To Our English Friends

Except it's never that way, and hasn't been since the last time a world superpower declared war on the U.S., with respect to military action.

People of good conscience can disagree on the proper course of action, even after that course of action has been taken. By the logic above, any time a representative body votes for some thing to happen or be allowed, everyone should just accept it, even if they don't agree.

That, of course, is the cue for some folks to immediately say "well, this is different." Logically, it isn't. Whether it's foreign policy, domestic policy, school board decisions or what have you, there will always be folks who just don't agree, for whatever reason (or none at all.) History decides, in all cases, who was right, and who was wrong. I'm sure the town leaders in Salem, MA thought it right to put some young women to death in the 17th century. Does that mean that we must not criticize the decision, if those leaders were popularly elected?

While I have yet to decide on the wisdom of the Iraq endeavour (being concerned about the wide variety of possible negative outcomes), I am more concerned about the attitude that anyone in the U.S. must avoid criticizing decisions made by our elected leaders. From town council right up to POTUS.

Having said all that, everyone who earns a living in the U.S. supports the war effort, whether they want to, don't want to, or don't know yet.

Hoping that this is disagreeing without being disagreeable,

E.P.

wrote

But at what point - if ever, in your view - should somebody consider themselves fairly beaten and the matter decided? At what point should somebody say, "I disagreed, I made my point, but now it's time to work toward making the chosen course successful."

Are you concerned about those people who never stop criticizing the decisions made by the elected leaders, fighting all the way to disrupt and reverse what has been decided?

KL

I guess if one has no principles, this would be a simple thing. Would you compromise your ideals if some other folks said you should?

Not at all. If they are bound by their principles, then I admire their fight. Even if I disagree with their goals. It's a fundemental quality of liberty. Suppression of dissent is what happpens in tyrannical regimes.

E.P.

Yes, which is why I'm glad I ended up born here. We have our own problems to work on but we're a good 500 years ahead of the Third World in a lot of respects.

I'd rather let the occasional crook get away than have them all beheaded or mutilated. Either they learn to get straight, spend most of their lives in jail or they end up killed in apprehension.

Bill Banaszak

wrote

Of course, because I believe that for a civil society to exist people must acknowledge that there is something greater then themselves and when a policy has been legitimately decided it becomes necessary for everyone to work toward making that policy successful (or at least acquiesce) rather than continuously trying to fight and disrupt the implementation.

There are very, very, few issues that are real matters of principle or morality. Most are just petty power disputes. It is ultimately distracting and destructive to the country wage these smoldering Wars Without End on every miserable subject and to paint the "warriors" as some sort noble paladins.

KL

"Kurt Laughlin" wrote in news:SLcAe.2041$Om4.591@trndny07:

forcing your ideas

exist people

themselves and

necessary for

at least

disrupt the

principle or

ultimately

smoldering Wars

"warriors" as

Well gee, the radical Islamics are at war with us. They have given no terms for peace aside from our eradication. Whether people are happy about it or not they are at war with us. They have killed our people. They have killed thier own people. Apparently the only real constant is killing.

Under the circumstances I really don't see what there is to debate. The "debate" such as it has been serves the radicals in that these debats make us look weak. Sens. Durbin and Kennedy, and other high profile types that say the horrible things they do are quite simply giving aid and comfort to our enemies. I am at a loss to understand how people of supposed good conscience can continue to say the things they do, wishing us defeat so they can look like they were right.

A time comes when you must decide where you stand. "You are either with us or against us" may sound trite or simple. But when those against us kill so willingly, so horrifically, so gleefully it is incomprehensible how any decent civilized person cannot oppose them.

I must say that because I where I live I worry a bit more than I should. All I know is that if my children or wife were hurt or worse because of a terrorist act I would hold the not just the radicals to blame but also the "Americans" who want nothing more than for us to fail, to fun away and hide, to aoplogize. And I might be so consumed with grief that I might take action on it.

You either oppose the murdering bastards or not it's very simple. Coming to terms with how to deal with them is a matter of being a grownup, putting down the bong and pretty flowers and picking up a gun, literaly or figuratively. In my view if you don't you are unworthy of the protection being provided to you by those who do and really should consider moving elsewhere. Or shut up and keep your cowardice to yourself.

To get back on topic I wish to extend my condolences to our British friends and all victims of terrorist. Pete

The only reason they say what they do, is their (their own mindset here) attempt to regain power of the three branches of govt. Than they will either by willingness, or no other choice prusue the same path as their predecessor has already taken. What they really want is the power of office, and when liberals are not in power, they will attempt to bring down the rest of the country with words, and deeds to get their way.

Because people who live in comfort, and always have dont have any understanding of how hard the world can truely be.

Seeing as how my younger son will be sent off to Iraq in a year or so, I have absolutely no patience or respect for such people. Neither do the terrorists either ! I have none either for the eurotrash crapwealses as well....... The Oil For Food program was meant to help the Iraqi's. Of course they french, germans and russians turned it into a money making scheme for themselves.......

But you take away their only means of feeling important..........

Ya ought to take a good look at the young kids who make up our infantry these days sometime. They definitely are NOT the sons of these whining liberals......................

THANK GOD !!

Allan

Certainly but disagreement and active, even vehement, opposition are not the same. I disagree with many of our nation's current laws and policies but my opposition takes the form of petitioning my elected representatives to change them, or voting for representatives that share my views. Pending such changes I choose to obey existing laws and follow existing policies.

By your logic there's no point in having a representative form of government to determine law and policy for the country as a whole.

Disagreement is fine. In the meantime, laws and policy are what they are. Are you advocating anarchy instead?

I'm advocating neither suppression of dissent nor suppression of informed, constructive, criticism.

Your response was quite civil. :)

More probably herb crime was simply pissing off her husband, and being a member of the Saudi Royal family he got no argument when he accused her of adultery.

Bill Shuey

Except that *neither* side of the political spectrum does that, except in case where there is very clear grounds to do so. For example - in the circle of people I know, liberal and conservative, 100% favor the war on the Taliban and al Qaida. However, when you start to widen the discussion to other aspects of current foreign policy, opinion becomes divided. Some aspects of the war on terror are fully supported, and some are not. Maybe it's not as clear-cut as folks like Gray Ghost think it is?

And both sides do this to equal measure. Neither is better than the other in trying to find common ground (or not.)

And waging war is about morality. Very serious business, for everyone. So, people of good conscience, folks who do not wish their country ill in any way, may not agree with every military action taken. And if they are right, and their opposition wrong, it seems unlikely that anyone will ever hear that opposition say anything like Gen. Lee did.

E.P.

I'll have to revise my 500 year statement. Aside from the Reign of Terror in France we also had brutal mutilation/beheadings in Denmark in the 1770s. If it happened there it happened other places too, no doubt.

Bill Banaszak

I would suggest that holding a peaceful protest march, or writing letters to the editor of whatever journal are also quite legal.

If you believe something to be morally wrong, do you just shrug and accept it? Isn't that immoral in and of itself?

Non sequitur. If someone believes a wrong choice has been made, they have a duty to oppose that decision in a legal manner. To do otherwise would be an abrogation of the hard-won liberty bequeathed to us by our forefathers.

That's a strawman argument. If disagreement is fine, why shouldn't one criticize those who say it's tantamount to treason?

That "constructive" part is sort of a sticking point. If you believe a particular course to be irretrievably bad, then the only kind of criticism that makes sense is the destructive kind. There are those out there who do believe that dissent *is* treason. It seems Gray Ghost is one of those folks. Have you stood up to say, "wait a minute here", or have you silently stood by?

Thank you. And yours as well. It is a shame that the folks in Sodom-on-the-Potomac aren't as civil as you. On both sides of the aisle.

E.P.

I agree. These are prime examples of the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

Well, I believe that most abortions are immoral but a woman's right to them is the law of the land. I don't think it's immoral of me to not try to deprive them of that right. I believe that it's immoral for government to redistribute wealth but I don't refuse to pay my income taxes. If being a law-abiding citizen makes me immoral, I suppose I am.

They don't have a duty of opposition, they have a right to it. Their only duty is to obey existing law so long as it is in force. This is what separates civilized societies from barbarism.

And to pick and choose which laws to obey is an invitation to anarchy. Our liberties are constrained by those laws for the greater good of society. Similarly, once the body politic has chosen a course of action its members can reasonably be expected to acquiesce until such time as that policy is changed.

I've never equated mere disagreement with treason, and those who do are ill-informed.

That's not so. Criticism offering an alternate course of action is not destructive. OTOH criticism based merely on the propostion that what currently exists is 'bad' is most certainly inherently destructive.

I don't read that in his posts. Can you provide a specific example, please?

See above.

'Us'. :)

Indeed. More's the pity.

But you are not aquiescing to those things - you stand up and do something, if only to vote for the guy (gal) that'll do the thing you want. I'm talking about things that're legal - dissent that's in verbal, written or legal protest form. I do not accept illegal protest as valid.

I believe it extends beyond rights. If you think something is immoral, then you have a moral obligation to oppose it. But you still must do so legally, as I stated above.

I don't think I've said anywhere that anyone should break the law.

How does the policy change if people merely aquiesce? There must be opposition for the policy to change. I guess on this particular point I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

My choice of wording was poor - I apologize. I meant to say that the criticism would be destructive of the policy in place, and that in some cases, doing nothing is less bad than doing the wrong thing. Sometimes the choices are between the lesser of two evils, and if doing nothing is the lesser, then that is the path that must be chosen.

Again, my apologies for not being clear.

In this thread, the comment about dissenters giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." That's the definition of treason. And it's a false accusation, for most of the folks who say they're opposed to some facet of the current foreign policy.

He even makes a veiled claim at taking personal action against these folks - which I find profoundly unAmerican and most certainly immoral. Maybe we should build internment camps for these "liberals", huh? And make them work off their debt? I know - we could put up a sign - "Work Will Make You Free!" OK, it's a bit of a stretch. But it's one of the logical conclusions. Not the only one, but one of them.

That kind of rage will do more damage to our society than any doped-out hippy flag-burner.

I appreciate that. Thanks. And thanks for the discussion. :)

E.P.

The president and many others have firmly stated that we are not at war with Islam.

Through their actions, inaction and silence someone needs to tell them.

Tom

We aren't. Yet.

See above...

Sure I am, by 'letting' them happen.

the thing you

What about civil disobedience, such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?

Legality and morality are not necessarily the same thing. Nor should they necessarily be so. The slippery slope of imposing religious beliefs, etc...

I suspect that we're getting tangled up in semantics. What I mean is that existing policy shouldn't be actively thwarted, not that it shouldn't be criticized at all.

and that in some

Agreed. I think that's what I've been trying to drive at.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

I guess a lot depends on what one views as 'aid and comfort'. Personally, I don't believe that mere political rhetoric rises to that level. It's unseemly, and probably not politically astute in a time of war, but treasonous? I don't think so.

Heh. Well, *I* don't think Bush is prosecuting the war aggressively _enough_ nor that he's explaining it well to the American people. Does that make *me* guilty of treason? ;-p

I certainly wouldn't agree with any violent response to mere rhetoric. Last time I checked we still had freedom of speech regardless of one's political leanings.

Aw, geez... :(

I think it would take at least another 9-11 to get the majority of Americans behind anything at all like that. Let's just hope it never comes to that.

Only if it becomes the mainstream. Most conservatives aren't quite so extreme.

We're skirting Godwin's Law here. . .

KL