Are anti-war protestors hurting our nation and our troops?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So by dissenting the war are you helping America in some way?

Of course. You're helping keep our principles alive by being politically active, learning about the subjects going on in the country -- and the world enough to take a stand on an issue, etc.

I'd rather have an engaged public who is knowledgable about the issues that I disagree with than a largely complacent one who simply doesn't care, or pretends to care without really taking the time to learn much about anything like we have now.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Of course. You're helping keep our principles alive by being politically active, learning about the subjects going on in the country -- and the world enough to take a stand on an issue, etc.

I'd rather have an engaged public who is knowledgable about the issues that I disagree with than a largely complacent one who simply doesn't care, or pretends to care without really taking the time to learn much about anything like we have now.

Ok, so by dissenting and exaggerating/scrutinizing you help by principle... this is a bit different than most would feel about Republicans criticizing Clinton, but I'll give you that. But, do you also feel you're hurting the presidency, the war effort and foriegn policy as well?

[MumblyJoe]

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-IRAQ war. Protesters are not hurting the nation and troops. Using our military resourses on a war that was started under questionable circumstances is hurting our troops. Conducting a war as poorly as Rumsfeld has hurt our troops.

[motivez]

There's a large difference between disagreeing with a dissenting message.. and wanting dissention to stop. The Democrats certainly aren't for the latter. Republicans are through their "hate america" propaganda.

I really don't care if they're "hurting the President". I don't buy into "The Presidency", because it's more than one man. Certainly if anything is hurting the Presidency, it's the actions of this President who will have diminished our standing -- and thus any future President's standing -- with the rest of the world.

His foreign policy is something we should criticize if we disagree, and the same with the war effort.

"Hurting the troops" is a false dilemma.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by MumblyJoe

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-IRAQ war. Protesters are not hurting the nation and troops. Using our military resourses on a war that was started under questionable circumstances is hurting our troops. Conducting a war as poorly as Rumsfeld has hurt our troops.

Welcome to the site, glad to have you on board

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

There's a large difference between disagreeing with a dissenting message.. and wanting dissention to stop. The Democrats certainly aren't for the latter. Republicans are through their "hate america" propaganda.

I really don't care if they're "hurting the President". I don't buy into "The Presidency", because it's more than one man. Certainly if anything is hurting the Presidency, it's the actions of this President who will have diminished our standing -- and thus any future President's standing -- with the rest of the world.

His foreign policy is something we should criticize if we disagree, and the same with the war effort.

"Hurting the troops" is a false dilemma.

Nobody has said they wanted dissent to stop here. And one can argue that the Democrats arne't just agreeing with the Dissenting message. They are guiding it and feeding off it for political gain. They are exaggerating it and making it as strong as they can. The more radical the world view of Iraq the better off they are politically. They encourage it and help focus the attention on it when it begins to go astray. The key talking points and pundits for the Democrats prove this is so.

The Republicans with their "stay the course" is not exactly trying to stop dissenters.

It's interesting you don't care that they're hurting the president. Yet when the Republicans hurt Clinton, it's somehow an issue.

[motivez]

The implications of calling someone a "hate america first" type person and impuning their patriotism for their disagreement are most certainly aimed at shaming people into submission so they don't speak their mind. I guess maybe you're right though, if you ignore 90% of what the GOP has done over the last few years...

Democrats are trying to get discussion about Iraq going -- discussion based on the facts of what's going on over there and how badly we've mismanaged it. Saying they hate America because they think Bush and his cronies have screwed this up so badly is simply false. They love the country as much as anyone else and think they have a better way to move the country forward when it comes to Iraq.. so of course they're going to "focus attention" on the major failings of this Administration. That's nothing new.

You point out the 'stay the course' message but again, ignore 90% of what else they've said.

And, I don't care that they hurt the President, whether it's Clinton or Bush or Carter, or the next Clinton ()... The President isn't a toddler who needs to be protected from criticisms, different opinions, etc.. that should come with the territory. My issue is an inaccurate and selective portrayal of hsitory, with no context, and fabrications.. and then there's whether or not I agree or disagree with their dissent.. which I'm free to do.

But I'll never tell someone they hate America or anything else that resembles that remark seriously simply because they disagree with Clinton's foreign policy.. or any of his policies. That is something no Bush supporting Republican (or otherwise) can claim as long as they continue that style of rhetoric while maintaining support.

The idea that someone hates the country for being active and engaged on political issues and giving a shit enough to form an opinion, and then vocalize it somehow hates the country rather than wants to help shape it is outrageous..

[avsp]

If the troops are allowing such stuff to affect their morale then, IMO, they are not properly trained. Currently the situation seems largely satisfactory to me in this respect, ..., troop concerns seem to be of a more pragmatic nature, (equpiment etc). I may be wrong, please correct me if so.

The effect that anti-war sentiment has is on increasing the posiblity of premature pull-out, ..., this must surely hearten the jihadists & those in the region making power plays, (on whatever stage/scale)

The failure to accurately/succesfully 'sell' this war to the public entirely falls on PNACs shoulders IMO, ..., even if, (not least because?), they allowed the admin to be distracted by 'going the UN route', ..., but apportioning blame is, I admit, to be 'stuck on stupid'

Basically we'd be better off treating terrorism as a crime, ..., but thats not where we are so its poitless to moan about it. The cost of waging WoT need to be weighed against the cost of once having started it then failing to persue it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

The implications of calling someone a "hate america first" type person and impuning their patriotism for their disagreement are most certainly aimed at shaming people into submission so they don't speak their mind. I guess maybe you're right though, if you ignore 90% of what the GOP has done over the last few years...

Democrats are trying to get discussion about Iraq going -- discussion based on the facts of what's going on over there and how badly we've mismanaged it. Saying they hate America because they think Bush and his cronies have screwed this up so badly is simply false. They love the country as much as anyone else and think they have a better way to move the country forward when it comes to Iraq.. so of course they're going to "focus attention" on the major failings of this Administration. That's nothing new.

You point out the 'stay the course' message but again, ignore 90% of what else they've said.

And, I don't care that they hurt the President, whether it's Clinton or Bush or Carter, or the next Clinton ()... The President isn't a toddler who needs to be protected from criticisms, different opinions, etc.. that should come with the territory. My issue is an inaccurate and selective portrayal of hsitory, with no context, and fabrications.. and then there's whether or not I agree or disagree with their dissent.. which I'm free to do.

But I'll never tell someone they hate America or anything else that resembles that remark seriously simply because they disagree with Clinton's foreign policy.. or any of his policies. That is something no Bush supporting Republican (or otherwise) can claim as long as they continue that style of rhetoric while maintaining support.

The idea that someone hates the country for being active and engaged on political issues and giving a shit enough to form an opinion, and then vocalize it somehow hates the country rather than wants to help shape it is outrageous..

I've seen many things coming from the Democratic camp. The idea of "facts" is just as questionable as the "facts' from the GOP. What I've seen more of is finger pointing and exploiting the negatives for political advancement.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I've seen many things coming from the Democratic camp. The idea of "facts" is just as questionable as the "facts' from the GOP. What I've seen more of is finger pointing and exploiting the negatives for political advancement.

At this point in our history finger pointing and exploiting fraud, fraud that threatens our very existence as a democracy, is not working for a political advancement. We are working to save our damn country. It is when you refuse to see the forest because there are too damn many trees that proves your motives are for political advancement. No matter how much evidence, documentation, witnesses and truths you are presented with, you still cannot see the horrible situation this country has allowed its leader to create for us. One this nation will be dealing with long after the creaters have sailed of into the sunset.

It was voted today that we simply throw out habeas corpus!! We have made a dangerous move to give the executive branch of our government total control without retribution, accountablity or consequence. This is one of the very foundations of a democracy and one that is evidence of a free willed, responsible nation.

As a nation we will not deserve to live in a democracy if we are so willing to turn a blind eye or deaf hear in order to avoid being negative or if your stand might compromised the opportunity for political gain.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is a spin off from another thread. My point of view was that Clinton during his 8 years in office made America weaker... from a military standpoint. I don't see how this can be debated much considering he cut military, added controversy in the military, badmouthed the military, added roadblocks for the military and intelligence communities, prevented intelligence gathering and had a habit of fleeing or not responding when attacked.

i think its important to note that g.w. bush isnt exactly a fan of our military. he doesnt listen to military leaders. its no suprise that all the military leaders that are now speaking out against bush are retired. This administration does not take criticism well. some soldiers are on their 3rd tour of duty in iraq now, because his administration was ill prepared, and just plain ignored intelligence that didnt fit in their plans for iraq. he has funded the shit out of the military, but really only out of necessity.

if he had his choice, most of the military would be privatized to defense contractors.

[Kytro]

I'm sure that protests can have an negative effect on troops, but it is much less negative than poor leadership and bad decisions.

It is up to the government to use the military in a way the people support, the peopel shouldn't be expected to support the military in all situations

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

but it is much less negative than poor leadership and bad decisions.

Poor leadership and bad decisions are only negative when it is truly poor leadership and bad decisions, not partisan bickering. Our military personnel must believe they are being poorly led to feel bad about them; I don't believe our soldiers think they are being poorly led.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Our military personnel must believe they are being poorly led to feel bad about them; I don't believe our soldiers think they are being poorly led.

I wasn't specifically talking about the effect on morale, rather that bad decisions such as in invading Iraq in the first place, followed by poor decisions on the ground.

The idea of supporting the troops in any decision made by the government is a dangerous one, in my opinion.

[avsp]

Who would voluntarily, in peacetime, enlist when they worried that a future political leader might involve them in an unwise/unjust war?

Such peacetime volunteers must say to themselves "Even though I might subsequently change my mind, I presently trust the system so much that I might as well say that 'I just dont care'", ..., or possibly they plainly know that they just dont care.

I find it inconcievable that all this isnt readily apparent to such volunteers.

I make no claims here of the wisdom or justice of any particular action.

Those who enlist during wartime must believe in the wisdom/justice of the war & know that they know so.

Gripeing about the idiocy of ones superours is of course an age old soldiers right & doesnt enter into this at all.

[KatKanPlay]

Poor leadership and bad decisions are only negative when it is truly poor leadership and bad decisions, not partisan bickering.

Poor leadership and bad decisions are why we are in Iraq in the first place. Partisan bickering??? There is plenty of that, but when it comes to Iraq there are those of us who completely and totally opposed this war from the beginning. More and more people have recognized the reasons for going where either exaggerated or just plain false and they too (members of all parties) now oppose the war. How is that partisan bickering? It is partisan when you refuse to see the truths and continue to stand behind a leadership regardless of the facts layed out. You stand behind this leadership ONLY because of party politics.

Our military personnel must believe they are being poorly led to feel bad about them; I don't believe our soldiers think they are being poorly led.

Soldiers are not allowed to speak out against the commander and chief no matter how wrong they might think he is. They have to fight for whatever cause they are sent to fight for. It happens to be their job.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Poor leadership and bad decisions are why we are in Iraq in the first place. Partisan bickering??? There is plenty of that, but when it comes to Iraq there are those of us who completely and totally opposed this war from the beginning. More and more people have recognized the reasons for going where either exaggerated or just plain false and they too (members of all parties) now oppose the war. How is that partisan bickering? It is partisan when you refuse to see the truths and continue to stand behind a leadership regardless of the facts layed out. You stand behind this leadership ONLY because of party politics.

Soldiers are not allowed to speak out against the commander and chief no matter how wrong they might think he is. They have to fight for whatever cause they are sent to fight for. It happens to be their job.

But you probably think we should be in darfur right?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But you probably think we should be in darfur right?

Darfur is a completely different subject. The human atrocities occuring there are far worse than what was occuring in Iraq. Iraq was a sovergn state, Darfu is not. If we were going to war to stop atrocities, which now seems to be the only real valid excuse for Iraq, then I would have voted going to Darfur before voting to go to Iraq.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay