Why voice dissent of the war?

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

Government needs to fear the people. They work for us.

The only way to strike fear in politicians is with your vote. As I said and have repeated numerous times...voice dissent over any domestic issue you want, but when it comes to war, for the sake of our troops, show outward solidarity and choose for change at election time if you so choose. John Kerry isn't going to bring them home until their job is done either, so voicing dissent is accomplishing nothing as far as that goal is concerned.

Dissent is a needed American Ideal

Of course.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Wow a rehash of the same arguments made against Vietnam War protestors If you voice your opposition to the war (not against the troops but the war and the policy makers)... you're helping the enemy

Hmm...too young to know about that. But, given the fact that we lost, I'd say they those making my same argument were right, eh?

 

[Spencer278]

Your argmument is very close to microsoft security algorithm.
If you report a security problem in an application MS tell you not to tell anyone while they create a path.
But in reality they do really work on a patch but if you tell the world then a patch will be done very quickely.

Same thing with Iraq voting is slow and doesn't put much pressure on bush. Vocal dissent creates a lot more pressure on bush to fix the problem.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Wow a rehash of the same arguments made against Vietnam War protestors If you voice your opposition to the war (not against the troops but the war and the policy makers)... you're helping the enemy

Hmm...too young to know about that. But, given the fact that we lost, I'd say they those making my same argument were right, eh?

Interesting point-of-view and proposition...need to think about this a bit.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

And that is where you are wrong. Vocal dissent CAN change policy.

Sure it can, but it can't change our "current" policy, unless you're going to disagree that we can't leave Iraq until it's stable.

See, the use of the word "current" changes the meaning of the sentence...that's why you have to read all the words to understand a sentence correctly.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. If we sit on our hands and say nothing, we are doomed to repeat this war again and again. The rest of the World will tire more of our bullyish nature and our grandkids will pay the price. Like WE aren't already...

Voicing dissent over the war won't get GW Bush out of office. Voting will. Voicing dissent will, however, encourage the terrorists and insurgents. You have all the power i the world to enact whatever change you want in November.

okay. if you think terrorists read this website.
or if terrorists hear me talking to my friends on IM. im afraid youre sorely mistaken.
why arent you bleating like the other neocon sheep that a vote for kerry is a vote for OBL?
im sure that will start once the rascals are thrown out in november.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

Government needs to fear the people. They work for us.

The only way to strike fear in politicians is with your vote. As I said and have repeated numerous times...voice dissent over any domestic issue you want, but when it comes to war, for the sake of our troops, show outward solidarity and choose for change at election time if you so choose. John Kerry isn't going to bring them home until their job is done either, so voicing dissent is accomplishing nothing as far as that goal is concerned.

Like you say kerry won't fix the problem in Iraq so showing dissent for the postion could force kerry to flip-flop on that position. Showing dissent can also work to gather support for the postion if people know the truth about iraq they may be more likely to dissent and with enought people dissent maybe they can get the troops to come home.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

And that is where you are wrong. Vocal dissent CAN change policy.

Sure it can, but it can't change our "current" policy, unless you're going to disagree that we can't leave Iraq until it's stable.

See, the use of the word "current" changes the meaning of the sentence...that's why you have to read all the words to understand a sentence correctly.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. If we sit on our hands and say nothing, we are doomed to repeat this war again and again. The rest of the World will tire more of our bullyish nature and our grandkids will pay the price. Like WE aren't already...

Voicing dissent over the war won't get GW Bush out of office. Voting will. Voicing dissent will, however, encourage the terrorists and insurgents. You have all the power i the world to enact whatever change you want in November.

If no one voices any 'dissent' no one will know about others views. How are people going to be able to make sound decisions about a presidents policies if all criticism of them is squashed? This is America jack, its our right to bitch about the president. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so it makes sense for us to squeak like mad.

Like Red said...if it were Kerry up in office like hell you wouldn't be bitching his a$$ out. By your logic you shouldn't have a damn thing to say about Kerry at all, you should just shut up and vote for Bush this november. But you're here, bashing Kerry's $1000 haircut and playing down every Bush failing. Your partisanship is showing bigtime.

You've got a right to vote for whoever you want, and a right to bitch about those you don't want to be in office. But so does everyone else.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

And that is where you are wrong. Vocal dissent CAN change policy.

Sure it can, but it can't change our "current" policy, unless you're going to disagree that we can't leave Iraq until it's stable.

See, the use of the word "current" changes the meaning of the sentence...that's why you have to read all the words to understand a sentence correctly.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. If we sit on our hands and say nothing, we are doomed to repeat this war again and again. The rest of the World will tire more of our bullyish nature and our grandkids will pay the price. Like WE aren't already...

Voicing dissent over the war won't get GW Bush out of office. Voting will. Voicing dissent will, however, encourage the terrorists and insurgents. You have all the power i the world to enact whatever change you want in November.

So people are supposed to know that if GWB does not win in November, we have voted him out in some unanimous voice of disent for the war in Iraq? Dude, look at your logic, it has MAJOR flaws! Voicing my disent over this war, has little to do with getting Bush out of office. Though it does make me all tingly inside thinking about it That said, I think it is MY duty and a HUMAN, not just an American that has but one voice and one vote, to express my dissatisfaction for what I perceive is a war based on lies. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: gistech1978

non violent protests? oh, but wait, theyre just no good dirty hippies right?

No, they are usually 20-somethings who wear their pants down to the crack of their @$$, have 30-45 credit hours of higher education and know everything about the world, and drink that alternative lifestyle coffee.

do you have some fetish to see men in tight pants or something?
every thread, concerning anyone younger than you; you mention the same old threadcrap.
anyone under the age of 30 that disagrees with your 'points' you make in threads or your myopic view on the world is a 'baggy pants' loser in your eyes.
as if their clothes somehow discredit their views or politics.
its a nice tactic, but its flawed.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: gistech1978


do you have some fetish to see men in tight pants or something?
every thread, concerning anyone younger than you; you mention the same old threadcrap.
anyone under the age of 30 that disagrees with your 'points' you make in threads or your myopic view on the world is a 'baggy pants' loser in your eyes.
as if their clothes somehow discredit their views or politics.
its a nice tactic, but its flawed.

You check out the IMF rally this weekend? Well, I did...and my hypothesis held.

 

[Red Dawn]

Voicing dissent can also influence the vote. If those who are opposed to Bushes policy in the Middle East say nothing then then there is no debate about it and if there is no debate then those who are undecided might not hear both sides so they can decide exactly how they feel about it.

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Wow a rehash of the same arguments made against Vietnam War protestors If you voice your opposition to the war (not against the troops but the war and the policy makers)... you're helping the enemy

Hmm...too young to know about that. But, given the fact that we lost, I'd say they those making my same argument were right, eh?

Interesting point-of-view and proposition...need to think about this a bit.

Protesting to correct a wrong on our governments part by our citizens actually kept us from "losing" even more. Do you really think the US could have "won" in Vietnam? No country can win as an occupying power, it's just a continual stream of money and lives that bleed the country.

The protestors, in my opinion, just saved a few more years of inevitable expenses and death.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Your argmument is very close to microsoft security algorithm.
If you report a security problem in an application MS tell you not to tell anyone while they create a path.
But in reality they do really work on a patch but if you tell the world then a patch will be done very quickely.

Bad example. It's more like two parents, even though they disagree strongly, showing unity in discipline before their children. Interanlly they can argue and disagree, but if they show the same division infront of their children, their kids will take that as a sign that they can, with continued pressure, get what they want and they'll never stop asking. They can even disgagree about things not involving their kids infront of their kids and the kids won't care because it doesn't directly involve them.

Same thing with Iraq voting is slow and doesn't put much pressure on bush. Vocal dissent creates a lot more pressure on bush to fix the problem.

Fix the problem? You mean leave Iraq? That's not an option. If you mean quell the terrorists and insurgents and get the hell home, then doing whatever we can to not encourage the terrorists is the quickest route.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Your argmument is very close to microsoft security algorithm.
If you report a security problem in an application MS tell you not to tell anyone while they create a path.
But in reality they do really work on a patch but if you tell the world then a patch will be done very quickely.

Bad example. It's more like two parents, even though they disagree strongly, showing unity in discipline before their children. Interanlly they can argue and disagree, but if they show the same division infront of their children, their kids will take that as a sign that they can, with continued pressure, get what they want and they'll never stop asking. They can even disgagree about things not involving their kids infront of their kids and the kids won't care because it doesn't directly involve them.

Same thing with Iraq voting is slow and doesn't put much pressure on bush. Vocal dissent creates a lot more pressure on bush to fix the problem.

Fix the problem? You mean leave Iraq? That's not an option. If you mean quell the terrorists and insurgents and get the hell home, then doing whatever we can to not encourage the terrorists is the quickest route.

Defeating the Terrorists is the quickest route, not creating more (as it seems we have done with the Dub's ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

If no one voices any 'dissent' no one will know about others views. How are people going to be able to make sound decisions about a presidents policies if all criticism of them is squashed? This is America jack, its our right to bitch about the president. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so it makes sense for us to squeak like mad.

Like Red said...if it were Kerry up in office like hell you wouldn't be bitching his a$$ out. By your logic you shouldn't have a damn thing to say about Kerry at all, you should just shut up and vote for Bush this november. But you're here, bashing Kerry's $1000 haircut and playing down every Bush failing. Your partisanship is showing bigtime.

You've got a right to vote for whoever you want, and a right to bitch about those you don't want to be in office. But so does everyone else.

Excellent points...none of which have anything thing to do with this argument of dissent over the war.

 

[DealMonkey]

Riiiiight. Vocal dissent = supporting the terrorists. You're no better than Karen Hughes, lashing out at every group she doesn't like and tying them to the terrorists. Pro-choice? You're a terrorist. Or perhaps you're more like McCarthy -- don't support the president? You're a dirty godless commie.

Pathetic. I don't believe your jingoistic drivel for one second and I will continue voicing my disapproval of OIF. Go put another flag on your car's back window or go have a pep rally if it makes you feel better.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Exactly. By voicing our dissent and dissatisfaction with the warmongers in the White House, we can effect changes. Rumsfeld and others have admitted they were surprised by the voraciousness of this recent insurgency. Surprised??? WTF?? Everyone knew this would happen. EVERYONE! Except the non-thinking, yes-men ideologues running the show.

They scare the fvcking sh*t out of me and need to be raked over the coals for their failures. Then, we bring in someone with goals and plans and willing to listen to all sides of an issue and we'll get true diplomacy and a working Iraqi government.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

Government needs to fear the people. They work for us.

The only way to strike fear in politicians is with your vote. As I said and have repeated numerous times...voice dissent over any domestic issue you want, but when it comes to war, for the sake of our troops, show outward solidarity and choose for change at election time if you so choose. John Kerry isn't going to bring them home until their job is done either, so voicing dissent is accomplishing nothing as far as that goal is concerned.

Like you say kerry won't fix the problem in Iraq so showing dissent for the postion could force kerry to flip-flop on that position. Showing dissent can also work to gather support for the postion if people know the truth about iraq they may be more likely to dissent and with enought people dissent maybe they can get the troops to come home.

If Kerry flip flops on the issue, then you vote on someone else who is firm on the issue. If the Democrats of this country put a flip-flopper up for election that's their fault and our soldiers shouldn't be made to suffer for it.

 

[jrphoenix]

Same thing with Iraq voting is slow and doesn't put much pressure on bush. Vocal dissent creates a lot more pressure on bush to fix the problem.

Fix the problem? You mean leave Iraq? That's not an option. If you mean quell the terrorists and insurgents and get the hell home, then doing whatever we can to not encourage the terrorists is the quickest route.[/quote]


The problem is the administration! These morons were hell bent on going to war before 911! These morons openly talked down to the United Nations and talked about how they are no longer relevant. These morons refer to any European country that didn't cower at their feet as "old Europe".

The problem needs to be solved and hopefully will be come election day. Believe it or not I'm a Republican that's never voted Democrat (until this November).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If nobody voices their dissent the Dub and his cadre of nefarious Neocons would take that as a sign of wholesale support of their disasterous foriegn policy which would convince them to cause more dangerous situations for us and the world.

Wrong. You voice your dissent by voting in November. All the vocal dissent in the world won't and can't change our current policy unless you think we should pull out of Iraq before it's stable in which case I couldn't argue your motive for vocally dissenting and could only question your intelligence.

Government needs to fear the people. They work for us.

The only way to strike fear in politicians is with your vote. As I said and have repeated numerous times...voice dissent over any domestic issue you want, but when it comes to war, for the sake of our troops, show outward solidarity and choose for change at election time if you so choose. John Kerry isn't going to bring them home until their job is done either, so voicing dissent is accomplishing nothing as far as that goal is concerned.

Like you say kerry won't fix the problem in Iraq so showing dissent for the postion could force kerry to flip-flop on that position. Showing dissent can also work to gather support for the postion if people know the truth about iraq they may be more likely to dissent and with enought people dissent maybe they can get the troops to come home.

If Kerry flip flops on the issue, then you vote on someone else who is firm on the issue. If the Democrats of this country put a flip-flopper up for election that's their fault and our soldiers shouldn't be made to suffer for it.

Yet they are suffering because of Bushes ill conceived was in Iraq and Rumsfiled underestimating the amount of troops it would take to execute the occuaption correctly

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Voicing dissent can also influence the vote. If those who are opposed to Bushes policy in the Middle East say nothing then then there is no debate about it and if there is no debate then those who are undecided might not hear both sides so they can decide exactly how they feel about it.

Already got ya accounted for, RD.

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Voicing dissent can also influence the vote. If those who are opposed to Bushes policy in the Middle East say nothing then then there is no debate about it and if there is no debate then those who are undecided might not hear both sides so they can decide exactly how they feel about it.

Already got ya accounted for, RD.

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.

One problem with your argument Tail Gunner Joe, the Presidential Candidate isn't suggesting pulling out of Iraq so a change in the Leadership of the United States isn't going to help the Insurgents and probably would be more detrimental to the terrorists.

Your proposition is just a veiled attempt to call those who disagree with your Disaster of a President unpatriotic

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Voicing dissent can also influence the vote. If those who are opposed to Bushes policy in the Middle East say nothing then then there is no debate about it and if there is no debate then those who are undecided might not hear both sides so they can decide exactly how they feel about it.

Already got ya accounted for, RD.

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.

One problem with your argument Tail Gunner Joe, the Presidential Candidate isn't suggesting pulling out of Iraq so a change in the Leadership of the United States isn't going to help the Insurgents and probably would be more detrimental to the terrorists.

Voice dissent for Bush then, but make it war-unspecific.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Your argmument is very close to microsoft security algorithm.
If you report a security problem in an application MS tell you not to tell anyone while they create a path.
But in reality they do really work on a patch but if you tell the world then a patch will be done very quickely.

Bad example. It's more like two parents, even though they disagree strongly, showing unity in discipline before their children. Interanlly they can argue and disagree, but if they show the same division infront of their children, their kids will take that as a sign that they can, with continued pressure, get what they want and they'll never stop asking. They can even disgagree about things not involving their kids infront of their kids and the kids won't care because it doesn't directly involve them.

That assume that what the parents decided is working. If say the mother thinks that smaking the kid in the side of the head with a 2x4 will slove the problem yet after a few whacks the father will have no choose but to say it isn't working.

Just like I don't think that bushes plan is going to work so dissent may force bush to choose a different plan. This stay the course bullhit just doesn't work when we don't even have a plan.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Voicing dissent can also influence the vote. If those who are opposed to Bushes policy in the Middle East say nothing then then there is no debate about it and if there is no debate then those who are undecided might not hear both sides so they can decide exactly how they feel about it.

Already got ya accounted for, RD.

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.

One problem with your argument Tail Gunner Joe, the Presidential Candidate isn't suggesting pulling out of Iraq so a change in the Leadership of the United States isn't going to help the Insurgents and probably would be more detrimental to the terrorists.

Voice dissent for Bush then, but make it war-unspecific.

The war , more like his reasoning nfor going to war in Iraq, is one of his biggest screw ups. You can't talk about his failings without mentioning it!