America at War: Then and Now

winginitx

Inquisitor
Oct 15, 2008
197
10
USA - Chicago
✟15,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As political opportunists now reach the pinnacle of their loathing for former President Bush and seek criminal charges against his administration, it saddens me to think how Americans have such a short memory that it doesn’t remember who we are as a nation, how wars are fought and won and the level of sacrifice we endured to fight evil.

I remember reading how audiences greeted President Roosevelt with thunderous applause when wartime newsreels were run at the start of movies in theaters. The country was resolute against evil and its foreign manifestation. Kids in elementary school brought in the tin foil from the parents cigarette packs, used household grease and stacks of newspapers – all for the war effort. Media or activist outcries would have been un-American at the very least.
We now complain of gas prices, but back then there was not a national outcry when gasoline was rationed. We idolize Ferragamo shoes now but I wonder how we would feel if we, like then, had to use shoe-rationing stamps to buy even the most basic of footwear. Rationing stamps of different colors were needed as well for household staples such as butter, meat and most groceries. Still, no media or activist group outcry.
Civilian air-raid wardens were given practically carte-blanch authority and nary a peep from nare-do-wells and do-gooders. No one cried of the “injustice of it all.” Most folks of that generation had Victory Gardens and grew what they could in their own backyards.
This was war, and freedom and liberty were threatened. Proportionality and political correctness in battle were foreign terms to those with the will to win. We laid waste to towns and cities with little restraint. We had to…this was war. The media of a by-gone era called them the Greatest Generation….and they were right.
These were no United Nations for Hitler and the Japanese Emperor to curry favor and strike alliances with. The American media recognized that they were Americans first, reporters second and knew that living under a different nations’ flag, their hands would never be allowed to hold freedoms’ pen….if they were to hold anything ever again.
President Obama now wants to have discourse with our enemies, not heeding the lessons of the past – some not so distant. Just a cursory study of history would have yielded a well-worn pattern of deception and appeasement:

In 1995, the Dayton Accords were signed by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to bring an end to their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Milosevic then moved his killing spree to Kosovo, which killed thousands and created over a million refugees.

Discussion and appeasement in 1994 heralded an agreement with North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program to the delight of U.S. politicians. North Korea officials admitted eight years later that they never observed that agreement and produced nuclear weapons.

Remember Arafat on the south lawn of the White House in 1993 signing the Oslo Accords which promised peace in exchange for Israel giving up land? For all that discussion - Arafat, and later Hamas - returned intifadas, terrorism and constant violence.

Iraq agreed with the U.N. enforced No-Fly Zone over northern Iraq, subject to inspection by coalition aircraft in 1991. Violating that agreement, Iraq constantly attacked the inspection aircraft supporting that effort which Iraq agreed to.

Discussion and diplomacy in 1973 with North Vietnam resulted in the Paris Peace Accords promising an end to aggression. Twenty-seven months after that brilliant peace of discussion, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam.

Discussion in 1972 led to an agreement with Brezhnev of the Soviet Union called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The first of many violations was when the Soviets deployed a prohibited phased array radar station near Krasnoyarsk.

North Korea was once only a threat to its democratic neighbor South Korea during the 1953 negotiations with United Stated leading that discussion through the United Nations. Now, nuclear-armed North Korea is a world-wide threat and the world can only watch while they starve their population.

President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill tried diplomacy with Joseph Stalin and signed the Yalta Agreements which promised the world that countries under Soviet control would be given democratic governments. Civilians were enslaved from that point on.

War-time Presidents understood what Thomas Jefferson meant when he stated that “…self-preservation is paramount to all laws.” True leaders know that, unlike in peace, war sometimes necessitates the temporary suspension of some freedoms. How would the ACLU and hand-wringing activist groups respond to the closing down of media outlets unfriendly to the war; or the suspension of habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a court as soon as possible); re-location camps and the registration and arresting of thousands of aliens; or the imprisonment of those speaking against our involvement?

These were not pleasant things, but all these thinkg occurred in the United States of America. The difference between “us and them” is that these measures are stopped when the war is won and over
How soon we forget.........

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]
 
Last edited:

Joachim

The flag is a protest for state flags
Jan 14, 2009
1,931
119
Bob Riley is my governor
✟10,203.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
As political opportunists now reach the pinnacle of their loathing for former President Bush and seek criminal charges against his administration, it saddens me to think how Americans have such a short memory that it doesn’t remember who we are as a nation, how wars are fought and won and the level of sacrifice we endured to fight evil.

I remember reading how audiences greeted President Roosevelt with thunderous applause when wartime newsreels were run at the start of movies in theaters. The country was resolute against evil and its foreign manifestation. Kids in elementary school brought in the tin foil from the parents cigarette packs, used household grease and stacks of newspapers – all for the war effort. Media or activist outcries would have been un-American at the very least.
We now complain of gas prices, but back then there was not a national outcry when gasoline was rationed. We idolize Ferragamo shoes now but I wonder how we would feel if we, like then, had to use shoe-rationing stamps to buy even the most basic of footwear. Rationing stamps of different colors were needed as well for household staples such as butter, meat and most groceries. Still, no media or activist group outcry.
Civilian air-raid wardens were given practically carte-blanch authority and nary a peep from nare-do-wells and do-gooders. No one cried of the “injustice of it all.” Most folks of that generation had Victory Gardens and grew what they could in their own backyards.
This was war, and freedom and liberty were threatened. Proportionality and political correctness in battle were foreign terms to those with the will to win. We laid waste to towns and cities with little restraint. We had to…this was war. The media of a by-gone era called them the Greatest Generation….and they were right.
These were no United Nations for Hitler and the Japanese Emperor to curry favor and strike alliances with. The American media recognized that they were Americans first, reporters second and knew that living under a different nations’ flag, their hands would never be allowed to hold freedoms’ pen….if they were to hold anything ever again.
President Obama now wants to have discourse with our enemies, not heeding the lessons of the past – some not so distant. Just a cursory study of history would have yielded a well-worn pattern of deception and appeasement:

In 1995, the Dayton Accords were signed by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to bring an end to their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Milosevic then moved his killing spree to Kosovo, which killed thousands and created over a million refugees.

Discussion and appeasement in 1994 heralded an agreement with North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program to the delight of U.S. politicians. North Korea officials admitted eight years later that they never observed that agreement and produced nuclear weapons.

Remember Arafat on the south lawn of the White House in 1993 signing the Oslo Accords which promised peace in exchange for Israel giving up land? For all that discussion - Arafat, and later Hamas - returned intifadas, terrorism and constant violence.

Iraq agreed with the U.N. enforced No-Fly Zone over northern Iraq, subject to inspection by coalition aircraft in 1991. Violating that agreement, Iraq constantly attacked the inspection aircraft supporting that effort which Iraq agreed to.

Discussion and diplomacy in 1973 with North Vietnam resulted in the Paris Peace Accords promising an end to aggression. Twenty-seven months after that brilliant peace of discussion, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam.

Discussion in 1972 led to an agreement with Brezhnev of the Soviet Union called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The first of many violations was when the Soviets deployed a prohibited phased array radar station near Krasnoyarsk.

North Korea was once only a threat to its democratic neighbor South Korea during the 1953 negotiations with United Stated leading that discussion through the United Nations. Now, nuclear-armed North Korea is a world-wide threat and the world can only watch while they starve their population.

President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill tried diplomacy with Joseph Stalin and signed the Yalta Agreements which promised the world that countries under Soviet control would be given democratic governments. Civilians were enslaved from that point on.

War-time Presidents understood what Thomas Jefferson meant when he stated that “…self-preservation is paramount to all laws.” True leaders know that, unlike in peace, war sometimes necessitates the temporary suspension of some freedoms. How would the ACLU and hand-wringing activist groups respond to the closing down of media outlets unfriendly to the war; or the suspension of habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a court as soon as possible); re-location camps and the registration and arresting of thousands of aliens; or the imprisonment of those speaking against our involvement?

These were not pleasant things, but all these thinkg occurred in the United States of America. The difference between “us and them” is that these measures are stopped when the war is won and over
How soon we forget.........

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]


This might be a good time to focus on the war crimes of the United States military that occurred during the War Between The States. In union occupied New Orleans a man named William Mumford lowered an American flag. He was executed for it.


Then there are the crimes of General Sherman's army, who went through Georgia committing acts that today would qualify as war crimes and where there were incidents of looting, murdering of civilians and rape. I think people need to concede that many of the north's supposed heroes from that war would be convicted under national law today. There is also the issue of the fact that Lincoln actually personally ordered numerous Confederate captives to be killed because it was a policy in Union prisons to kill Confederate soldiers, something which today would be recognized as a war crime.
 
Upvote 0

winginitx

Inquisitor
Oct 15, 2008
197
10
USA - Chicago
✟15,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Are you actually pining for the Good Old Days when you could bomb civilians to your heart's content and nobody thought it was wrong?

No actually. I think technology has advanced enough that we can take great strides toward reducing civilian causualties. But I do not think we as a nation should self-flaggelate ourselves when we do what is necessary to win a war.

Which I think is one reason why wars should be a rarity: Don't go to war, but if you do, be in it to win it.

I am, however, pining for the days when we supported our troops, cause and CIC, when, as a nation, we fight evil. Pres. Obama will certainly have my support in the case he decided to fight and win.
 
Upvote 0

PantsMcFist

Trying to get his head back under the clouds
Aug 16, 2006
722
58
41
Manitoba, Canada
✟16,177.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I think the US has squandered it's golden years on military glory. The vast economic power could have done so much more to combat oppression around the world, but instead spent it on an arms race. I think the same is true of the Soviet Union. So much potential for good, wasted on weapons and conflict.
 
Upvote 0

platzapS

Expanding Mind
Nov 12, 2002
3,572
300
33
Sunshine State
Visit site
✟5,263.00
Faith
Humanist
In WWII, global democracy faced an existential threat. Today we are the only superpower, and our biggest enemies are a few rogue states isolated by much of the rest of the world as well as some stateless militias and loose-knit organizations controlled from caves. The situations are incomparable.
 
Upvote 0

platzapS

Expanding Mind
Nov 12, 2002
3,572
300
33
Sunshine State
Visit site
✟5,263.00
Faith
Humanist
President Obama now wants to have discourse with our enemies, not heeding the lessons of the past – some not so distant. Just a cursory study of history would have yielded a well-worn pattern of deception and appeasement:
Discourse does not equal appeasement, and half the problem is people view places like Iran as some kind of evil empire, rather than another country in the community of nations that has great flaws but great opportunity for peaceful interaction with us, if we treat them with respect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ACougar
Upvote 0

winginitx

Inquisitor
Oct 15, 2008
197
10
USA - Chicago
✟15,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Discourse does not equal appeasement, and half the problem is people view places like Iran as some kind of evil empire, rather than another country in the community of nations that has great flaws but great opportunity for peaceful interaction with us, if we treat them with respect.

I think the above post makes my case about domestic naivete perfectly.
 
Upvote 0

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
Every once in awhile we do fight evil. But yet primarily we fight entities we no longer find useful to us and seem to be in our way.

The domestic naivete is thinking that we are always like this little kid happily whistling to ourselves with our hands in our pocets kicking pebbles on the corner minding our own business.

There is a reason why Americans have developed a distrust given the rational as why military adventures are inacted and take pause in support. This latest adventure sure didn't help.
 
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ehhhhh - your analogies between WWII and what's going on now are a little off the mark.

First of all - WWII had defined enemies that could *surrender*. Why did we defeat Germany? Because the Third Reich and the German people had an accepted hierarchy and leadership who could speak on behalf of the people. When they surrendered - the nation and party accepted their word as binding. Why did we defeat Japan? Because when Hirohito surrendered - the Japanese people accepted that word as binding.

Surrender meant the war was over.

There is no such hierarchy in this "war" - even if I'd be willing to grant you that word (because in truth - we're not at "war"). So long as someone is angry enough to buy a couple of pieces of dynamite and strap it to their chest - the "war" continues. So long as someone can build an IED - the "war" continues. So long as someone can shoot off a bottle rocket at an Israeli - the "war" continues. So long as someone hurls a rock - the "war" continues.

There is no-one to surrender. There is no leader that they accept as binding. We are not at "war" with a state...we're at "war" with general civilians angry enough to do something about their plight.

...and how do you win that kind of war? How do you win a war where surrender is impossible - and the "enemy" is fluid and ill defined? I will go out on a limb and say that you *cannot* win a war when your enemy are civilians. With that type of enemy - the only possible solutions are either to turn the people (diplomatically) or wage war on civilians (toward a course of genocide).

So - the types of warfare are completely different. It's sad that you cannot see the difference. I'd love to share a great kumbaya moment with you - and rally around the idea of self-sacrifice in the goal of winning a conflict...harkening back to olden times. However - common sense just gets in the way. It's not the same. We're not like my grandparents - waiting for Hitler and Hirohito to say "uncle".

...in fact - we're in a world where 6 months after 9/11 - your illustrious leader GWB said he didn't care much about Bin Laden - and gave very little thought to him.

How do you reconcile that with that kind of mindless post that you copied and pasted from who knows where (probably some Palin website or something...speaking of mindless drivel). How do you reconcile that GWB said - while the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh - that he didn't care much about the *LEADER* of the group that perpetrated 9/11?

You want to talk about the American psyche - and dischord in it? It's exactly for THOSE types of reasons that the dischord that you seem to abhor was created. How DARE Bush say he didn't care much about Bin Laden. How DARE he focus on Saddam Hussein instead. How DARE he take advantage of our collective righteous wound brought on by such a tragedy for his own political ends - leaving the true terrorists alone.

THAT is why the dischord exists. People feel taken advantage of.

Do you remember 9/12? I do. I remember Iranians holding candlelight vigils in condemnation of the tragedy at the WTC. I remember Americans feeling probably the most unified they had EVER felt since Pearl Harbor. I remember people wanting to sacrifice.

What did he tell us? To go shopping.

The events following 9/11 were SUCH a squandering of political capital that we could have used to mobilize the world (and our people) toward the truly righteous end of addressing terrorism...but instead of addressing terrorism...we addressed whatever axe there was to grind against Saddam Hussein.

The world knew it - and a lot of us knew it. While we were running around eating our "Freedom Fries" like fools and alienating the rest of the world (who had just days before been with us - and by the way - the French were right) - we were busy concocting "evidence" to invade Iraq. Most thoughtful people were sitting around saying "But what about the terrorists?"...and they were right.

This is the bed we have made. This is what happens when you conduct the wrong war - for the wrong reasons. The American people feel it. They did not rally around Roosevelt mindlessly simply because they were "Americans". They rallied around Roosevelt because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war against the Japanese. We didn't take that tragedy as an opportunity to go after the Chinese instead. The guilty were being punished. They rallied around us going to war with Germany - because Germany had declared war on America first.

That's the reasons for the dischord you're talking about. It's because of how we have mucked things up. We are no less patriotic now than we were then. Our Government is just a heck of a lot less honorable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CCGirl

Resident Commie
Sep 21, 2005
9,271
563
Canada
✟27,370.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Ehhhhh - your analogies between WWII and what's going on now are a little off the mark.

First of all - WWII had defined enemies that could *surrender*. Why did we defeat Germany? Because the Third Reich and the German people had an accepted hierarchy and leadership who could speak on behalf of the people. When they surrendered - the nation and party accepted their word as binding. Why did we defeat Japan? Because when Hirohito surrendered - the Japanese people accepted that word as binding.

Surrender meant the war was over.

There is no such hierarchy in this "war" - even if I'd be willing to grant you that word (because in truth - we're not at "war"). So long as someone is angry enough to buy a couple of pieces of dynamite and strap it to their chest - the "war" continues. So long as someone can build an IED - the "war" continues. So long as someone can shoot off a bottle rocket at an Israeli - the "war" continues. So long as someone hurls a rock - the "war" continues.

There is no-one to surrender. There is no leader that they accept as binding. We are not at "war" with a state...we're at "war" with general civilians angry enough to do something about their plight.

...and how do you win that kind of war? How do you win a war where surrender is impossible - and the "enemy" is fluid and ill defined? I will go out on a limb and say that you *cannot* win a war when your enemy are civilians. With that type of enemy - the only possible solutions are either to turn the people (diplomatically) or wage war on civilians (toward a course of genocide).

So - the types of warfare are completely different. It's sad that you cannot see the difference. I'd love to share a great kumbaya moment with you - and rally around the idea of self-sacrifice in the goal of winning a conflict...harkening back to olden times. However - common sense just gets in the way. It's not the same. We're not like my grandparents - waiting for Hitler and Hirohito to say "uncle".

...in fact - we're in a world where 6 months after 9/11 - your illustrious leader GWB said he didn't care much about Bin Laden - and gave very little thought to him.

How do you reconcile that with that kind of mindless post that you copied and pasted from who knows where (probably some Palin website or something...speaking of mindless drivel). How do you reconcile that GWB said - while the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh - that he didn't care much about the *LEADER* of the group that perpetrated 9/11?

You want to talk about the American psyche - and dischord in it? It's exactly for THOSE types of reasons that the dischord that you seem to abhor was created. How DARE Bush say he didn't care much about Bin Laden. How DARE he focus on Saddam Hussein instead. How DARE he take advantage of our collective righteous wound brought on by such a tragedy for his own political ends - leaving the true terrorists alone.

THAT is why the dischord exists. People feel taken advantage of.

Do you remember 9/12? I do. I remember Iranians holding candlelight vigils in condemnation of the tragedy at the WTC. I remember Americans feeling probably the most unified they had EVER felt since Pearl Harbor. I remember people wanting to sacrifice.

What did he tell us? To go shopping.

The events following 9/11 were SUCH a squandering of political capital that we could have used to mobilize the world (and our people) toward the truly righteous end of addressing terrorism...but instead of addressing terrorism...we addressed whatever axe there was to grind against Saddam Hussein.

The world knew it - and a lot of us knew it. While we were running around eating our "Freedom Fries" like fools and alienating the rest of the world (who had just days before been with us - and by the way - the French were right) - we were busy concocting "evidence" to invade Iraq. Most thoughtful people were sitting around saying "But what about the terrorists?"...and they were right.

This is the bed we have made. This is what happens when you conduct the wrong war - for the wrong reasons. The American people feel it. They did not rally around Roosevelt mindlessly simply because they were "Americans". They rallied around Roosevelt because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war against the Japanese. We didn't take that tragedy as an opportunity to go after the Chinese instead. The guilty were being punished. They rallied around us going to war with Germany - because Germany had declared war on America first.

That's the reasons for the dischord you're talking about. It's because of how we have mucked things up. We are no less patriotic now than we were then. Our Government is just a heck of a lot less honorable.

Best. Post. Ever!:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Outstanding Post!

Ehhhhh - your analogies between WWII and what's going on now are a little off the mark.

First of all - WWII had defined enemies that could *surrender*. Why did we defeat Germany? Because the Third Reich and the German people had an accepted hierarchy and leadership who could speak on behalf of the people. When they surrendered - the nation and party accepted their word as binding. Why did we defeat Japan? Because when Hirohito surrendered - the Japanese people accepted that word as binding.

Surrender meant the war was over.

There is no such hierarchy in this "war" - even if I'd be willing to grant you that word (because in truth - we're not at "war"). So long as someone is angry enough to buy a couple of pieces of dynamite and strap it to their chest - the "war" continues. So long as someone can build an IED - the "war" continues. So long as someone can shoot off a bottle rocket at an Israeli - the "war" continues. So long as someone hurls a rock - the "war" continues.

There is no-one to surrender. There is no leader that they accept as binding. We are not at "war" with a state...we're at "war" with general civilians angry enough to do something about their plight.

...and how do you win that kind of war? How do you win a war where surrender is impossible - and the "enemy" is fluid and ill defined? I will go out on a limb and say that you *cannot* win a war when your enemy are civilians. With that type of enemy - the only possible solutions are either to turn the people (diplomatically) or wage war on civilians (toward a course of genocide).

So - the types of warfare are completely different. It's sad that you cannot see the difference. I'd love to share a great kumbaya moment with you - and rally around the idea of self-sacrifice in the goal of winning a conflict...harkening back to olden times. However - common sense just gets in the way. It's not the same. We're not like my grandparents - waiting for Hitler and Hirohito to say "uncle".

...in fact - we're in a world where 6 months after 9/11 - your illustrious leader GWB said he didn't care much about Bin Laden - and gave very little thought to him.

How do you reconcile that with that kind of mindless post that you copied and pasted from who knows where (probably some Palin website or something...speaking of mindless drivel). How do you reconcile that GWB said - while the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh - that he didn't care much about the *LEADER* of the group that perpetrated 9/11?

You want to talk about the American psyche - and dischord in it? It's exactly for THOSE types of reasons that the dischord that you seem to abhor was created. How DARE Bush say he didn't care much about Bin Laden. How DARE he focus on Saddam Hussein instead. How DARE he take advantage of our collective righteous wound brought on by such a tragedy for his own political ends - leaving the true terrorists alone.

THAT is why the dischord exists. People feel taken advantage of.

Do you remember 9/12? I do. I remember Iranians holding candlelight vigils in condemnation of the tragedy at the WTC. I remember Americans feeling probably the most unified they had EVER felt since Pearl Harbor. I remember people wanting to sacrifice.

What did he tell us? To go shopping.

The events following 9/11 were SUCH a squandering of political capital that we could have used to mobilize the world (and our people) toward the truly righteous end of addressing terrorism...but instead of addressing terrorism...we addressed whatever axe there was to grind against Saddam Hussein.

The world knew it - and a lot of us knew it. While we were running around eating our "Freedom Fries" like fools and alienating the rest of the world (who had just days before been with us - and by the way - the French were right) - we were busy concocting "evidence" to invade Iraq. Most thoughtful people were sitting around saying "But what about the terrorists?"...and they were right.

This is the bed we have made. This is what happens when you conduct the wrong war - for the wrong reasons. The American people feel it. They did not rally around Roosevelt mindlessly simply because they were "Americans". They rallied around Roosevelt because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war against the Japanese. We didn't take that tragedy as an opportunity to go after the Chinese instead. The guilty were being punished. They rallied around us going to war with Germany - because Germany had declared war on America first.

That's the reasons for the dischord you're talking about. It's because of how we have mucked things up. We are no less patriotic now than we were then. Our Government is just a heck of a lot less honorable.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Media or activist outcries would have been un-American at the very least.

Only perceived as 'un-American' and heretic to the Republic at that particular time. Fortunately the Republic has moved beyond such presumptions of anti-Americanism - at least I hope so.

The American media recognized that they were Americans first, reporters second and knew that living under a different nations’ flag, their hands would never be allowed to hold freedoms’ pen….if they were to hold anything ever again.

I see the duty of a reporter as being one who holds a mirror to society to show the people the full scope of the situation and not merely select portions of it. The role of a journalist therefore comes with a corresponding responsibility to ensure that the content of the media text reflects the larger picture of the situation so that individuals' can formulate their opinion on the issue based on a complete analysis of complete information.

If reporters conceal the ethically questionable exercises of the State during a time of war so as to minimize scrutiny then it is not tantamount to loyalty but intellectual prostitution, resulting in a misinformed public whose accumulated mass of opinion is based on incomplete or distorted information. Society is then rendered blind to the actions of the government, whilst the State does at it pleases, unchecked, unchallenged and beyond scrutiny for even its greatest offenses. This may lead one to betray their conscience to shield or serve the State.

The public must be informed appropriately and completely so that they can - on the basis of their cultivated awareness of the situation - choose how to respond; that is, whether they consent to the activity of the State or not. A chained press gives the State too much power to inform (or misinform) the opinions of the people in a manner that benefits the State or its favoured agencies, but not necessarily the citizens. It is toxic mixture in a Republic, or at least a transitory characteristic of a Republic moving towards more authoritarian government.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Theodore Roosevelt.

President Obama now wants to have discourse with our enemies, not heeding the lessons of the past – some not so distant. Just a cursory study of history would have yielded a well-worn pattern of deception and appeasement:

Discourse is a means of transforming an enemy into an ally, and it is surely preferable to total war which consumes both blood and treasure whilst simultaneously plundering the Earth's resources and laying waste to vital infrastructure, driving many into grim state of depravity.

Besides even if discourse fails to achieve its desired outcomes it still not in vain for it still stands a gesture of goodwill by its own merit.

War-time Presidents understood what Thomas Jefferson meant when he stated that “…self-preservation is paramount to all laws.” True leaders know that, unlike in peace, war sometimes necessitates the temporary suspension of some freedoms. How would the ACLU and hand-wringing activist groups respond to the closing down of media outlets unfriendly to the war; or the suspension of habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a court as soon as possible); re-location camps and the registration and arresting of thousands of aliens; or the imprisonment of those speaking against our involvement? [/COLOR]

These were not pleasant things, but all these thinkg occurred in the United States of America. The difference between “us and them” is that these measures are stopped when the war is won and over


Contemplate for a moment what the 'temporary' suspension of certain freedoms and civil liberties means. Freedom does not evaporate in such situations; instead it is transferred from the people and consolidated into the State, which then retains a greater portion of power. Why would the State want to relinquish this power once the conflict was resolved? The State is after-all itself an institution of power and thus orientated towards its own self-preservation. There is no guarantee that the State will return power to the people. The people may demand a return to democracy and the rule of law. The State, however, can continually rationalize its accumulated power beneath the elusive cloak of security and the claim of an ongoing and persistent threat, whether real of imagined, as a justification for the circumstances of deprived liberty. History has repeatedly shown us that States, no matter how noble they seem, cannot be trusted with too much power. It is like a potent drug that the State risks becoming addicted to and never relinquishing. I do not trust any State so much as to grant it such incredible authority, no matter what the justification. I believe it was the American Statesman Benjamin Franklin who said (to paraphrase): "Those who would sacrifice perpetual liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And in the end it seems likely that they shall have neither.

Adlai Stevenson once said: "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to the freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-communism." How much of our liberty are we willing to transfer into the State out of fear (with no trustworthy promise of its return) and under the rationalization of security?

I believe that there is a segment of dialogue on Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008) that adequately captures this notion: "HARVEY: When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city." "RACHEL: Harvey, the last man appointed to protect the Republic was named Caesar and he never gave up his power."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

winginitx

Inquisitor
Oct 15, 2008
197
10
USA - Chicago
✟15,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ehhhhh - your analogies between WWII and what's going on now are a little off the mark.

First of all - WWII had defined enemies that could *surrender*. Why did we defeat Germany? Because the Third Reich and the German people had an accepted hierarchy and leadership who could speak on behalf of the people. When they surrendered - the nation and party accepted their word as binding. Why did we defeat Japan? Because when Hirohito surrendered - the Japanese people accepted that word as binding.

Surrender meant the war was over.

There is no such hierarchy in this "war" - even if I'd be willing to grant you that word (because in truth - we're not at "war"). So long as someone is angry enough to buy a couple of pieces of dynamite and strap it to their chest - the "war" continues. So long as someone can build an IED - the "war" continues. So long as someone can shoot off a bottle rocket at an Israeli - the "war" continues. So long as someone hurls a rock - the "war" continues.

There is no-one to surrender. There is no leader that they accept as binding. We are not at "war" with a state...we're at "war" with general civilians angry enough to do something about their plight.

...and how do you win that kind of war? How do you win a war where surrender is impossible - and the "enemy" is fluid and ill defined? I will go out on a limb and say that you *cannot* win a war when your enemy are civilians. With that type of enemy - the only possible solutions are either to turn the people (diplomatically) or wage war on civilians (toward a course of genocide).

So - the types of warfare are completely different. It's sad that you cannot see the difference. I'd love to share a great kumbaya moment with you - and rally around the idea of self-sacrifice in the goal of winning a conflict...harkening back to olden times. However - common sense just gets in the way. It's not the same. We're not like my grandparents - waiting for Hitler and Hirohito to say "uncle".

...in fact - we're in a world where 6 months after 9/11 - your illustrious leader GWB said he didn't care much about Bin Laden - and gave very little thought to him.

How do you reconcile that with that kind of mindless post that you copied and pasted from who knows where (probably some Palin website or something...speaking of mindless drivel). How do you reconcile that GWB said - while the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh - that he didn't care much about the *LEADER* of the group that perpetrated 9/11?

You want to talk about the American psyche - and dischord in it? It's exactly for THOSE types of reasons that the dischord that you seem to abhor was created. How DARE Bush say he didn't care much about Bin Laden. How DARE he focus on Saddam Hussein instead. How DARE he take advantage of our collective righteous wound brought on by such a tragedy for his own political ends - leaving the true terrorists alone.

THAT is why the dischord exists. People feel taken advantage of.

Do you remember 9/12? I do. I remember Iranians holding candlelight vigils in condemnation of the tragedy at the WTC. I remember Americans feeling probably the most unified they had EVER felt since Pearl Harbor. I remember people wanting to sacrifice.

What did he tell us? To go shopping.

The events following 9/11 were SUCH a squandering of political capital that we could have used to mobilize the world (and our people) toward the truly righteous end of addressing terrorism...but instead of addressing terrorism...we addressed whatever axe there was to grind against Saddam Hussein.

The world knew it - and a lot of us knew it. While we were running around eating our "Freedom Fries" like fools and alienating the rest of the world (who had just days before been with us - and by the way - the French were right) - we were busy concocting "evidence" to invade Iraq. Most thoughtful people were sitting around saying "But what about the terrorists?"...and they were right.

This is the bed we have made. This is what happens when you conduct the wrong war - for the wrong reasons. The American people feel it. They did not rally around Roosevelt mindlessly simply because they were "Americans". They rallied around Roosevelt because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war against the Japanese. We didn't take that tragedy as an opportunity to go after the Chinese instead. The guilty were being punished. They rallied around us going to war with Germany - because Germany had declared war on America first.

That's the reasons for the dischord you're talking about. It's because of how we have mucked things up. We are no less patriotic now than we were then. Our Government is just a heck of a lot less honorable.

Zoolander, your response started out very interesting with the problems of asymetrical warfare, then kind of warfed into a anti-Bush tyriad which essentially lost my interest.

I am not so interested in the "feeling" on 9/12...or us holding hands and chanting with the world body. I am more interested in the unity of purpose; of getting things done. "My guy" Bush got some things right - and messed up other things. Obama will undoubetedly do the same. One of the right things he did IMHO was go out and get the bad guys regardless of world opinion, which, love him or loathe him kept us from getting attacked again on our soil. I also believe that - as a result of these actions - countries like France, Germany and others have voted in more conservative leaders who are sympatheic withe the US's worldview.

I agree about your thesis about "no one to surrender," which, by proxy, should mean no one to negotiate with of consequence. Root them out and kill them is how one wins wars.
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Your not suggesting that we should engage in the mass murder of civilians are you?

Zoolander, your response started out very interesting with the problems of asymetrical warfare, then kind of warfed into a anti-Bush tyriad which essentially lost my interest.

I am not so interested in the "feeling" on 9/12...or us holding hands and chanting with the world body. I am more interested in the unity of purpose; of getting things done. "My guy" Bush got some things right - and messed up other things. Obama will undoubetedly do the same. One of the right things he did IMHO was go out and get the bad guys regardless of world opinion, which, love him or loathe him kept us from getting attacked again on our soil. I also believe that - as a result of these actions - countries like France, Germany and others have voted in more conservative leaders who are sympatheic withe the US's worldview.

I agree about your thesis about "no one to surrender," which, by proxy, should mean no one to negotiate with of consequence. Root them out and kill them is how one wins wars.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychMJC

Regular Member
Nov 7, 2007
459
36
45
✟8,294.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I am not so interested in the "feeling" on 9/12...or us holding hands and chanting with the world body. I am more interested in the unity of purpose; of getting things done. "My guy" Bush got some things right - and messed up other things. Obama will undoubetedly do the same. One of the right things he did IMHO was go out and get the bad guys regardless of world opinion, which, love him or loathe him kept us from getting attacked again on our soil.

He went out and got the bad guys responsible for 9/11? Where the hell have I been..

Since his actions, IYO, prevented us from being attacked then I assume you think his actions caused us to be attacked, correct?
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Iraq / Saddam Hussein was in no way responsible for the Sept 11 attacks. Most of them folk involved were Saudi citizens for goodness sakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalevalatar
Upvote 0

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Zoolander, your response started out very interesting with the problems of asymetrical warfare, then kind of warfed into a anti-Bush tyriad which essentially lost my interest.

I am not so interested in the "feeling" on 9/12...or us holding hands and chanting with the world body. I am more interested in the unity of purpose; of getting things done. "My guy" Bush got some things right - and messed up other things. Obama will undoubetedly do the same. One of the right things he did IMHO was go out and get the bad guys regardless of world opinion, which, love him or loathe him kept us from getting attacked again on our soil. I also believe that - as a result of these actions - countries like France, Germany and others have voted in more conservative leaders who are sympatheic withe the US's worldview.

I agree about your thesis about "no one to surrender," which, by proxy, should mean no one to negotiate with of consequence. Root them out and kill them is how one wins wars.

lol - the funny thing is - the bit about asymetrical warfare was actually the side thought in the post - not the focus. The OP dealt was dealing with the "feelings" of Americans - so that was the focus of my post.

Ehhh - but I do agree that the issues of no-one-to-surrender - and how it pertails to our current conflict - is the most relevant issue. I also agree that it makes it difficult to have anyone to negotiate with. Since the "enemy" is fluid and everchanging - without any hierarchy - to an extent negotiations are at best symbolic.

I would argue - however - that in this type of conflict - it's only symbolism that matters in a very pragmatic sense. While I normally would agree with you that when dealing with any enemy - it makes sense to "root them out and kill them"...however...how do we do that effectively is the question (if that becomes our course of action).

We're not dealing with a finite and quantifiable enemy. The reality is that our enemy is ever evolving...growing...and changing... (and often - our very actions are the impetus to generating new enemies.) Today's "friend" (or noncombattant) is tomorrow's combattant - most often depending on the very actions we take. Blow up a house - accidentally kill the guy's wife/daughter - and there you go - you've got a new "terrorist".

That's the problem with fighting a civilian enemy. There's no end to them...and the margin that differentiates a civilian from a combattant is murky at best.

Soooo - how do you root that out? When your enemy is anyone that says "I've had enough" - how do you find conclusion?

Like I said - there are only two logical routes that I can see with that type of warfare. You either change the dynamic - so that they don't want to fight (which essentially is diplomatic) - or else you begin on a course of genocide - where you wage war against civilians in the hopes that someday you will have beaten them to a pulp so much that you've destroyed their willingness to fight.

I just in good conscience can't go for the latter...especially when we *can* pursue diplomatic solutions first.

...and the truth is - we haven't.

Historically we have treated the Arab community very badly. They don't hate us because of how we live...or the freedoms we have. They hate us because we don't live up to the image we put out there. They don't hate America because of what America stands for. They hate us because we aren't American enough - and we don't stand by what we claim.

We don't listen to them. We meddle in their business for selfish purposes. We don't support democracy. We only support democracy in the rare case that the people elect a government that is favorable to us. Take Iran for instance - and the Shah. We come off as a bunch of hypocrites. We talk about human rights - democracy - the will of the people - and then we back off from that as soon as our interests seem to be at conflict with those principles.

Loving democracy means also taking your licks when those other countries might want to put in a government that treats us with suspicion. Ya know?

Sooo - given the un-enviable course that we would *need* to take to "root them all out" (if that's even possible) - I'd like to try maybe a little bit of common human decency first. It isn't like we've done that before and it failed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalevalatar
Upvote 0

billwald

Contributor
Oct 18, 2003
6,002
31
washington state
✟6,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The writer of the IP quit reading to soon.

(He forgot to read) What got people <staff edit> over Pearl Harbor was it was a sneak attack - The Japs never declared war against the US or against anyone. WE then declared war against Japan and against Germany. And that was the last time! We have adopted Japanese sneak attack tactics and can't be any less slimy for Bush attacking Afghanistan than Tojo attacking Pearl.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DZoolander

Persnickety Member
Apr 24, 2007
7,279
2,128
Far far away
✟112,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Actually - the progression was...

On December 7th, 1941 Japan bombs Pearl Harbor.

On December 8th, the United States declares war on Japan in response.

On December 11th - Because Italy and Germany were allied with Japan - they then declared war on the United States.

In response - America immediately declares war against Italy and Germany.
 
Upvote 0