I'm not talking about being afraid to voice an opinion. I'm talking about people not voicing those opinions because the best thing for our country and Iraq right now is not to prematurely withdraw. Yes, and? I said it was a left leaning board. As I said above: I'm not talking about being afraid to voice an opinion. I'm talking about people not voicing those opinions because the best thing for our country and Iraq right now is not to prematurely withdraw. Interesting that you think its just a Bush Aministration red herring. That's why the article at the beginning of this thread is relevant. Al Queda is devoting resources to this. They just announced it. Its not an idea that has no basis in fact. Or at least no one seems to dispute that more dissent puts more pressure for withdraw. Its why anti-war people express dissent, right? What the hell happened to 'be civil?'
So now it is best in your vision of America for the majority to just shut up and let the President and the government fight a war that a majority are against as they do not see it as necessary for the defense of the country? What a bizarre idea. I doubt the Founders had this in mind. You are sacrificing the very idea of democracy and America on behalf of your obsessive support of this war. By the way are you one of those people who doesn't think the war is worthwhile, but is not voicing this opinion?
I thought Al-Queda lived in caves. Where are all these computers coming from? Maybe it's not Al Queda?
Hmmm, i don't know if my vision includes EVERYONE shutting up...although a name or two comes to mind . Democracy is about HAVING the choice. If we recognize that open dissent on the war issue is worse than not - we can CHOOSE not to. That's not some chilling of democracy - it IS democracy. They probably buy online from Dell.
So, how much do you think an Al-Qaida computer specialist is getting paid? Are they too affected by the outsourcing phenomenon?
But what you're advocating then is self-censorship and I would go even further and say hypocrasy. The nature of democracy is that if there is enough dissent then policy is affected. What you're saying is that people who believe that a policy is wrong they should keep quiet because even though you recognize they might make some good points is that overall the policy is good. The problem is that they don't believe the policy is good at all and under a democracy they have the right to speak out. In a democratic system silence does mean consent.
What I'm saying is that the people who are against (insert here - Bush, the original justifications for the war, the actual intervention etc) but realize that RIGHT NOW a rapid pullout is the worst outcome - should consider whether or not their dissent is worth it AT THIS TIME. There is nothing anti-democratic about that. It seems like you and others assume that because you HAVE a choice in a democracy to dissent, you should necessarily do so on every issue at every turn or be a hypocrite. I think that's silly. CHOICE is the key in democracy.
Sorry Hayes I wasn't calling you a hypocrite just saying that I believe in a democracy if someone doesn't agree with a policy but remains silent they are essentially consenting which IMO is hypocrisy since even though you oppose the policy you are doing nothing to address it. Again I think I follow what you're saying but I respectfully disagree. You're correct that the nature of democracy is choice but what empowers democracy is the ability to make a choice to dissent against the accepted policy of the government. To the point that the government says, "I know you don't like this but go along with it because by speaking out against it is hurting our cause" Is a choice but its one where you've voluntarily surrendered the right to dissent. That is hypocrisy because the nature of democracy is that the government governs by the consent of the people. If you don't consent to what the government is doing I would say its your imperative to let them know. Especially in times of great trial because that is the only way that democracy can be tested about its ideals. In regard to the specific situation. I'm one of those I think you are referring to. I disagreed with going to Iraq but feel that a rapid haphazard withdrawl is a terrible idea. In that respect I'm not silencing myself because I think my dissent will harm the cause. I agree, to an extant, with staying the course and will say so. That doesn't mean that I won't say that I think the Admin could be doing a much better job. That just means that I agree we shouldn't quickly withdraw. For people who disagree with that position I wouldn't ask them to silence themselves because that is what they believe and they don't accept that they are hurting the cause in the first place. I would rather work to convince them why the cause, in this case not withdrawing from Iraq, is a good idea than just expect them to accept that just because we say it is so it is so. Its a matter of trying to win people over than just telling them to be quiet.
