Alternatively, what really hurt us in the Vietnam conflict was the situation where every time someone raised an objection, the response was “The president knows more about it than you do; we have to trust him.” (And, of course, 35 years later McNamara published his memoirs indicating that the objections were valid from the very beginning.)
It was not the division that hurt the country, it was the growing realization by both sides of the debate that the administrations had lied to the people throughout. This country has suffered serious debate on important issues throughout most of its existence. The harm arose from the the number of people who no longer feel that they can ever trust the government because they were told that they had to trust it and that trust was betrayed.
And Dubya is now perpetuating that impression that he will lie to get his way.
—Somehow, people exercising their rights doesn’t equate with chumps are (who) a bunch of subversive bastards!.—
Whether or not they have the right to speak or protest has nothing at all to do with whether they can be rightly called subversive or not. (Of course, calling someone with clear opinions, even ones you dislike, “subversive” is usually, itself, a pretty subversive tactic, and it’s a pretty subjective term to begin with).
I don’t know if this was meant as a joke, but this has to be one of the stupidest sentiments ever expressed, not to mention un-American. Weaken the nation, indeed! If anything weakens the nation, it’s people who don’t think enough.
I love my country and ALL of its freedoms. What you say may make me angry, and I may disagree with you vehemently, but I’d die to defend your right to say it. That’s truly American, my friend. As I said before, our forefathers shed their blood to give us a precious freedom, a freedom which you apparently despise.
Perhaps Larry Flint, publisher of * Hustler * magazine said it best: (and I’m paraphrasing a bit) “If the Constitution will protect a scumbag like me, you can be sure that it will protect you.”
Do you seriously want a country in which no one is allowed to criticize Big Brother? How utterly horrifying. I think I prefer my nation KGB free, if you don’t mind.
Nope. General public sentiment did not begin to turn against the war until after the Tet offensive in 1968. Johnson had been telling lies prior to that and Nixon continued to lie after that. Nothing in “public pressure” forced them to lie about either their objectives or their actions and the protests that began in 1965 (to initial disparagement by the overwhelming majority of the populace) did not create enough “public pressure” to have any serious influence on policy–a policy that never seriously changed, beyond escalating direct involvement since Kennedy. I am not claiming that the war was not badly run from the White House; I am disputing the fairly risible claim that it was protest that caused the lies that led to the disenchantment with both the war and government, in general.
Not really. I’m pretty sure that the country is still solidly behind tracking down and destroying al Qaeda. Bush changed the game when he announced his silly “Axis of Evil” (particularly by including Iran in it) and then looking for ways to pick a fight with Hussein while providing no evidence that Hussein has any connection to al Qaeda.
If you want to find out why we’re no longer “united,” ask Bush why we’re spending more effort to attack Iraq than we are actually pursuing al Qaeda.
When Al Queda decides to get borders, a standing army, cities, etc, then we can treat them the same way as we treat Iraq. Until then, the fight against Al Queda will remain a largely cloak-and-dagger affair.
Tom, I did not say that public pressure caused a lie.
It was public and political pressure that cuased things like the orders that prohibited the fight to go where it needed to go to beat the objective. Not unlike the anti’s are trying to prevent us from chasing down the most dangerous maggots right now!
So, make up youir mind. You initially claimed that divisiveness hurt us during Vietnam. Now you are claiming that “public pressure” “caused” the government to make stupid decisions. The stupid decisions began long before the anti-war movement was much more than a few hundred kids in college. The “divisiveness” began when more and more people saw the lies of the government (and were joined by veterans of the conflict who shared the same views).
Protests of Vietnam did not cause the government to do anything stupid. The harm came from government lies, not from protests of illegal and covert actions.
An affair that can be more thoroughly pursued if we are not capriciously starting wars with people on the sidelines (wars that will probably permit more enemy action against us since it multiplies our enemies and, thus, divides our intelligence forces and scatters our resources).
…and so they had to refuse a cab ride to my Dad, and spit at his friends, and turn them down for jobs when they got home from the War, to protest that detestable behavior.
The war protestors included serious folks and jerks, just as the war supporters included serious folks and guys that went around beating up “long hairs” and denying them jobs because it was “un American” to protest the war.
Get a grip - the public pressure I was referring to was the divide - the protesters :smack:
It did not matter what the man told the people - how does another Kennedy lie alter the effectiveness of the military?
The man could tell the people, the protesters anything either way and does not alter the effectiveness of the fighting.
Rrrrr! it’s the lies, the lies. the lies cause the rules of engagement to be stupid!!!:rolleyes:
The “fire/theater thing” you refer to is a misquotation of Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous statement from the majority opinion he wrote in Schenck vs. United States (1919), in which the Court upheld the convictions of two socialists who had been tried and convicted of handing out pamphlets near an induction center urging resistance to the draft during WWI
What this means is that through this decision the Court established the principle that speech that could be construed to present a “clear and present danger” to the nation was not protected by the First Amendment. This ruling focused on the consequences of speech, not the content of the speech itself. In a later decision, Abrams vs. United States, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion limiting the “clear and present danger test” to immediate consequences and specific actions, not remote possibilities stemming from speech. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court found that only speech that caused “incitement to imminent lawless action” was punishble under the Constitution and that mere advocacy was immune from prosecution.
Do you have any sort of valid point? Perhaps some support other than emoticons for your questionable assertions?
Yes, al Qaeda is difficult to find and even more difficult to smash; and Iraq won’t be melting into the shadows or creeping off the map at the first sign of attack, so it makes for a much better target. What I think Tom was talking about though was the messy piece of conjuring that sought to transfer focus from one target (al Qaeda, rightly a current target) to another (Iraq, not rightly at all).
Bush isn’t bothering much with al Qaeda because it simply isn’t convenient. The struggle against terrorists will take years and is bound to be a painful, complex, and secretive affair that will yield “only” safety. On the other hand a war against Iraq (which I believe the US will not have much trouble winning) is going to continue doing wonders distracting from issues such as corporate governance, erosions of civil liberties, the economy, and the many blunders of Dubya. In addition to that, there is a whole lot of oil involved, potential popularity and approval boosts, economic boosts thanks to increased spending (see the Reagan years for something similar) as well as a theme of “finishing the job” (and so forth).
“Terror” and “evil” have nothing whatsoever to do with it. If terror still were a primary concern, and if the Axis of Evil were anything more than a clumsy piece of rhetoric intended to harness the sentiment of the lowest common denominator, then al Qaeda would still be the top priority of the administration, and the North Korea problem would have been addressed seriously last year.
Tomndebb, your points are well-supported. MacNamara’s comments left little in question.
Tee, I’m sorry that your father was mistreated by anyone. But the actions that you describe were not typical of those in the peace movement during the war in Southeast Asia. Our purpose was to save lives – not to make the lives of veterans miserable.
I lost a friend of long standing to the war in Southeast Asia. He was a Captain who volunteered for a second tour of duty. We disagreed about the war, but he is no less a hero to me. Even after more than thirty years, I continue to pay my respects to him.
He would never have wanted to defend a country which would deny any of us the right to freedom of speech.
“I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.” – Presidential candidate George W. Bush
For the last time (from me, at least), the fight against Al Queda and conventional military operations are two separate types of activities. The former is a secretive activity, with few, if any, visible and reportable news blurbs. The latter is visible, involves tanks and CNN camera crews, etc.
Just because you do not see daily situation reports regarding the war on terror does not mean that it is not going on. I hate the phrase, but ‘Shadow War’ describes the fight against terrorism.
Who is pro-war? I would say the President of the US is quite pro-war these days.
I do not recall Saddam ever attacking the US. Maybe you can refresh my memory. And when he attacked Kuwait he was soundly and severely beaten with no problem whatsoever. There is absolutely no indication that he has any plans to attack the USA. So let me ask you: Is the USA going to wait until Switzerland decides to mount an attack on the USA? Why not attack Switzerland now?
Nope. Those chumps are people who believe it is wrong to kill people when you do not have a good reason to do so and they believe the government of the US does not have a good enough reason now to attack Iraq. They are standing for what they believe is right. Or are you calling everybody who disagrees with you here “subversive bastards”?
The opposition to Afghanistan was on the basis that you don’t invade another country without a good reason. What was the US’s good reason? Capture Osama Bin Laden. Did they do it? So why should these “smart-ass critics and cynics make a self-criticism” or “recant”?