Oh, yeah, I sure remember those overwhelming tides of unlimited love and unconditional support from the GOP when Bill Clinton was in office. :rolleyes:
I agree, sort of, that you didn’t propose an exact solution. However, this bit comes awfully close to saying if enough hope we lose maybe we will, and be better for it.
“That might be the best thing for America, and the world, in the long run. After all, if a beginner schoolyard bully gets pounded to a pulp by an even bigger badass, that is probably the best thing that could happen to him, and the best thing for society. That experience could make the difference between him growing up to be a happy and productive member of society, and growing up to be a career criminal who spends half his life behind bars – or not growing up at all.”
You got a cite that I had bad things to say about Billy boy when he was in office big guy…or any time else for that matter? I’ll take anything where I bashed BC…or that I am or was a member of the GOP during BC’s presidency. If not…well, I’m sure you know what to do with this comment. It involves a place where the sun don’t shine…
-XT
Since when was xtisme a euphemism for the GOP?
If you had a father, son, brother, daughter, sister, mother, serving in Iraq, would you wish military defeat? Well, guess what, pal, if you have any love for your country at all, every American in Iraq is your brother.
I am for whatever reduces the number of people that die. I don’t care what nationality. I do not believe that Christ is watching and asking “How many Americans are dying?”, He’s asking “How many people are dying?” I do not believe that the only brothers I have are American. Therefore, as much as I am opposed to this war and the occupation, I cannot root for Americans to die. Neither can I wish for the insurgents to die. What I do wish for is for the Americans to pull out as quickly as possible because at this moment I think continued American presence is doing more harm than good.
I’m old enough to remember them. I was one. The constraints of GD permit only that I suggest that your opinion is in error. Since you have, admittedly, no first hand experience, one has to wonder on what basis you form your opinion. And of course suggest that prejudice and ignorance are rather poor bases for such opinions.
I’m also old enough to remember them.
The only possible criticism I see with **Hail Ants
**'s analysis is the “by and large” comment. Many protestors were lazy, cowardly, spoiled, middle-class white kids with too much free time and too much free drugs. Were they a majority?
I doubt it. I suspect the majority were not fiercely committed, though; they were doing it because everyone else was. But to the extent that they had convictions, they were legitimate ones.
And, of course, there were many proestors who genuinely and completely believed in the cause.
Then there were the scary protestors - the SDS, the Weathermen, the Panthers, the Marxists and those carrying Mao’s Little Red Book, the ones that believed they could destablize and overthrow “the establishment” by violence. Included in this group I place the bombers, the guys who thought the way to get their point across was to kill some pigs… you remember them, right?
They were a minority. But like every vocal minority, they had an effect out of proportion with their numbers.
If you don’t support the war, that is your right. But I believe you lose the ability to call yourself a patriot if you wish your nation’s military to be defeated.
Patriots can stand against their goverment, and can even attempt to violently change that government, but if they wish their government to be defeated by an outside force, then they aren’t patriots anymore.
Just MHO.
I suppose in the abstract, this might be true, but your example is not a good one. Your schoolyard has simply replaced one bully with another, and nobody is better off. To apply it to a real-world example, the Viet Nam protestors may not have wanted it, but what they brought about was Pol Pot and the boat people. And I kind of doubt if you can maintain the fine line between “destroyed” and “deeply wounded and humbled”.
I suppose in the abstract you could be correct in wishing defeat on your own country, as the Nazi example shows. But that is only true in cases where it is clear that one side is morally superior to the other. And that was only really true in picking Roosevelt and Churchill over Hitler instead of Stalin over Hitler.
And in Iraq, I think you need to keep in mind who is on the other side from the US and her allies. Terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, and the remnants of the Ba’athist regime. These are the folks you prefer over the US?
Also remembering that the current goal of the Iraqi resistance is to prevent free elections, and I think the moral question about “who to support” becomes either more clouded, or more clear.
So in the abstract, sure. In any specific instance over the last twenty or thirty years, I doubt it.
Regards,
Shodan
I remember that ass Jesse Helms saying that it would be dangerous for Bill Clinton to set foot on some military bases. Seemed pretty close to treason to me. And Helms wasn’t alone in his sentiments.
Dare we hope that you base this statement on something more substantial than Bush Admin press releases?
I can’t help but wonder.
The OP has made it plain that this is intended to be a topic free of any particular conflict or situation – a dispassionate debate topic.
On the other hand, the applicability of this debate to the current situation cannot be denied.
So I’d like to ask the OP to honestly characterize his own feelings right now: does he, in fact, wish to see the United States suffer military defeat?
Please find me any statement from a Republican hoping that the police action in Bosnia turned into a landwar quagmire, or stating that they supported Serbians killing American pilots and soldiers.
Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy. I don’t believe wishing death on the President, standing alone, is treason.
It is, of course, utterly contemptible, and mutinous if done by a member of the military, as Helms was suggesting would happen. It’s vile and despicable.
But absent the association with a foreign power and the desire to assist that foreign power against the interests of the US, it’s not treason, I don’t think.
Please don’t read anything into this post that in any way approves of Helms’ idiocy in this regard. I just don’t think “treason” is the right word to describe this particular loathsome act.
Please find anything similar from a Democrat regarding Iraq.
Democrats in Congress have said that the war in Iraq is turning into a quagmire, reporting solid facts of battle, as have Republicans brave enough to buck the party line. They aren’t wishing defeat on the US and any statement that they are is slanderous to say the least.
I think their effect on your memory is out of proportion, also. As I recall, there was ONE bombing in the anti-war movement of the 60s – at the University of Wisconsin, IIRC. I could be mistaken. But the violence was in the streets during protests. Random terrorism was not a part of the fabric of the 60s.
/hijack
As has been said before, I think real patriotism would require the hope that a country would change its course through force of wisdom and reason, not humilitation and defeat.
However, should a patriot reach the point at which he feels compelled to believe that violence would be the only way to right the perceived wrongs with his government, I believe that such a person has a moral responsibility to take personal risks equivalent to those that he may wish on his countrymen. In the case of the Nazi generals, they certainly risked life and limb to end a war that was consuming their nation. In the case of Soviets who spied for the CIA, they, too, risked execution for a cause that they believed was best for their country. If a patriot believes that sacrifice is necessary for his country, I think a good patriot would think that the sacrifice should begin with him.
I do not believe that it is patriotic to sit back on one’s couch, in the safety of house and home, and effortlessly wish death on one’s own countrymen in the hope that it might “teach someone a lesson.” If a cause is so dire that the death of one’s compatriots may be required to achieve it, one should also be willing to risk their own lives for that cause. I find it hard to reconcile the concept of “patriot” with that of “coward.”
Bombings were rare, sure. But not as rare as you remember.
A perusal of the history of the Weathermen and Weather Underground shows bombings of Haymarket Square, Chicago, the Pentagon, the Capitol, and various prison and police facilities.
From this thread:
or, from Michael Moore’s own website:
Sure. But we’re not talking about Congressmen. We’re talking about people identified with one party or another and making foolish, quasi-treasonous statements like the above.