Dissent in Time of War

Some people feel so strongly about war that they really believe than the end that they desire justifies the means that they employ. For them, falsehood and misrepresentation are not to be avoided, but embraced to hasten the end they want to achieve.

I do not believe that approach constitutes honorable dissent, but others apparently do.
 
Yes, I agree that all of the pointed headed politicians backed the presidents intent to invade Iraq, but based on what has been proven beyound a shadow of any doubt to have been FALSE and in some cases, contrived, data. It is time now to admit the mistake and get the hell out of there before more american lives are lost in a battle that cannot be won. Evend the Iraqies, who the idiot Rumsfeld said would dance in the streets and meet our troops throwing flowers, are asking for a time table for us to get out. It is time to suck it up and resume the quest to get Ben Laden, the real purpetrator of 9/11.
 
Just for the record, with regard to my opinion concerning the current conflict in Iraq, I hope that I'm wrong. I honestly hope that many years from now, it's not me saying I told you so.

With regard to the media and bias, it's all biased to some degree, but for most people, it's all they have. We can play a version of "Battle of the Network Stars," in which I contend that the certain elements of the media are biased in one direction, while others contend that its biased in another direction; this would go on in circles forever. FWIW, I would contend that a good portion of the media, American or otherwise, is driven by considerations of profit, which they believe will be attained through sensationalist reporting.

I think what we need to get at is the question of why people believe dissent crosses the line from speech and opinion to aid for the enemy, as implied/stated by model 25 and Gary H. So, I'll throw a few questions into the mix:

1) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, how exactly does this work? Please provide specific examples.

2) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, is it then your contention that such dissent is a punishable offense to the same degree that providing actual aid in the form of arms or money is an offense? If so, what legal vehicles are you espousing for the prosecution of such offenses?

3) Gary H, please explain/support the following comment:
Democratic and mass media "dissent" (excuse me, they are one and the same)
 
Too Stupid?

So the politicians that were duped by bad data were too stupid and too lazy to research the matter?

I can respect a man that admits an error and changes his mind. I can not respect anyone calling the President a liar during time of war. If he indeed do something criminal they should have the decsency to wait until the war is over. Then they could take action against the President if they feel it is warranted. What some are doing know is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
Demosocialists: Don't look now, your double standard is showing

I find it both interesting and revealing that there were no "dissidents" to be heard from when our soldiers were being butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993 and the world was watching it on CNN. In the minds of today's "dissenters," that was all well and good.

Why? Two reasons: 1- Because that military action was ordered by Bill Clinton, who in the minds of the "dissenters" and other Demosocialists can do no wrong. And, 2- these so-called Americans view soldiers as an expendable commodity, just like Bill clinton did and does.

The fact is, these "dissenters" see war as wrong only when it fits their purposes. Their actions give support to the enemy, plain and simple.
 
progunner1957, actually there was some dissent against the military action undertaken in Somalia during the Clinton administration, precisely for some of the same reasons that opposition to the Bush administration's activities in Iraq exists, i.e., that it was not well-planned or executed, that it was the improper response to the situation, etc. However, it was not as widely reported, nor as vociferous as the opposition to the current conflict. The same holds true for the First Gulf War.

The fact that American soldiers were butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia was not "all well and good" with anybody across the political spectrum, left or right. To suggest otherwise, especially without concrete evidence to support your claim, is self-serving. Soldiers are not an expendable commodity, which is precisely why many people have opposed these types of military actions.

If you're going to insist on using the term "Demosocialist", I'm going to ask that you reread the guidelines that I included within the original post to the thread. I have the decency not to refer to people with whom I disagree as "Republicofascists" or "Libertarianwackadoos," so kindly exercise the same respect (not that I agree with either of those terms, either). If you insist on using unecessarily inflammatory and immature rhetoric, then I'll simply ignore anything further that you write.
 
1) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, how exactly does this work? Please provide specific examples.

2) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, is it then your contention that such dissent is a punishable offense to the same degree that providing actual aid in the form of arms or money is an offense? If so, what legal vehicles are you espousing for the prosecution of such offenses?
Okay, let's take Jane Fonda and Congressman Murtha as examples.

BAD: Jane Fonda voiced her dissent for the Vietnam war by going to an enemy country and aiding the enemy by being an eager participant in their propaganda against the US. While Fonda did not give money or weapons to the enemy, her public recognition lent credibility to the enemy propaganda. And she said on film that she wanted to help the enemy stop the war. The response to Fonda's acts should have been prompt arrest and a speedy trial for treason. (Note that Lord Haw-haw and Tokyo Rose were tried for war crimes after WWII.)

GOOD: Murtha voiced his dissent in the halls of Congress. As a politician, it is his job to articulate ideas and opinions on behalf of his constituents. Although the ideas and opinions he expressed may play to the enemy's advantage, they were not created, directed, or managed by the enemy. In short, Murtha did not set out to help aid the enemy. The response to Murtha was what it should have been - listening, discussing, and ultimately voting.
 
by progunner1957
I find it both interesting and revealing that there were no "dissidents" to be heard from when our soldiers were being butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993 and the world was watching it on CNN.
I was a dissident after our soldiers were butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993. If it wasn't bad enough that our troops were in Somalia on a BS "peacekeeping" mission, they were not there in sufficient numbers, they lacked adequate equipment and support, and their rules of engagement were absurd. Since Clinton wasn't going to do the things necessary to give the troops a fighting chance, I wanted US forces out of Somalia.
 
"I was a dissident after our soldiers were butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993. If it wasn't bad enough that our troops were in Somalia on a BS "peacekeeping" mission, they were not there in sufficient numbers, they lacked adequate equipment and support, and their rules of engagement were absurd. Since Clinton wasn't going to do the things necessary to give the troops a fighting chance, I wanted US forces out of Somalia."


I think you need to educated on the Battle of the Black Sea (AKA: Battle of Mogadishu)...

#1 - The mission that resulted in the October 3rd engagement was NOT a "peacekeeping" mission...it was a raid mission to grab two of Gen Adid's lackey-boys and some other losers...

#2 - They WERE there in sufficient numbers for the raid in question...Plus, if you knew much about Special Operations, often times it doesn't always come down to how many "Shooters"...

#3 - ROE (rules of engagement) was once fired upon, "GAME ON" (the gloves come off)...

#4 - Clinton wasn't even INFORMED that the raid that day was taking place...Gen Garrison acted on his authority, off of rapidly incoming G-2 ("intel" in media circles) and ordered the raid to go...

#5 - The main things Clinton did to undercut the guys on the ground was to limit the "footprint" and "mission creep" (IE: No AC 130 Gunships, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, etc)

.
 
I merely report the facts...

To those of you who did oppose the wasting of American lives in a politically motivated "peacekeeping" misuse of our soldiers - thank you. I too opposed Clinton's abuse of our military troops and assets.
If you're going to insist on using the term "Demosocialist"
The Democratic party is founded on socialist political philosophy and is loyal to socialism, not the Constitution, hence the term I use. I did not make it that way - I merely call it what it is. I merely report the facts - if you do not like the facts of the matter, that is your problem.
then I'll simply ignore anything further that you write.
Good.
#5 - The main things Clinton did to undercut the guys on the ground was to limit the "footprint" and "mission creep" (IE: No AC 130 Gunships, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, etc)
And by his ignorance and stupidity, Clinton is responsible for the unnecessary suffering and deaths of some of America's finest. A pair of AC130s would have made all the difference and our men would have come home alive.
 
progunner1957, I'm still interested in hearing your opinion, I'm simply not interested in hearing hollow, unsubstantiated rhetoric and namecalling. So if you contend that Democrats, Clinton, and dissenters generally view American soldiers as an "expendable commodity," then you need to back your argument with some facts, because that is a very serious accusation.

You state and I quote:

Their actions give support to the enemy, plain and simple.

If it were that plain and simple, then we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

gc70, I like your comparison of Fonda and Murtha. Good point.
 
by weeg:
I think you need to educated on the Battle of the Black Sea (AKA: Battle of Mogadishu)...
Thank you for the education.

Since you appear to be interested in what happened in Mogadishu in 1993, you might want to read this Air Command and Staff College analysis.

You will find that the actions of Task Force Ranger were part of the peacekeeping and nationbuilding mandate of UNOSOM II (page 9).

You will also note that AC-130 gunships had been returned to Aviano by the local commander (page 10) and the commander's request for armor had been denied (page 11).

A the end of the day, we got our forces out of the ambush area by borrowing 4 tanks and 24 APCs from the Pakistanis and Malaysians.

My biggest problem was with Task Force Ranger's mission of trying to "arrest" Aidid so that the UN could have him put on trial. The military is structured to kill or defeat the enemy; police arrest bad guys.
 
Dissent should not be based upon falsehoods

Interestingly enough, the political heros in the Senate and House who claim we went to war based on Bush's lies, are the very ones who complained when the war began that the war was not occuring "on President Clinton's watch"!

Their reasoning was, "Clinton would have had the opportunity to show his leadership in a time of great crisis, which only presidents in time of war, can experience"!

Strange they now are so worried about the lives lost in a war they wanted to be in charge of in the first place, for the sole reason that they wanted their political stars to shine, instead of the other party's!

One of these politcial heros in the Senate who "changed" his mind and now claims Bush lied to get us into the war, said that although he voted to authorize military action in Iraq based on the same data that President Bush had, "Bush believed in it more"!

So this Senator admits he believes that Bush truly believed the intelligence data. But in the next breath he claims "Bush lied to get us into this war" based on the same data, and the interviewer fails to question him further.

It simply does not make any sense to classify that as "dissent". That, is simply prevarication at the highest obtainable level!

Another Senator claimed several months back, that the President had plotted the war purposefully, "along with several Businessmen down in Texas" in order to profit from the war.

But he never would name these "Businessmen" in Texas! If this Senator actually believed his own statement, then he had a duty sworn by oath of office, to expose them as traitors to this country.

After all, if he would spend time holding Senate hearings on something as lucicrous as baseball players taking steroids, I would really think he would want to look into something as important as committing treason by plotting a war for personal profit if he truly believed his own (apparantly rum-induced) statement.

Even more curious was the fact that not one newsperson ever asked him the very obvious question..."who are these plotters"? His statement was reported on ABC, NBC, CBS, and every radio station you can name, but these news hounds not once asked who these traitors were.

That is not honest dissent. It is just outright slander which encourages the enemy, and helps to lower public opinion.

A couple of days ago, these "dissenters" in the House were given an opportunity to vote on the very thing they demanded be done. Out of 433 of them, only three voted for what they were asking for. Small wonder that our kids look on politicians as liars. But it is a shame nonetheless.
 
I have no problem with dissent. I have no problem with people who want to change foreign policy, or how we use our military abroad. My problem is with people who call on congress to pass unconstitutional laws, like gun bans or anti-terror laws. For dissent on such issues to fall within free speech boundaries, it must call for a constitutional amendment rather than a federal or state law. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, it should be grounds for revocation of citizenship and deportation.

The constitution says nothing of who we can and can't go to war against, or why, only that Congress must declare war. It's failure to do so is a problem, but otherwise, there's no basis for prohibiting dissent. If some want us to invade North Korea, that may be foolish, but they're free to voice their opinion and try to get their senators to declare war. If some want to ban assault rifles or drugs, however, or authorize warrantless investigation into who checks out books or what financial transactions an individual engages in, and if those people call on their senators and reps to pass a federal law (rather than start the process for an amendment), that shows a basic lack of understanding of the Constitution, and should carry consequences.
 
1) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, how exactly does this work? Please provide specific examples.

2) If your contention is that dissent during time of war provides aid to the enemy, is it then your contention that such dissent is a punishable offense to the same degree that providing actual aid in the form of arms or money is an offense? If so, what legal vehicles are you espousing for the prosecution of such offenses?


I am sure the youngsters don't remember the VietNam war and all that went on at home but a study of those events will tell you how dissent in all its forms affected the war effort.Riots and bombings in 1968 almost destroyed America. This dissent was written about by Communist Generals as to what made them hold on with the fight rather than seek peace.

(This running from Vietnam is still brought up by our enemies and if the dissent becomes louder then the terrorist will hold on longer.)

America was a real mess from the anti war protest and it got so carried away that bloodshed was common place. There were alot of reasons for all this to happen then and none of which hold true NOW. IMHO those dissenters now are in general either pawns of the left seeking power or Bush haters.

What brings me to this conclusion is the end of the war and it's outcome. If we win this part of the war on terror then the American people will be safer and we will have a good ally in the middle east to promote democracy and freedom.

Who would be the losers if we defeat terrorism in IRAQ? Of course the democrat party would as they have shown dissent against us winng and would rather cut and run. Plus the democrats have the most to gain should we lose as the politics from defeat would change the political scope of America.

As for traitors, we have laws on the books now but none to enforce them.

And when did this conflict begin?



IIRC, the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.


I think you will find that the war against Sadam started back in the early 90s and what we have now is the finish of our effort against him. A plus along the way is the destruction of terrorist that have gathered to oppose us.

25
 
"Why? Two reasons: 1- Because that military action was ordered by Bill Clinton, who in the minds of the "dissenters" and other Demosocialists can do no wrong. And, 2- these so-called Americans view soldiers as an expendable commodity, just like Bill clinton did and does.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/analysis14.asp

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/garrison.asp

"As U.N. efforts to grab Aidid met with one failure after the next, frustration mounted. The plan to attack the Abdi House reflected that. The Turkish commander of U.N. troops, Gen. Cevik Bir, and his second, U.S. Army Gen. Thomas Montgomery, wanted to attack without warning in an effort to chop off the head of Aidid's organization.

When Howe proposed issuing a warning, or just storming the building, he was told that such approaches would subject the attackers to unacceptable risks. The Quick Reaction Force, Gen. Montgomery's 10th Mountain Division that was in Mogadishu as a reserve to aid U.N. forces in trouble, lacked the capability to perform the kind of snatch-and-grab tactics used by Delta Forces. Approval for the assault was obtained from the Pentagon and White House.

It was the deaths of four Western journalists who raced to the scene of the June 5 attack that dominated news the next day. But the outraged Somalian mob that killed them was just a reflection of the anger in Mogadishu. The vicious helicopter attack greatly bolstered Aidid's status, and bloodied the image of the United Nations in Somalia and around the world.

From the Habr Gidr's perspective, the United Nations and, in particular, the United States, had declared war.

Howe kept pushing for Delta, and he had allies. Madeleine K. Albright, the ambassador to the United Nations, had just visited Somalia weeks before, and she favored the move. So did Secretary of State Warren Christopher and U.S. envoy Robert Gosende. The Central Intelligence Agency believed the plan would work. Lake, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Samuel R. Berger, now supported it as well.

In August, when remote-controlled land mines first killed four American soldiers and then, two weeks later, injured seven more, even Powell approved. Vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, President Clinton assented. Delta would go. Aidid became America's white whale.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firimbi was a big man for a Somali, tall with long arms and big hands. He had a pot belly, and squinted through thick, black-framed glasses. He was warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid's ``propaganda minister.'' Once Aidid's men had purchased Durant back from the bandits who had kidnapped him, Firimbi was put in charge of his safekeeping.

He was told, ``If any harm comes to the pilot, the same shall be done to you.''

The White House was in trouble. The day after the Oct. 3, 1993, Battle of Mogadishu, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren Christopher had been grilled by angry members of Congress. How had this happened? Why were American soldiers dying in far-off Somalia?

These were the same questions that Clinton was asking his aides. Until this raid, Clinton had been briefed on missions in advance. This one had been mounted so quickly he had not been informed. He complained bitterly to Lake. He felt he had been blindsided, and he was angry. He wanted answers to a broad range of questions from policy to military tactics.

FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR to Somalia Robert Oakley was at a party at the Syrian Embassy in Washington on Oct. 5 when he got a phone call from the White House. It was Anthony Lake, national security adviser to President Clinton.

``I need to talk to you first thing in the morning,'' Lake said.

``Why, Tony?'' Oakley said. ``I've been home for six months.''

Oakley, a gaunt, plainspoken intellectual with a distinguished career in diplomacy, had been President George Bush's top civilian in Mogadishu during the humanitarian mission that had begun the previous December and eventually ended the famine. He had left in March along with 20,000 Marines.

Since his return, Oakley had watched with dismay the course of events in Mogadishu. Despite his long experience there, no one from the White House or State Department had consulted him.

``Can you come to breakfast tomorrow at 7:30?'' Lake asked.

The White House was in trouble. The day after the Oct. 3, 1993, Battle of Mogadishu, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren Christopher had been grilled by angry members of Congress. How had this happened? Why were American soldiers dying in far-off Somalia?

Oakley was dispatched to Mogadishu to deliver this message and to try to secure the release of Durant.

There would be no negotiating with Aidid. Oakley was instructed to deliver a stern message: The President of the United States wanted the pilot released. Now.

Oakley was careful to say, ``This is not a threat,'' but then he laid out a chilling scenario. He offered it as friendly advice.

``I have no plan for this, and I'll do everything I can to prevent it, but what will happen if a few weeks go by and Mr. Durant is not released? Not only will you lose any credit you may get now, but we will decide that we have to rescue him. I guarantee you we are not going to pay or trade for him in any way, shape or form. . . .

``So what we'll decide is we have to rescue him, and whether we have the right place or the wrong place, there's going to be a fight with your people. The minute the guns start again, all restraint on the U.S. side goes. Just look at the stuff coming in here now. An aircraft carrier, tanks, gunships . . . the works. Once the fighting starts, all this pent-up anger is going to be released. This whole part of the city will be destroyed, men, women, children, camels, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys, everything. . . . That would really be tragic for all of us, but that's what will happen.''

The Somalis delivered his message and ``friendly advice'' to Aidid, in hiding, who offered to hand the pilot right over. Oakley asked them to delay for a few hours to give him time to leave the country. He told them to turn Durant over to Howe, and he flew back to Washington.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin L. Powell, who had approved sending Task Force Ranger to Mogadishu, said in an interview this year: ``Bad things happen in war. Nobody did anything wrong militarily in Mogadishu. They had a bad afternoon. No one expected a large number of soldiers to get killed. Is 18 a large number? People didn't start noticing in Vietnam until it was 500 a week.''
 
GS70:

"You will find that the actions of Task Force Ranger were part of the peacekeeping and nationbuilding mandate of UNOSOM II (page 9)."

---------------------------------

Actually Tactical SITREPs and a piece of UN paper are way different.

The Ranger Regiment is NOT SET UP TO DO "peacekeeping" operations at all...


:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top