- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Why voice dissent over the Iraq war? Terrorism and guerilla wars are difficult to fight. Guerillas and terrorists are counting on the swaying of public opinion to bring about victory for their cause and, being that they are the ones firing first and the ones deliberatly killing innocent civilians, we'll make the safe assumption that they are the bad guys.
Since public opinion is crucial to their success, it only makes sense that when they see public opinion against their enemy, that they would be encouraged and therefore more likely to keep up their attacks since they can see that their tactic is working. That's not to say they need to observe support FOR themselves, but merely opposition to the ones they're fighting. In their case the enemy of their enemy is their friend. But here really are just two sides to any battle and you need to choose a side to support. Abhoring equally the Bush administration and the terrorists and small bands of guerillas in Iraq is not an option. The terrorists and guerillas know they're hated and expect no less, but all they have to do to win is to get people to hate their opponent, and they know this. The only evidence they have for believing they can win is vocal dissent within their opposing country.
A recent example of what I'm talking about can be seen here http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.italian/. Public opposition and vocal dissent is so important, that terrorists are making it a demand. They get exactly what they want for free from Americans though, so I'm sure they're all quite thankful for your assistance.
This all so far is merely common sense and shouldn't really be disputed. So why are people still voicing their dissent? What do they hope to accomplish?
Possibility 1: Partisan or ideological loyalty comes before national loyalty and concern for our troops. In this case, the dissenter's only concern is victory at election time. The fact is, our troops are there and cannot leave. Regardless of why they are there or the justification for them being there, they are there and cannot leave. Their safety and the success of the rebuilding of Iraq is hindered by terrorist acts and attacks by guerilla bands, but the dissenter believes either that encouraging terrorist and guerilla activity will lead to administration change and that successful administration change will lead to greater safety for the troops or genuinly, deep-down just doesn't care about the safety of our troops and the success of their mission as much as they care about partisan gain.
Possibility 2: Lack of undertanding of the harm vocal dissent does. A very likely scenario for the shallow thinking or young who lack the knowledge of the principles behind terrorism and guerilla warfare. Yet these are the same ones who merely regurgiate what they hear or read so less dissent means less for these numbskulls to recite.
Possibility 3: Lack of control of emotion. In this scenario, the dissenter is controlled by their emotions and is incapable of suppressing them even for the good of freedom and the safety of our troops. In this scenario, I can only warn the dissenter that a lifetime of decisions made based on emotion will lead to one heck of a messed up life and this is as good a time as any to start using your mind.
"But, OMG, dude, this is a free country. How can you be all like a Nazi and stuff and say we shouldn't question your fearless leader Bush lite? OMG OMG!"
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion. I'm certianly not suggesting that Bush or our actions in Iraq are right. I am, however, telling you that vocal dissent, regardless of why you choose to exercise it, is good for the terrorists and insurgents and bad for our troops. Your vocal dissent will not get the troops home sooner as it's an understood fact that prematurly abandoning Iraq would be disasterous. It will not provide them any more safety, but, rather, will have the opposite effect. George Bush cannot be recalled. He can be impeached for criminal actions if he committed them, but this action will be facilitated by Congress and whether or not you held a sign or chanted in the streets will have zero effect on this procedure.
So if you disagree with Bush and/or Iraq, fine; in November vote for an alternative if you think there's a better one. Voting is your true power and is the only way you'll be able to affect who is in the White House. So, for the sake of democracy and the safety of the coalition troops, voice your dissent in the voting booth where it is truly heard. This isn't a domestic agenda like social security or medicare or drilling in Alaska where vocal dissent is useful as well as harmless; America is at war, it's done, there's no more decisions to be made, and, unless you are against America, either support our mission or shut up.
Since public opinion is crucial to their success, it only makes sense that when they see public opinion against their enemy, that they would be encouraged and therefore more likely to keep up their attacks since they can see that their tactic is working. That's not to say they need to observe support FOR themselves, but merely opposition to the ones they're fighting. In their case the enemy of their enemy is their friend. But here really are just two sides to any battle and you need to choose a side to support. Abhoring equally the Bush administration and the terrorists and small bands of guerillas in Iraq is not an option. The terrorists and guerillas know they're hated and expect no less, but all they have to do to win is to get people to hate their opponent, and they know this. The only evidence they have for believing they can win is vocal dissent within their opposing country.
A recent example of what I'm talking about can be seen here http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.italian/. Public opposition and vocal dissent is so important, that terrorists are making it a demand. They get exactly what they want for free from Americans though, so I'm sure they're all quite thankful for your assistance.
This all so far is merely common sense and shouldn't really be disputed. So why are people still voicing their dissent? What do they hope to accomplish?
Possibility 1: Partisan or ideological loyalty comes before national loyalty and concern for our troops. In this case, the dissenter's only concern is victory at election time. The fact is, our troops are there and cannot leave. Regardless of why they are there or the justification for them being there, they are there and cannot leave. Their safety and the success of the rebuilding of Iraq is hindered by terrorist acts and attacks by guerilla bands, but the dissenter believes either that encouraging terrorist and guerilla activity will lead to administration change and that successful administration change will lead to greater safety for the troops or genuinly, deep-down just doesn't care about the safety of our troops and the success of their mission as much as they care about partisan gain.
Possibility 2: Lack of undertanding of the harm vocal dissent does. A very likely scenario for the shallow thinking or young who lack the knowledge of the principles behind terrorism and guerilla warfare. Yet these are the same ones who merely regurgiate what they hear or read so less dissent means less for these numbskulls to recite.
Possibility 3: Lack of control of emotion. In this scenario, the dissenter is controlled by their emotions and is incapable of suppressing them even for the good of freedom and the safety of our troops. In this scenario, I can only warn the dissenter that a lifetime of decisions made based on emotion will lead to one heck of a messed up life and this is as good a time as any to start using your mind.
"But, OMG, dude, this is a free country. How can you be all like a Nazi and stuff and say we shouldn't question your fearless leader Bush lite? OMG OMG!"
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion. I'm certianly not suggesting that Bush or our actions in Iraq are right. I am, however, telling you that vocal dissent, regardless of why you choose to exercise it, is good for the terrorists and insurgents and bad for our troops. Your vocal dissent will not get the troops home sooner as it's an understood fact that prematurly abandoning Iraq would be disasterous. It will not provide them any more safety, but, rather, will have the opposite effect. George Bush cannot be recalled. He can be impeached for criminal actions if he committed them, but this action will be facilitated by Congress and whether or not you held a sign or chanted in the streets will have zero effect on this procedure.
So if you disagree with Bush and/or Iraq, fine; in November vote for an alternative if you think there's a better one. Voting is your true power and is the only way you'll be able to affect who is in the White House. So, for the sake of democracy and the safety of the coalition troops, voice your dissent in the voting booth where it is truly heard. This isn't a domestic agenda like social security or medicare or drilling in Alaska where vocal dissent is useful as well as harmless; America is at war, it's done, there's no more decisions to be made, and, unless you are against America, either support our mission or shut up.
If you voice your opposition to the war (not against the troops but the war and the policy makers)... you're helping the enemy 
Facebook
Twitter