The two aren’t related at all. Afghanistan was a clear case of self defense; they harbored people who had attacked us, and suffered for it. Iraq is a clear case of greed; we wanted it, so we took it.
If what you are doing is wrong, they are more likely to regard you as stupid or insane.
Why ? If they can’t get rid of us, they might as well keep killing Americans for the vengeance factor. Considering how often we have betrayed people, I fail to see why anyone would expect a reward from cooperation.
We have no responsbility towards them; they are in the wrong, and deserve no consideration.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Protests, like any disention among one’s enemy, points to weakness. The best case is for your enmy to view you as solid, powerful, and committed. The more the enemy thinks that is the case the more likely they will be to see their efforts as futile and seek to resolve things through negotiations, where they might be able to get a carrot or two. If the enemy views us as fractured, they would be wise to exploit that fissure in hopes of cracking our collective resolve. This is not a new concept in warfare. In this particular case, the tactics include more killings and beheadings. That raises the voice of those who advocate withdrawl because of those killings. That, in turn, tells the terrorists that theirat ctics work, which encourages them to do more of the same. And on it on it goes. Advocates of withdrawl inadvertently become an instrument of our enemy./QUOTE]
I for one am VERY impressed with your ability to know exactly what the Iraqi insurgents are thinking and what motivates or discourages them. :rolleyes:
Er…thats not what I meant when I said they were ‘related’. Please re-read the paragraph closely and if you still don’t get it (and you actually want to know) then I’ll try and rephrase my point.
You didn’t actually read what I wrote in my first post in this thread did you? You just decided to take one post and rant on. C’est la vie…
Ah, I see. My apologies, I see so many attempts to lump the two wars together that I misread what you said.
That being said, unless we want to give up all right to protest, we pretty much have to ignore our enemies perception of our weakness. We are always going to have enemies, so waiting for this or that conflict to end won’t work.
How likely are they to do that though (even if by some chance/unlikely miricle the Dems gain control of the Congress and Senate)? I don’t remember the Congress ever cutting funding during the Vietnam period, and I think that war was more unpopular than this one…and more costly too.
Xtisme, that is not the issue… I just wanted to know what Congress can do about it if pressured heavily by voters. If they in fact have any powers besides coercion. If they had none… then harrasing congressmen instead of protesting in the streets would be a mute point.
If Bush just got funding from elsewhere ? Either other countries or accounting gimmicks… could Congress still order the war over ? In other words do they have powers beyond the financial ?
As for the discussion on dissension… I think this line of thinking is very dangerous. After seeing a German movie on two young anti-war protestors killed in Nazi Germany (Sophie Scholl)… I was impressed on how similar the “do not go against your goverment during war” arguments were to what some americans defend. I don’t want to go to the Godwin rule… but I guess this anti-dissident mentality has in the past allowed for some very nasty stuff to go unabated.
I think this is where the Iraq war becomes similar to the Vietnam war… not the tactical or strategical aspect… but on how americans view the choices of going on or cutting losses. I think some americans still think that “staying the course” on Vietnam would have meant victory for example.
Dissent can naturally be a problem... especially with very vocal minorities for example.
As long as you understand its unlikely, even if the Dems take over, then yes…Congress can always pull the plug by cutting funding if they REALLY want too. Especially since the war hasn’t been officially declaired.
BTW, just because its unlikely doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make sure your local congressman/woman knows your views. Even if the point is moot (or mute), its still both your right and duty if you feel strongly about it.
Where else could he get funding for if Congress pulled the plug? I seem to recall that a president can run a war for some small period of time without Congress, but after that if there is no more funding there is no more war (at least I THINK thats how it works. Perhaps someone who knows more about this will be along soon to shoot me down here).
They had the initial approval power (that set the funding). After that, they hold the purse strings…thats the power they have.
Just making sure… because in Civilization everytime I was a Republic the dam Senate kept blocking my war declarations… but once wars got rolling they never tried to stop me.
Well I sure did, and I was inspired to post right afterwards. It remains unclear to me how your first post meaningfully alters the interpretation of your post linking the protest of the Iraq War and the resolve of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Aren’t you making the point that all terrorists are strengthened in their resolve by seeing some protests against the war in Iraq?
So your point seems to be that protesting harms Americans by giving heart to our enemies, but do what you gotta do? Follow your immoral heart? What am I missing? Or you could just accuse me of not reading your posts. C’est la guerre.
Well now a majority of the US feels the war is wrong linky - so maybe the pollers should be stopped?
I’d say by diverting effort to Iraq Bush did more for the Taliban than protesters ever did, and that if there were no invasion of Iraq there would be very few protests. I doubt very much anyone chooses to be a suicide bomber because of some picketer in Peoria.
I think you have a much better case saying they are encouraged by the lack of support for the war in the public as a whole, but I fail to see how you’d prevent that except by censoring information or by doing a better job of it.
Of couse I am…and of course they are, at least IMO. So what? If you think the war is wrong, that the US shouldn’t be there, then its both your right and duty to express your views. You’d be unAmerican if you didn’t. Whats so hard to understand about all this Hentor?
Protesting could POTENTIALLY harm American’s, could and probably does give heart somewhat to our enemies, but if you feel strongly about it you should do what you think is best. Why is doing what you, Hentor, thinks is best ‘immoral’? I’d say doing what you think is the right thing despite possible harm is the ONLY moral thing you could do…because you are doing what you think is right. Holding back because of a potential or even an actual would be the immoral thing.
And no, I don’t think you actually did read and understand what I wrote or you wouldn’t have written what you did. To me thats fairly obvious.
Gods and devils, what would give you the idea I’d want to do that?
I never said that was the case (i.e. ‘anyone chooses to be a suicide bomber because of some picketer in Peoria’). I also never disputed that that Iraq has had an impact on the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan…in fact, I didn’t mention it at all.
There is a non-zero effect…thats all I was saying. Reguardless of whether that effect is great or small I specifically said that one should do what one feels is best. If one is opposed to the war then one should protest the war, contact your local/state/federal representative and bitch, go to rallies, give speeches, hump for freedom…whatever.
Of course I don’t think that - it’s a reduction ad absurdum.
Well, I think we agree. But protests in a sense are leading indicators of public opinion, and don’t really drive it. Support for the Iraq war is plummeting just like that of the Vietnam war, but without anywhere near the number of or intensity of protests.
)
