This is absurd. Protestors are worried (among other things) about the increased risk of terrorism that a lack of protesting might cause; you’re saying that if they’re worried about that increased risk of terrorism, they shouldn’t protest, so that cops don’t have to be busy arresting them?
My dubyaspeak isn’t good enough for me to understand this.
Daniel
You are mistaken. And your statement that my argument is “twisted” is simply a bald assertion. In other words, you are full of shit.
I have to apologize that my adding an entry here is not a promise to regularly respond – I can only sporadically post, given my schedule.
I thank everyone who has offered words of support, but would gladly offer at least a few sources for further investigation.
Bush Administration Attacks Civil Rights
Deep concern has been expressed across the political spectrum over the direct attack on democracy which Patriot II embodies:
Right and Left Unite in Denouncing Patriot II
“Connecting the Dots” Village Voice (stripping of citizenship)
Incredible amounts of information and history (more than I’ve been able to digest!) on Saddam Hussein have been compiled on the following website, which, I should add, has no temerity about branding the man as evil (indeed, that is the point of the website). At the same time, the presence and support of the United States for the demonstrably evil man runs throughout the record, including its supplying him with the very “weapons of mass destruction” (biological and chemical weapons) that we claim noboby else should have.
Saddam Hussein Killer File
[Blacks Denied the Vote (NAACP)](Starting on Election Day, the NAACP national and Florida offices, as well as many other civil rights organizations, received calls from black voters and others who had been turned away from the polls or had trouble casting their ballots.)
The Secretary-General of Amnesty International, the forefront human rights organization, does not believe that those organizing this war are motivated by concerns with human rights:
The human rights situation in Iraq is being invoked with unusual frequency by some Western political leaders to justify military action. This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists.
I hope that gives a few sources for my statements. In the end, I find it truly amazing that anyone – especially Americans whose rights are being eaten away as we speak – believes that the present administration has democracy on its mind.
Now, I must be off. I have overindulged in posting for the day. Once again, I thank all for their supportive remarks.
The first casualty in war is the truth. I can’t speak for all anti-war protesters, but I just wish the Busheviks would tell the truth. If they told the truth, some of us might even support the war.
I’m guessing that statement along the lines of:
“Well, we developed this plan years ago, and don’t want to see it go to waste. And besides, we don’t have any idea what else to do.”
might not be terribly persuasive.
I hate the “protestors give aid and comfort to the enemy” line. I hated it thirty years ago, and I hate it now. Fearless Misleader knows Amercans will rally around once the fighting starts, he counted on it, he depended on it, because it never fails. No American really wants to think of himself as not “supporting our troops”, it’s like not standing for the anthem at a ball game.
Its not quite true that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Often, it is the first.
Let’s set aside accusations of treason. Protests are designed to discourage our country’s belief in the morality of our cause, the rightness of our actions. They argue against a military victory on our part. They present an image of a divided nation. They worked just this way 30 years ago.
Inevitably, protests encourage the enemy in these same ways. Also, they discourage those who might be our allies, but who fear the enemy, like the Iraqi Kurds.
BTW this is nothing new. IIRC Lincoln imprisoned various anti-civil war people. Civilizations throughout history have worried about sedition.
Against the morality? Yes. Against the rightness? Sure. Against a military victory? Bzzt!
Although some protestors argue against a military victory, most of the ones i’ve talked with want this thing to be over with, and soon; that’s obviously not going to happen with an Hussein victory.
Presenting an image of a divided nation? My mama always taught me that it takes two to make an argument. If those damned Bushistas wouldn’t get us into unjust, cynical, diplomacy-destroying wars, we’d have a unified nation. They’re the ones dividing the nation, not us.
More silliness. Inevitably, unjustified invasions of other countries encourage our real enemies (viz Osama bin Laden). They also discourage those who are our traditional allies, but who fear our unilateral World Cop attitude, like the French and the Germans and the Canadians and the Mexicans.
Indeed they have – and people throughout our history have also worried about repressive governmental structures. I don’t seem to recall Jefferson, Paine, Washington et al getting their pantaloons in a bunch over sedition; quite the contrary, they worked for a nation that encouraged and made room for political dissent. When people praise Lincoln, they don’t generally focus on his imprisonment of pacifists.
Daniel
Honestly ** december**, I cannot figure out if you just post sometimes to get lefties’ “blood boiling” (as you stated the goal of the lovely Miss Coulter is) or if you actually believe some of what you spew.
Protests in no way “incite rebellion” any more than letters, emails, or phone calls to one’s representative do. As an active member of the American democratic experiment, it is fully supportive of my government to make my feelings about policy known, using whatever legal means are at my disposal. I lack the funds to compete against the corporate donors, and so to make my voice as loud and strong as possible, it is useful to get together with others who feel the same and let our feeling be known with one larger voice. To remain silent and ignorant is to fail in my duty as a member of a democracy.
My vote in our periodic elections is simply one voice which I am given by law to make my desires known to the federal government. You and others on this board seem to think that a citizens role in a representative democracy is to go to the polls occasionally, and then just shut up until the next election (at least as long as a Republican is in office).
The greatest danger to democracy is in fact those who would quash discussion and dissent. The health of a democracy is based in an educated and politically active populace. Any attampts to block the political activity of the populace comes much closer to sedition in my eyes than anything the anti-war folks may do.
I agree that the US should protect the right of people to disagree with the government and to protest our wars. But, that doesn’t mean the protests don’t hurt the war effort. It means that preservation of freedom of speech is important enough that it’s worth the cost of some harm to the war effort and some encouragement to our enemies.
Maybe I misunderstood you. If all you’re saying is that it hurts the war effort – if you didn’t cite Lincoln to suggest that anti-sedition laws were a good thing – then I can agree with you.
The war effort hurts democracy. It hurts international relations. It hurts Iraqi civilians. It hurts American soldiers. It will potentially hurt American civilians (inasmuch as it’s acting as spectacular agitprop for Al Qaeda). Hurting the war effort – i.e., making it politically costly for our governments to fight such ill-advised wars in the future – can only be a good thing.
If by hurting the war effort you mean it gives significant aid and comfort to our enemies, then I’ll have to ask you for a cite. As in, an article (not a blog) from a reputable source (not www.americanpatriotsagainstlonghaircommies.com) that provides material evidence of a situation in which a real live specific enemy combatant changed his or her actions based on current (or analogous – no Jane Fonda incidents) war protests in a way that resulted in material harm to a real live actual US combatant.
Daniel
Let’s put a couple names to the faces here.
Maj. Jay Aubin.
Capt. Ryan Beaupre.
Staff Sgt. Kendall Waters-Bey.
Cpl. Brian Kennedy.
These were the four marines killed when their helicopter crashed in Iraq on Thursday, 20 March - not as a result of being hit in combat, but because of an accident. How would “supporting our troops” have prevented their deaths? How will “supporting our troops” prevent deaths from so-called “friendly fire”? Or do the pro-war Dopers think this is an impossibility?
No matter how long or short the war may be, men and women are being sent to kill - and to die - over a situation for which they bear absolutely no responsibility, and for reasons that are abstract and specious at best. I cannot support that.