The Limits of Dissent

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
The Limits of Dissent <br />By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com<br />Thursday, Jun 23, 2005 <br /> <br />No country can win a conflict the way the USA is fighting the war on terror. Every move the Bush administration makes is scrutinized, criticized and roundly chastised by dissenters who firmly believe the President, himself, is responsible for much of the anti-American hatred around the world. The chorus is deafening. Bush "lied" about Iraq. Bush is violating civil liberties by supporting the Patriot Act. The President sanctions torture and is a major human rights violator. Every day there is another page one story telling Americans we are the bad guys. <br />The dissenters claim that what they're doing is patriotic, that they love America and just want to improve it. They claim that loyal dissent is one of the finest traditions of democracy. <br /><br />But there is a difference between dissenting from a war and trying to undermine a war, which is clearly what some Americans are doing. Senator Richard Durbin's recent comments comparing a few rough interrogations at Guantanamo Bay to what the Soviets and Nazis did was number one with a bullet on Al Jazeera. That anti-American network couldn't get enough of **** Durbin. For days his opinion echoed through the Arab world, inflaming even more hatred toward the USA. <br /><br />Like Jane Fonda, Durbin claimed he was just trying to stop an immoral policy. But that argument is hollow in the face of the facts. More than 68,000 interrogations have taken place since 9/11 and the alleged abuses number in the hundreds. The Pentagon says it is actively prosecuting valid cases of abuse and, in a time of war, it might be wise to give the U.S. military the benefit of the doubt. <br /><br />During World War II, widely considered the last "good" war, there was tight government control of information. No pictures of dead American soldiers were released to the public until 1943, two years after the conflict began. The Office of War Information made it quite clear to the press that any intentional undermining of the conflict would be punished. Even Hollywood scripts and newsreels were vetted. The U.S. government strictly censored what Americans saw and heard about the war, even where atrocities were concerned. <br /><br />After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on December 17th, 1944, some units like the US 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers. In the Pacific, relatively few Japanese prisoners were taken in the brutal island fights. But the folks back home never heard about those things or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be. The American military did what they had to do in order to win. As General Patton once said to his army: "I do not advocate standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them ... so shoot the sons of *****es before you get them to the wall." <br /><br />George Patton would not be allowed to serve in combat today. The New York Times would make sure of that. The International Red Cross would be all over Patton and his aggressive Third Army. **** Durbin would be appalled. But it is Patton that we need right now to defeat the barbarians who would kill all of us in the name of Allah. The "human rights" people really have no clue. The war on terror is the ultimate war. If Al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons, those people will use them. <br /><br />It is true that the United States must stand above the Huns. We must not stoop to torturing detainees or committing battlefield atrocities. But mistakes happen in all wars and we are now fighting an invisible enemy. They wear no uniforms, they obey no rules of engagement. <br /><br />It is time for Americans to decide exactly who is looking out for them. The government and military, which is trying to defeat vicious killers, or those who are on a jihad to undermine the war on terror in the name of patriotism? The battle lines are clearly drawn. Which side are you on?<br /> <br /><br /> ## <br /><br /> http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: The Limits of Dissent

What an irrelevant piece of drivel that is.<br /><br />Bill O'reilly the arbiter of free speech in America??? Now that's a laugh.
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: The Limits of Dissent

You are no different than the lot of them PW. You stand with the worst of them that would like to see this country pulverized into a mass of quivering jello, all for the sake of regaining political power for philosophies and ethics that time has proven to be bankrupt.<br /><br />Oreilly is dead on!
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: The Limits of Dissent

A predictable liberal response there PW. Attack the author and simply dismiss the arguments as "drivel." That comes right from page 1 of the Liberal debate manual.
 

lakelivin

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
1,172
Re: The Limits of Dissent

My take: a matter of Bush & his administration's past actions catching up with him w.r.t. other's perspecitve of integrety & credibility.<br /><br />Having said that, I agree that we do need to be careful not to let politics (EITHER party) undermine our current situation and make it harder to make the best of the position we are in at this point.<br /><br />Given all the information I had, I thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq in the first place. Given that we did, I think it would be a bad idea to withdraw before there is stability in the country. <br /><br />I think there's a fine line between two different objectives upon which we need to carefully balance. <br /><br />1) the ability to most efficiently and effectively bring stability to Iraq. <br /><br />2) the need to maintain the princlples and beliefs upon which this country is based so as to maintain/ recapture (depending on your view) our standing as the world leader w.r.t. 'moral authority'. (moral in the sense of integrety, not religion)<br /><br />The same principles apply to the war against terrorism.<br /><br />One mans humble opinion...
 

pjc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,856
Re: The Limits of Dissent

since I have nothing but contempt for the likes of those who position themselves along side D Durbin, I choose not to acknowledge their existence.<br /><br />I am however in 100% agreement with O'Reillys well written editorial. Thank You Bill!!
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Agreed. Well written, to the point and timely.
 

Vlad D Impeller

Commander
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
2,644
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Bill O'Reilly the champ of self-aggrandizement on the Sly as a Fox News Network has nailed it.<br /><br />Irrelevant drivel? PW2 you are dead wrong.
 

SoulWinner

Commander
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
2,423
Re: The Limits of Dissent

What Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton et al spew is sedition. It used to be a crime. It should be again.
 

snapperbait

Vice Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
5,754
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Oh, don't ya'll worry yer little neo-con selves none... In 2008 perhaps the shoe will be on the other foot (ya know, president Hillary).. Then folks like PW and myself can sit on a puter keyboard and spew drivel about how the neo-cons, along with their bought and paid for media (like FOX), get away with dissent, sedition, and treason.... ;)
 

mrbscott19

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
603
Re: The Limits of Dissent

This is how I see it. No WMD's(1st excuse), no ties to Al-Qaeda(2nd excuse), bringing freedom to Iraqi's(3rd excuse). Saddam is gone, remember? The Iraqi's are now free people. According to Bush, mission accomplished.<br /><br />Every excuse that was used to go to war has proven to be false. The Iraqi's are now fighting against us and will continue to do so until we get out(99% of all insurgents "detained" so far have been Iraqi, look it up. Gen. Taluto made the comment). What does that tell you?<br /><br />And don't forget the memos from the UK stating that we didn't care about the after-math of the war, that the Admin saw war with Iraq as inevitable 8 months before we invaded. THEN we found out that the US and UK started a pretty decent sized air campaign against Iraq 6 weeks before congress gave the US authorization to do anything at all in Iraq, in the hopes that Saddam would retaliate, thus creating an actual reason to invade so they didn't have to keep using the lame WMD excuse. But none of this is important to most on this site because G.W. is doing Gods(WWJD?) work and anyone fighting against the US, even though we invaded their country and have abused(and a little torture thrown in) their people, is a terrorist. We called these same people freedom fighters not too long ago. What happened? Oh thats right, we're not their friends anymore.<br /><br />And the most saddening part of all this is that those on the right don't want anyone talking about it because if you do then you're a traitor guilty of treason. If you think that America might actually be doing something they shouldn't be doing, you're supposed to just shut up, deal with it, and pretend everything is ok. You know why? Because it's hard work and we're making progress. Isn't that right Mr. O'Reilly?
 

CalicoKid

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,599
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Yeah, Guilty as charged, Spank me Bill ORielly.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Yup Saddam was a great guy... and those 2,000 or so terrorists killed each month would be growing figs along the tigress and Euphrates if we had just left them alone. <br /><br />Even if you disagreed with the war, we are there now and we better win and we better support those in harm's way or it's only a matter of time before we lose a few cities. Anything less is at the very least unpatriotic and at worst treasonous. <br /><br />In 1997 Al Qaeda said, make America bleed and they will tuck tail and run just like Vietnam and Lebanon. Then we'll attack them on their land...<br /><br />Wake up baby before you find yourself or a loved one on the receiving end of one of these suicidal maniacs.<br /><br />Maybe we can find a way to separate ourselves. You lefties can be like Nick Berg and say you're their friends and see how far that gets you. We'll just kill the ones we find and see how far that gets us. <br /><br />And, how naive can you be? Of coarse the "detainees" are Iraqis. The foreign fighter blow themselves up or fight to the death! Who's doing all the damage? The suicide bombers!<br /><br />
saddam2.jpg
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: The Limits of Dissent

We're all forgetting one thing. The media refuses to relate this fact.<br /><br />Saddam tried to assasinate a US president, (GHW Bush). (for some of you, that would have been OK) Family ties aside, that IS a reason for war. Look it up.
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Ok, I'll bite. Saddam did indeed try to assasinate Bush I. Retaliation for that could well be a good part of the reason for this war. Who knows? That was not cited, or even mentioned, in the original build-up for the war. Or the congressional approval for the war.<br /><br />But at this point, justified or not, we are there and now we must have a plan to succeed. I'd like to hear something other than the cliches we hear from Bush, or the rosy scenarios from Cheney, on what we are going to do.<br /><br />"Staying the course" seems to me the very definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.<br /><br />Oh, and whether anyone agrees with me or not is of no concern to me. I consider it my duty as a citizen to make my views known, regardless whether they are popular or not. That is the nature of free speech. And specifically freedom, and what we are supposedly fighting for.<br /><br />For the record, I believe recent polls have shown that I am not in the minority regarding disapproval for this war, or the way it is being conducted. That of course does not necessarily validate my point of view, but it certainly reinforces it.
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Are the Liberals (not Libertarians) FOR anything or anyone?<br /><br />All that I notice is ravings about what they are against.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: The Limits of Dissent

Good thing you weren't around during the civil war PW. In the face of defeat after defeat I'm sure you would have called for Lincoln's ouster and/or an end to the war which would have allowed the South to go it's own way. Imagine where we would be today?!<br /><br />I bet you would have called for Washington to be replaced too. After all, he lost nearly every battle he ever fought, suffered huge moral problems and suffered major desertions. I guess we'd still be a part of GB if people had thought the way you do.<br /><br />Good thing you weren't a Russian leader in WWII...<br /><br />In Iraq, the most the terrorists can manage is blow up innocent people and once in a while, get lucky with a suicide attack against a US convoy and for you that is a defeat. Millions showed up in the face of this terrorism to vote their future and even mark themselves with indelible ink (making them easily identified) and to you that is not success. We kill thousands of terrorists every month, people who would in fact prefer to be launching such attacks on US soil and for you that isn't enough. In historical terms, to have lost 1,700 troops at this point in a war against a country the size of Iraq is an incredible achievement.<br /><br />When speech crosses the line and gives aid and comfort to the enemy and puts our troops at risk, your rights reach their limit. They always have and always will. In days gone by in this country, such speech would land you in jail.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: The Limits of Dissent

I don't know why we keep straying from the thread. Is it OK to undermine the troops with lies and distortions for political gain? Is the press not doing their job by not printing information that would cause harm to our troops? And if they can, how many troops need to die before they responsibly report the news and not just parrot the ravings of an idiot?<br /><br />I would love to have someone who is involved in the journalism field to comment? If there is one on the board.<br /><br />I have to admit the avatars are getting pretty funny, all of them.
 
Top