open discussion of Bush's decision to invade Iraq? Are you saying we should not allow dissent re: the war in Iraq?



He's saying that the time for that is after the troops come home.



I respect your argument, but you are wrong about this.

It is our responsibility as citizens to voice our objections to the war immediately and publicly. It's our JOB to make it politically difficult for Bush to conduct the war. If we do not, we are allowing the Administration a free pass to wage war whenever it wants, no matter how ill-advised the war may be. Think about it: if we followed your advice, any president could start a war to enrich his corporate cronies, and avenge his daddy, or to boost his sagging popularity (or for any other reason that is not in our national interest), and he would get away with it completely, every time. All he would have to do is make sure the war continues until the end of his term, and he's home free.

Also, as a practical matter, we must dissent while the war is going on, because no one would pay any attention otherwise. Simple political fact: our opposition would hardly register at all if we sat quietly while this pointless carnage is going on, and then raised objections after the war was over. It's also a matter of credibility: if we remained silent, we would rightfully be accused of sandbagging. We would be accused of having "20/20 hindsight."

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
You're giving them the impression that they can divide the nation & erode support for the effort, & therefore they will continue to perform their evil deeds when they otherwise would quit. And yes, I am saying that if the nation were united in the effort (now that we are in fact there), the terrorists & their potential recruits would quickly see the futility of their methods.



It may be true that if none of us expressed any opposition to the war, that the jihadi nutjobs would pack up and go home sooner. But it is politically naive to think that such a thing could ever happen in the real world. There are ALWAYS dissidents. How could they be silenced? Would you ban street protests? Would you ban letters to the editor? Jihadi nutjobs can read the results of opinion surveys saying that most Americans now think the war was a mistake. Would you ban such polls?

Our right to protest and dissent and speak our minds is fundamental to democracy. If you ban dissent, you are destroying the essence of democracy: the right of individual citizens to influence decisionmakers and policymaking. If you ban dissent, in the hopes of demoralizing the insurgents, you are essentially giving up the very bedrock of our liberty. You are giving up the best thing we have, just to paper over Bush's huge mistake.

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
There will be the few hard-core retards, but recruiting would be near impossible without evidence of any effectiveness.



I agree. Most Americans now think that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Naturally, it's getting harder and harder for the military to convince potential recruits that Bush's war is worth dying for. Does that mean we dissenters are endangering the troops? Maybe it means that we dissenters will end up SAVING soldiers' (and future soldiers', and potential recruits') lives.