Kerry insults every man and woman in uniform

[Wisha Haddan H3]

This is a good debate. I see good points all around and some I disagree with, and that's cool. I love that we can disagree with the politicians and not get arrested, kidnapped or put on a death list.

That's the best thing about America ... we're free to think what we want and speak our mind. We can consider all sides of an issue and make our own decisions with information from a variety of sources. It's our right and responsibility to listen to different points of view and agree or disagree as we see fit.

But to oppress or ban opposing viewpoints is the road to totalitarianism. Dictatorships are full of blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves, use only one source of information and follow a single-minded ideology. That path leads to the antithesis of democracy and freedom - fascism, jihad, and crusade.

There's a difference between "majority rules" and "might makes right". Even within a democracy, when people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology, they disrespect what democracy exists for. Ultimately, although the US was founded with a political structure of checks, balances and democracy, it's only as democratic as the people who think for themselves, stay informed, consider opposing viewpoints, make up their own mind and vote their own conscience. Anything else is the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

... But to oppress or ban opposing viewpoints is the road to totalitarianism. Dictatorships are full of blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves, use only one source of information and follow a single-minded ideology. That path leads to the antithesis of democracy and freedom - fascism, jihad, and crusade.

There's a difference between "majority rules" and "might makes right". Even within a democracy, when people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology, they disrespect what democracy exists for. Ultimately, although the US was founded with a political structure of checks, balances and democracy, it's only as democratic as the people who think for themselves, stay informed, consider opposing viewpoints, make up their own mind and vote their own conscience. Anything else is the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

This is such crap. Just because we disagree with the lefties who ARE NOT in the White House, and instead agree on many issues with our President, doesn't mean that we are "blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves." I, and I assume most who agree with Bush's foreign policy, have thought their opinions through very carefully and intelligently. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are "people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology."

By the way: That arrogant (yet oddly stupid) theory is mostly unique to the liberal/Democrat crowd. When Clinton was in office, many conservatives dramatically disagreed with his policies and his followers. Nevertheless, I can't recall any significant number of conservatives moronically claiming that the liberals were heading us to Dictatorship because they were “blindly following” the man. We just disagreed with them and said so. It’s a poor substitute for a real argument to simply accuse people who don’t accept your views as “oppressors.”

By the way #2: The slippery slope argument is one of the most overused, overextended metaphors. Success in life is basically all about moderation and focus. The former concept defies the slippery slope concept altogether. It can be applied to anything, and usually is in a paranoid result-oriented manner:

- If we ban porn in the elementary schools, pretty soon, they’ll be coming after our political speech.

- If someone criticizes my venomous attacks on President Bush, they will soon be sending me to a concentration camp.

Slippery slopes are not that slippery.

For example, most people, including me, condemn the Japanese internments. But you cannot make a case that it paved the way for other such transgressions. If it set any precedent at all it set trends in the opposite direction. In 1988, the United States Congress formally apologized for the internment and appropriated money to compensate the 60,000 survivors. The same thing holds true for pretty much every such civil-liberties "outrage" in American history. Habeas corpus was reinstated after the Civil War and, over the next 150 year, became an even stricter legal standard. After all of the revelations of the 1960s and 1970s about wiretaps and secret files, Congress made it more, not less, difficult to abuse the civil rights of citizens.

This exposes the main flaw with slippery-slope arguments. Much like conspiracy theories, they reflect more imagination and less hard thinking than usually required. When we go "too far" one way, we are more likely to swing back the other way than to keep sliding in the wrong direction. It's called the law of unintended consequences. FDR may have been right or wrong when he used military tribunal for icing a few Nazi spies, but that's a stand-alone argument; it didn't launch any long-term authoritarian trend.

So, if you're going to get mad when people reject your attacks on our President or even your “mindless following” of Ted Kennedy,” that's perfectly legitimate. But please bring something more to the table than a slippery-slope argument — because we've been sliding uphill for more than two centuries.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Much like conspiracy theories, they reflect more imagination and less hard thinking than usually required.

Could this be why so many artistic types are liberal....... hmmm.





MH, instead of the Marine Corps, you should have gone to law school and sought the attorney's path and not the loser military path. As a Marine, you make a very convincing counselor.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Could this be why so many artistic types are liberal....... hmmm.
MH, instead of the Marine Corps, you should have gone to law school and sought the attorney's path and not the loser military path. As a Marine, you make a very convincing counselor.

You know, I thought about it, but as a Lance Corporal in the Corps in 1990, I quickly grew to realize that my mild retardation would never permit me even to get a GED, much less a law degree. Now, I'm stuck in Iraq with all those other mentally and morally inferior types.

[Mr. I - Man]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

You know, I thought about it, but as a Lance Corporal in the Corps in 1990, I quickly grew to realize that my mild retardation would never permit me even to get a GED, much less a law degree. Now, I'm stuck in Iraq with all those other mentally and morally inferior types.

I would have been stuck in Iraq as well, but I was late and missed the yellow short bus that morning.

[wpage]

Both Kerry and Murtha need to spend a night sleeping out on the ground wondering if someone is going to kill them while they slumber. Evidently they have forgotten thier bretheren in arms.
The Jihadists are loving it!
Being in the line of fire is no joke!

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

You know, I thought about it, but as a Lance Corporal in the Corps in 1990, I quickly grew to realize that my mild retardation would never permit me even to get a GED, much less a law degree. Now, I'm stuck in Iraq with all those other mentally and morally inferior types.

Wow, did you go through MCRDPI? If so, when and what platoon?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Wow, did you go through MCRDPI? If so, when and what platoon?

Sand Diego (didn't have to deal with all of the sand fleas). March-July 1990. Mike Company for the first 2-1/2 months until i broke my 3rd metatarsal in my left foot, which sent me to MRP for 4-1/2 weeks, then back out to India Company. I can't remember which platoons in Mike and India. Suffice it to say it was either First, Second, or Third. When I went in, I consoled my mother: "Don't worry, they haven't deployed the Marine Reserves in wartime since 1945."

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

This is such crap. Just because we disagree with the lefties who ARE NOT in the White House, and instead agree on many issues with our President, doesn't mean that we are "blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves." I, and I assume most who agree with Bush's foreign policy, have thought their opinions through very carefully and intelligently. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are "people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology."

I see your point MarineHawk. I didn't say that everyone who agrees with the current administration is blind or hasn't thought it through, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that too many political activists (on both the right and left) are uninformed followers who don't think for themselves but are all too willing to shut down any other point of view.

I also didn't say (or mean) that the GOP is leading us down the road to totalitarianism. It's not one party or the other that flushes democracy down the toilet ... it's disrespect for differing points of view and refusal to seek common ground. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone, I love a well-spoken rational argument because there's always something new to learn or consider. Whether I change my mind or not, I'm better off because I've thought about an issue in a new way.

True, the "slippery slope" is an overused metaphor. In this context, I am saying that anyone who thinks they are infallibly right and refuses to hear other points of view (because "all liberals are commies" or "all conservatives are nazis") is on dangerous ground. When this happens in politics (right or left) and the opposition is silenced, it can lead to totalitarianism.

The best way to preserve democracy and find workable compromise is to examine opposing points of view. It allows us to see all sides of an issue and reminds us that we don't know everything. If we unilaterally shut down everyone who disagrees with us regardless of their reasoning or politics, we are opposing the nature of democracy.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

btw, I haven't attacked the President and I'm not angry about anything. and I already posted that Kerry was wrong for saying that about the troops.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I see your point MarineHawk. I didn't say that everyone who agrees with the current administration is blind or hasn't thought it through, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that too many political activists (on both the right and left) are uninformed followers who don't think for themselves but are all too willing to shut down any other point of view.

I also didn't say (or mean) that the GOP is leading us down the road to totalitarianism. It's not one party or the other that flushes democracy down the toilet ... it's disrespect for differing points of view and refusal to seek common ground. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone, I love a well-spoken rational argument because there's always something new to learn or consider. Whether I change my mind or not, I'm better off because I've thought about an issue in a new way.

True, the "slippery slope" is an overused metaphor. In this context, I am saying that anyone who thinks they are infallibly right and refuses to hear other points of view (because "all liberals are commies" or "all conservatives are nazis") is on dangerous ground. When this happens in politics (right or left) and the opposition is silenced, it can lead to totalitarianism.

The best way to preserve democracy and find workable compromise is to examine opposing points of view. It allows us to see all sides of an issue and reminds us that we don't know everything. If we unilaterally shut down everyone who disagrees with us regardless of their reasoning or politics, we are opposing the nature of democracy.

Fair enough. From my own perspective though, I believe that, when our country goes to war, for those who really care about our troops and/or about the security of our nation, it's the time when we most need to give our C-in-C the most support at least on that mission.

I assume most of the people who are attacking Bush in these circumstances don't realize what damage they are doing. I also assume that, if they did, some of them might stop.

One of the few real similarities between this war and Vietnam is that the enemy(ies) are very much encouraged by our internal divisiveness brought on by the left. This helps their morale, makes them braver and more hopeful. It also hurts our troops’ morale. Morale in combat really is one of the few most important variables in determining outcome and how many of one side’s troops live or die or get injured. This is why the idea of supporting the troops but deriding the mission does not work. No Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman wants to risk his or her life to fight and win a stupid, evil war. I experienced this first hand. In 1991, our morale, and thus our combat effectiveness, was extremely high, mostly because the nation was, with the exception of a very small minority, very united behind the mission. This really fueled our ability to deal with hardship and fear. We believed we were fighting for something important. Once enough citizens start saying (ultimately to our troops) that their mission is stupid, you kill their morale, and ultimately make their job much more difficult and deadly.

I'm not partisan on this issue. I thought that the GOP's worst hour since Watergate was in April 1999, when only a few Republicans would just come out and unequivocally support the war in Kosovo. Most of them were playing politics and stating the same old "support the troops, but not necessarily the mission" crap. McCain (who I'm not terribly fond of as a politician) was to his credit one of the exceptions. As much as I really hated Clinton, I just wanted the GOP to say, on Kosovo, we support you without qualification whether or not we would have made the same decision. The failure to do so back then was compounded by the fact that we had a weak President, who, out of fear of unpopularity, actually told our enemies that we would not use ground troops under any circumstances—thus iolating one of the most basic rules of warfare--don't tell your enemies your limitations. If Clinton, having no intention of using them, had deployed two armored divisions in Macedonia, before he began the bombing. Milosevic would have caved in five minutes. Perhaps Clinton would have done this if he had had a blank check from the GOP. It would have made us stronger and our troops safer.

The same is true now, except that the consequences are much, much more severe. If we lose in Iraq, we're screwed. If we win, al Qaeda is screwed. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Kosovo or Iraq, but neither one are evil wars whereby we are slaughtering innocent people for our own gain. There are, at least, legitimate reasons for both campaigns. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that, by supporting those either of those wars (or at least not attacking our C-in-C) that we are facilitating the path toward an evil Hitlerian state. It just means we will win the war more quickly. It really has an effect. The growing dissension on this war is simply encouraging our enemies and weakening our forces. It's bad for the country. Sure, anyone who wants to attack Bush on the war has the right to do so. I just think it’s not necessarily wise to exercise that right no venomously. Even worse, few Dems will ever concede that, of which I am convinced (partly because I agree with him), that Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing and that then simply disagree with his policies. Instead, they accuse him of all kinds of evil motives. This makes any constructive debate impossible.

I wish the Dems would just say: "Bush we disagree with every domestic decision you have ever made, but we will support you in this war [that they voted for when it was in their political interests] and will help you win it as quickly and decisively as possible." It's what the GOP should have done in 1999, and it's what the Dems should do now. As a byproduct, if they had been taking this posture, IMO, they would have won a lot more elections in the last few years.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Fair enough. From my own perspective though, I believe that, when our country goes to war, for those who really care about our troops and/or about the security of our nation, it's the time when we most need to give our C-in-C the most support at least on that mission.

I assume most of the people who are attacking Bush in these circumstances don't realize what damage they are doing. I also assume that, if they did, some of them might stop.

One of the few real similarities between this war and Vietnam is that the enemy(ies) are very much encouraged by our internal divisiveness brought on by the left. This helps their morale, makes them braver and more hopeful. It also hurts our troops’ morale. Morale in combat really is one of the few most important variables in determining outcome and how many of one side’s troops live or die or get injured. This is why the idea of supporting the troops but deriding the mission does not work. No Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman wants to risk his or her life to fight and win a stupid, evil war. I experienced this first hand. In 1991, our morale, and thus our combat effectiveness, was extremely high, mostly because the nation was, with the exception of a very small minority, very united behind the mission. This really fueled our ability to deal with hardship and fear. We believed we were fighting for something important. Once enough citizens start saying (ultimately to our troops) that their mission is stupid, you kill their morale, and ultimately make their job much more difficult and deadly.

I'm not partisan on this issue. I thought that the GOP's worst hour since Watergate was in April 1999, when only a few Republicans would just come out and unequivocally support the war in Kosovo. Most of them were playing politics and stating the same old "support the troops, but not necessarily the mission" crap. McCain (who I'm not terribly fond of as a politician) was to his credit one of the exceptions. As much as I really hated Clinton, I just wanted the GOP to say, on Kosovo, we support you without qualification whether or not we would have made the same decision. The failure to do so back then was compounded by the fact that we had a weak President, who, out of fear of unpopularity, actually told our enemies that we would not use ground troops under any circumstances—thus iolating one of the most basic rules of warfare--don't tell your enemies your limitations. If Clinton, having no intention of using them, had deployed two armored divisions in Macedonia, before he began the bombing. Milosevic would have caved in five minutes. Perhaps Clinton would have done this if he had had a blank check from the GOP. It would have made us stronger and our troops safer.

The same is true now, except that the consequences are much, much more severe. If we lose in Iraq, we're screwed. If we win, al Qaeda is screwed. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Kosovo or Iraq, but neither one are evil wars whereby we are slaughtering innocent people for our own gain. There are, at least, legitimate reasons for both campaigns. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that, by supporting those either of those wars (or at least not attacking our C-in-C) that we are facilitating the path toward an evil Hitlerian state. It just means we will win the war more quickly. It really has an effect. The growing dissension on this war is simply encouraging our enemies and weakening our forces. It's bad for the country. Sure, anyone who wants to attack Bush on the war has the right to do so. I just think it’s not necessarily wise to exercise that right no venomously. Even worse, few Dems will ever concede that, of which I am convinced (partly because I agree with him), that Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing and that then simply disagree with his policies. Instead, they accuse him of all kinds of evil motives. This makes any constructive debate impossible.

I wish the Dems would just say: "Bush we disagree with every domestic decision you have ever made, but we will support you in this war [that they voted for when it was in their political interests] and will help you win it as quickly and decisively as possible." It's what the GOP should have done in 1999, and it's what the Dems should do now. As a byproduct, if they had been taking this posture, IMO, they would have won a lot more elections in the last few years.

x2

Very well said.


Also,

It's not a matter of want to silence. It's a matter of one should have respect to silence one's own self out of respect of the men and women, not only in combat, but those supporting them and those that are their family and friends.

I still hold that it is a hugely bold and at the same time ignorant stance to assume one has the knowledge to properly voice their dissention to something as large as war. We elect officials to make decisions that are important for the welfare of our country. They make those decisions based on information that only they have at the time and we, as citizens do not deserve to receive as it will undermine security. For one to assume you can intelligently argue the rights and wrongs of entering and/or the direction of a war without real facts, is simply zealous to the point that one's own words become more important that the actual facts.

This is what's happening with all of the war dissenters. Not only do they have short-term memory loss, they are jumping to conclusions without any real facts and doing that in the media. This in turn gets blasted in front of the troops, their family and friends and it undermines moral. It gets shown all over the enemy's airwaves and emboldens them because they realize all they have to do is make it costly, not win the war, just make it costly and the US will leave when the next election comes. That's the way it worked before.

[h2co-pilot]

"The Paper Tiger"

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows……would run in defeat.”

"We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993)."

- Osama Bin Laden in the 90's

[MarineHawk]

Similarly, in his 1996 Ladenese Epistle Fatwa, bin Laden stated:

... Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order-you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terroris...atwa_1996.html

Same is true now, if he hadn't fought in Iraq or if we allow ourselves to be defeated, we will be facing encouraged, stronger Islamic extremist enemies for many years to come. Now (actually, it was years ago) is the time to come together, unite and finish this war with a win.

[GeorgeSSSS]

John Kerry is the only American military member to ever have part of an enemy's military museum dedicated to him. The Vietnamese military museum in Hanoi has a section dedicated to Kerry and Jane Fonda explaining how they helped (then) North Vietnam prevail by damaging morale in the U.S. The Tet offensive was a military disaster for the North, but Kerry and Fonda (with the help of Walter Cronkite) turned it into a success by convincing people that the fact it was tried meant North Vietnam was invincible. If you think I'm making that up, check it out for yourself.

Kerry is a traitor, elitist, and gigolo.

And now he's at it again.