Negativism & Defeatism

[Messerschmitt]

To Shamol: With free speech comes responsibility. The responsibility to accept the consequences of what you say, and how it affects society. When Durbin compared to US soldiers to that of Nazis. This is what he did:

1. Lowered US soldier morale.
2. Gave insurgence greater morale for which in turn causes them to fight more and potentially get more Allied soldiers hurt and or killed.

What Durbin said about torture at Guantanamo Bay lowers the United States Army's morale. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean it is ok to say it if soldiers lives are at stake. You blame Bush for putting soldiers in harms way, and hypocritically you say that what Durbin said was just. You only aid soldiers to be hurt or killed! Durbin knows now what he said was wrong and he did need to apologize. Durbin said, "When you look at the eyes of the soldiers, you see your son and daughter. I never, never intended any disrespect for them." He did see that what he had said did have consequences on Allied forces, and that they did need an apology.

 

[Squawker]

I'm sure that our troops are made of sterner stuff than to be injured by al Jazeera reporting that an American Senator objected to the inhumane treatment of some prisoners in American custody. I expect that many in the ME found his objections to show a positive, human side of America and prob'ly bolstered the case of friendly and moderate Muslims in the ME.
As a matter of fact, the resulting teapot tempest prob'ly did more to justify and reinforce the image that terrorist recruiters paint of America than Mr. Durbin's objections did. Americans coming down on Mr. Durbin for his hyperbolic rhetoric surely enabled many extremists to be able to say, "See, I told you so."

That is the most extraordinary thing I have every heard. You truly did not see the deaths caused by the story of the Koran abuse Newsweek? You think our image in the ME is helped by comparing our troops to Nazi’s? You don’t think the anti-war crowd is being used to drive the US out of the region?

I truly fail to see how Mr. Durbin's objections to inhumane treatment were harmful to our troops.
If anything decrying him til we were blue in the face was harmful to our troops because it made the terrorist look like they know what they are talking about.

Reading this again doesn’t make it any more understandable, and I am still shocked that one could be so blind.

Me, about one hundred fifty million Americans and untold hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of people world-wide.
Without a credible threat to the US from Iraq, it doesn't fit what most reasonable people would consider a necessary war. It certainly doesn't rise to the level to be a pre-emptive war.

That’s because you have refused to accept all the evidence provided to you, and there isn’t anything we can do about that.

 

[ShamMol]

To Shamol: With free speech comes responsibility. The responsibility to accept the consequences of what you say, and how it affects society. When Durbin compared to US soldiers to that of Nazis. This is what he did:

1. Lowered US soldier morale.
2. Gave insurgence greater morale for which in turn causes them to fight more and potentially get more Allied soldiers hurt and or killed.

Please stop with the allied thing. We are just one side of a greater way. We are the coalition. With the Nazi comment, he did something wrong, true, but he also stated the truth about the actions taht he read off. Those were never disproven and are still out there waiting to be. Those are horrible things that he read off, and then he added on the Nazi and Soviet comments (which weren't needed). Those comments after the reading of the acts were what was wrong, not the reading of the acts. It is his right as a senator to get that information and share it with the public, and that is what he did.

What Durbin said about torture at Guantanamo Bay lowers the United States Army's morale. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean it is ok to say it if soldiers lives are at stake. You blame Bush for putting soldiers in harms way, and hypocritically you say that what Durbin said was just. You only aid soldiers to be hurt or killed!

And I don't believe that. That is what you are claiming. If we really are doing this acts, the public must know and start to clamour for action, which in your perfect world, would not happen. We need an investigation into these acts to see the validity of comments made and all the reports that are out there. I blame Bush for putting soldiers in harms way, yes, but for starting a war which had no reason to be started. Now that we are there and doing these acts (if we are at all), then we have to stop them and the only way it will stop is if there is enough public support for change, and that only happens if people speak out and tell what is happening according to reports.

Durbin knows now what he said was wrong and he did need to apologize. Durbin said, "When you look at the eyes of the soldiers, you see your son and daughter. I never, never intended any disrespect for them." He did see that what he had said did have consequences on Allied forces, and that they did need an apology.

Fine, they got their apology for the Nazi comment, but the other stuff is still there and completely accurate according to the report. According to the FBI report he read, we are torturing them, and thus we need an investigation to do its job and help institute change.

Stop with the hurting soldiers thing. It is not going to change any of the minds of the people who are on the side that I am. If we really are doing these things, they need to be changed, now.

 

[ShamMol]

That is the most extraordinary thing I have every heard. You truly did not see the deaths caused by the story of the Koran abuse Newsweek? You think our image in the ME is helped by comparing our troops to Nazi’s? You don’t think the anti-war crowd is being used to drive the US out of the region?

I think that we are doing what is necessary to see that no torture happens and if it does happen that it is changed immediately so that it doesn't happen anymore. If we didn't speak out against this torture, then nothing would change and human beings would continue to be tortured.

Reading this again doesn’t make it any more understandable, and I am still shocked that one could be so blind.

I am shocked at you too. How could you insist that we shut up and not speak out when we see injustice.

That’s because you have refused to accept all the evidence provided to you, and there isn’t anything we can do about that.

I hope you don't mean that Pentagon report, because as we all know, there is no way to trust a company that investigates itself, much less a government agency. There is a reason the FBI and CIA didn't investigate themselves after 9-11, because they wouldn't have been completely truthful. Same here. I want a real investigation. If it proves you right, so be it, and I will accept it, but there is too much on the table right now for me just to ignore this.

 

[Messerschmitt]

Please stop with the allied thing. We are just one side of a greater way. We are the coalition. With the Nazi comment, he did something wrong, true, but he also stated the truth about the actions taht he read off. Those were never disproven and are still out there waiting to be. Those are horrible things that he read off, and then he added on the Nazi and Soviet comments (which weren't needed). Those comments after the reading of the acts were what was wrong, not the reading of the acts. It is his right as a senator to get that information and share it with the public, and that is what he did.

I don't want to stop with the "Allied Thing" free speech allows me to say it!

I hope you don't mean that Pentagon report, because as we all know, there is no way to trust a company that investigates itself, much less a government agency. There is a reason the FBI and CIA didn't investigate themselves after 9-11, because they wouldn't have been completely truthful. Same here. I want a real investigation. If it proves you right, so be it, and I will accept it, but there is too much on the table right now for me just to ignore this.

The FBI and the CIA did investigate itself its called the 911 Report. If you don't trust the FBI or the CIA's report then who should do the investigation?

 

[ShamMol]

I don't want to stop with the "Allied Thing" free speech allows me to say it!

Fine, its innacurate because we are a coalition and that is what we are reffered to as.

The FBI and the CIA did investigate itself its called the 911 Report. If you don't trust the FBI or the CIA's report then who should do the investigation?

911 Commission report was done by...never mind, if you really believe that you sir are ignorant. I will link you to the website, read up, it is quite interesting. http://www.9-11commission.gov/

And here is the link for who was on the investigation. It was not a FBI and CIA investigation, but instead one that was independent. Here you go.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You think our image in the ME is helped by comparing our troops to Nazi’s?

You think our image is helped by castigating those who object to the inhumane treatment of our prisoners?

You don’t think the anti-war crowd is being used to drive the US out of the region?

How does this work? How do the insurgents "use the anti-war" crowd?

It's easy to guess how anti-American elements use the hubub over Mr. Durbin's remarks: "You see what happens when one of them dares speak the truth? He is shamed into apologizing. That's the nature of the American evil we are fighting."

Reading this again doesn’t make it any more understandable, and I am still shocked that one could be so blind.

You don't understand it, yet you're sure it's wrong.

That’s because you have refused to accept all the evidence provided to you, and there isn’t anything we can do about that.

Hogwash. If anything I looked more closely at the evidence than the mal-info machine would've liked.

Like I said, see Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"

 

[Simon W. Moon]

When Durbin compared to US soldiers to that of Nazis. This is what he did:

1. Lowered US soldier morale.
What Durbin said about torture at Guantanamo Bay lowers the United States Army's morale.

They're so upset over Mr. Durbin's remarks that they'll have trouble performing their duties? You think US troops are a bunch of wusses, or what? You think that they can't handle the fact that people in the US sometimes use hyperbolic language in politics?
Give me an effin break.

When Durbin compared to US soldiers to that of Nazis. This is what he did:
2. Gave insurgence greater morale for which in turn causes them to fight more and potentially get more Allied soldiers hurt and or killed.

The idea that Americans object to inhumane treatment of prisoners makes members of the insurgency feel better about themselves?
If anything the castgation that Mr. Durbin received was a potential recuiting tool for the insurgency. It underlines the mistaken perception that Americans see Msulims as unworthy of human status.

 

[Messerschmitt]

My point is that the investigation was done by Americans, and you (Shamol) completely ignored my question as to who should do the investigation on Guantanamo Bay.

They're so upset over Mr. Durbin's remarks that they'll have trouble performing their duties? You think US troops are a bunch of wusses, or what? You think that they can't handle the fact that people in the US sometimes use hyperbolic language in politics?

If you read what I posted earlier there is this thing I keep on metioning this thing called morale; and that there is a correlation between a soldiger's emmotional stress and what they hear and how it affects them, its common sense.

The idea that Americans object to inhumane treatment of prisoners makes members of the insurgency feel better about themselves?
If anything the castgation that Mr. Durbin received was a potential recuiting tool for the insurgency. It underlines the mistaken perception that Americans see Msulims as unworthy of human status.

Its not that the objection to inhumane treatment of prisoners makes members of the insurgency feel better about themselves. It is that when members of the insurgency hear stuff that lowers US soldier's morale it gives the insurgence more morale to fight harder. Yes anti war rhetoric is and has been used by insurgence as a recruiting tool. As is the case with Michael Moor's book, and I am sure that Durbin's little speech has boosted insurgence's morale to kill more Americans that are out there protecting all of us back at home. Also I would like to address what you said about underlining the mistaken perception that Americans see Muslims as unworthy of human status. Tell me where did you research this information because I have never heard of it, and It is your opinion. You all also might want to look up the word morale, because both of you continue to mistake it for something else is your literature.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you read what I posted earlier there is this thing I keep on metioning this thing called morale; and that there is a correlation between a soldiger's emmotional stress and what they hear and how it affects them, its common sense.

And I'm saying that they are big boys and girls who can handle the idea that politicians use hyperbolic rhetoric.

Also I would like to address what you said about underlining the mistaken perception that Americans see Muslims as unworthy of human status. Tell me where did you research this information because I have never heard of it...

Before I supply sources, would you like to say what kind of sources you find acceptable? I've found that this practice can save us both some time.

 

[ShamMol]

My point is that the investigation was done by Americans, and you (Shamol) completely ignored my question as to who should do the investigation on Guantanamo Bay.

Guess I glossed over it after finding out you thought that the FBI and CIA did the 9-11 commission investigation, which flat out is wrong. I think another panel much like that should be done, not just for Gitmo, but all the places where people are being held by the CIA, FBI or military (including the 33 secret locations).

If you read what I posted earlier there is this thing I keep on metioning this thing called morale; and that there is a correlation between a soldiger's emmotional stress and what they hear and how it affects them, its common sense.

They know, no matter what is said, that the people of the United States are behind them and the job that they do for our country day in a day out, fighting so we don't have to. Other comments that are made are made so that they do it right and so that torture and abuse don't take place.

Its not that the objection to inhumane treatment of prisoners makes members of the insurgency feel better about themselves. It is that when members of the insurgency hear stuff that lowers US soldier's morale it gives the insurgence more morale to fight harder. Yes anti war rhetoric is and has been used by insurgence as a recruiting tool. As is the case with Michael Moor's book, and I am sure that Durbin's little speech has boosted insurgence's morale to kill more Americans that are out there protecting all of us back at home. Also I would like to address what you said about underlining the mistaken perception that Americans see Muslims as unworthy of human status. Tell me where did you research this information because I have never heard of it, and It is your opinion. You all also might want to look up the word morale, because both of you continue to mistake it for something else is your literature.

Fine, anti-war rhetoric has been used by the insurgents, but so is the fact that Durbin was shamed into apologizing. They are lauging their asses off about that. Don't listen to Michael moore, he is not a spokesman for me or many other liberals and is held up by the right as the ultimate example. Durbin said one bad line in that speech, and that speech had so many references to the FBI report, if you heard it, it would make you wonder what the hell was happening.

And he can't tell you where he got his research because it was an implication. Morale is low in the military for many reasons, least of which is this recent controversy. Trust me, I know, I just talked to my cousin who returns in a three months from Iraq. He is extremely pro-Iraq war and he said it doesn't matter what the politicians say because they have a job to do there and will always do it until they are brought home. By the way, he just reenlisted.

 

[Messerschmitt]

Ok I think there should be investigation too. But I think that Anti war stuff does lower morale.

To Simon:

Before I supply sources, would you like to say what kind of sources you find acceptable? I've found that this practice can save us both some time.

You don't have any sources for that it's your opinion. Any source will do as long as it isn't redicously crazy and made up.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Any source will do as long as it isn't redicously crazy and made up.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...abs)+(dehumanized+OR+"less+than+human")&hl=en
http://www.meforum.org/article/26
http://www.muhajabah.com/docstorage/stereotype.htm

 

[ShamMol]

Ok I think there should be investigation too. But I think that Anti war stuff does lower morale.

All the anti-war stuff is the only way that an investigation would ever happen. Back in the days before the 9-11 commission, there was no support whatsoever for an investigation in the bush administration. As soon as the public found out about it, they started clamoring for it and the administration changed their rhetoric and finally capitulated and gave them an investigation that was fair and impartial. The same thing could happen here and will not happen without the public being aware of the situation that exists according to American agencies documents, such as the one that Durbin read form the FBI.

It may hurt morale, but it is necessary when change is needed. The soldiers are tough people, and they realize that what the Senators say is not a rip at them but merely at the administration. Whatever happens, the US will be behind out soldiers.

 

[Squawker]

Irony. The war protesters effectively killed nearly as many of our soldiers with words rather than the munitions of the enemy.

Hanoi Jane was the number one propaganda tool, in case you all forgot that little detail. Here is an interesting take on the VietNam anti-war movement.

The protesters’ myth is really more interesting. With every passing year one gets the impression that virtually all Sixties types were at antiwar protests. (They were all at Woodstock, too.) It has become unassailable gospel that the protests were noble and effective. They may have been nobly intended, but there is nothing but aging egos and pure wind to sustain the notion that they were effective in stopping or shortening the war. There is evidence, however, that the protests lengthened the war and that more people were killed on account of them.
How so? Political scientists talk about the phenomenon of a “negative follower group,” which is defined basically as any group that ticks others off to the point that they become the friend of that group’s enemy. All the data we have from the time, and since, show that the obscenity, illegality, and raging anti-patriotism of the antiwar protesters made them the most hated group in America during the late 1960s and early 1970s. When police beat up protesters in the park across from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, most people who were watching on television sympathized with the police.
The backlash had significant repercussions on the national political scene. Without the antiwar protests, which were associated in the minds of the “silent majority” with a militarized black power movement that had somehow metastasized from the civil rights movement, George Wallace could never have become a national political figure, if only for a while. Nor would Richard Nixon have won the White House in 1968. Furthermore, the antiwar movement undermined the Democratic Party and hurt Hubert Humphrey’s bid for the presidency in a very tight election.) The political reaction to the radical antiwar protests aided both the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ efforts to manage growing public disquiet over the war. More Americans would have opposed the war sooner had they not been put off by radical protest tactics.
The truth is that the antiwar movement actually helped elect Richard Nixon to the presidency not just once, but twice. By 1972, the movement had gained enough power in the disheveled Democratic Party to see that George McGovern was nominated instead of a more mainstream candidate who might have kept the party’s labor and middle-class constituency intact. And who believes that a Humphrey administration or a Humphrey-like Democratic administration that would have begun in 1969 or 1973 would have fought the war in Vietnam with the intensity that the Nixon administration did, looking for a “peace with honor” that fell to ashes on April 30, 1975?

Source
Another opinion of the anti-war crowd.
Source

Here is a thumb nail review of the history for those not familiar with the details Source

 

[Stinger]

So why should some Democrats now be acting as though they want to see their country lose a war?

Because they do.

Why should they say things that may undermine the morale of U.S. forces and our Iraqi allies and contribute to a U.S. defeat?

Because they believe they can gain back political power by helping our enemies defeat us.

 

[Stinger]

Not their fault this war was started and I sure hope that the American public realizes this.

So do I when it's over and we have been successful. But it is curious why they supported the removal by any means of Saddam when they had the White House, believed he was a threat and coddled terrorist, but suddenly lost those principles the day Bush took action.

I don't want the Americans defeated, I want them to finsih the job quickly and get out.

So does everyone but please tell me how the defeatist rhetoric of the left and in particular the Democrat leadership helps to accomplish this goal. How does doing everthing they can do lower the morale of the troops, to embolden our enemies help us to finish the job and get out quickly?

The path to peace is never through violence.

It certainly was in WW2. But what do you think the "path to peace" in this case was?

Why must we be the police of the world.

Well how on earth do you expect the Bush administration to get other countries to join us when those other countries can hear the squealing and squawking the the Democrats just as easily as you? Why would they want to join in with a leader who is a liar, a cheat and the worst thing since Hitler? Perhaps if we in this country showed a more united front they would be more willing to join in our cause. But as long as the Democrats engage in these ad hominem, baseless, attacks I shouldn't expect anyone to join with us.

 

[Squawker]

Well how on earth do you expect the Bush administration to get other countries to join us when those other countries can hear the squealing and squawking the the Democrats just as easily as you? Why would they want to join in with a leader who is a liar, a cheat and the worst thing since Hitler? Perhaps if we in this country showed a more united front they would be more willing to join in our cause. But as long as the Democrats engage in these ad hominem, baseless, attacks I shouldn't expect anyone to join with us.

Well said. :clap: They seem more interested in making the Republicans look bad. For the people who remember the VietNam war the protesting increased when Nixon won the White House. They are very transparent and disingenuous.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hanoi Jane was ... Source

Oddly enough, the only hits for “negative follower group” are the page you;'ve quoted.
Perhpas there's another term?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hanoi Jane was the number one propaganda tool, in case you all forgot that little detail. Here is an interesting take on the VietNam anti-war movement.

So the gist of it is that sixties-style anti-war protests engender more support for war?
So what's the hubub, Bub?

You should be encouraging sixties style protesting because it will increase the numbers of people who will think the invasion of Iraq's a good idea. Encourage more Durbins so that there will be more support for the war.

 

[Squawker]

I presented the analysis to show it didn't serve the purpose. You have to admit the anti-American rhetoric has not had the result the protesters wanted. I want the left to realize they have blood on their hands also.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Further, the same author, Mr. Garfinkle, takes the trouble to make distinctions between sixties-style street protests and the comments of politicos:

The Spirit of the New Antiwar Movement

Above all, antiwar street activism needs to be distinguished from antiwar sentiment...
The vast majority of people out in the street protesting, however, do not see the Iraq question as a“near” thing, and they are not humble. They are stridently certain not only that going to war is unwise, but that it is also morally wrong and even criminal. They have not done the careful analytical thinking that has led people like Brent Scowcroft, Morton Halperin and Gary Hart to disagree with the present policy— people who clearly cannot be accused of rank ignorance about the issues or of a lack of patriotism and courage.
​

So, from this we can see that it's not at all clear that Mr. Garfinkle's comments that you cited were intended to apply to much more than sixties-style street protests.

 

[Alex]

Well how on earth do you expect the Bush administration to get other countries to join us when those other countries can hear the squealing and squawking the the Democrats just as easily as you? Why would they want to join in with a leader who is a liar, a cheat and the worst thing since Hitler? Perhaps if we in this country showed a more united front they would be more willing to join in our cause. But as long as the Democrats engage in these ad hominem, baseless, attacks I shouldn't expect anyone to join with us.

Other countries do not join us because they know the war was unwarranted. Present honest and concrete proof that Iraq was a threat to us. The Democrats are squealing and squawking because they were lied to and it is costing Americans their lives. That is a justifiable reason. Why should people show unity to a leader who was not honest with them?


I do agree that it is a very difficult war to plan and carry out. It is not easy to plan against an enemy who hides until they are ready to blow themselves up, and then it is too late. The Democrats should stop complaining about the war not being planed out well enough unless they have a better method.

 

[Squawker]

Other countries do not join us because they know the war was unwarranted. Present honest and concrete proof that Iraq was a threat to us.

This is getting tiresome. Clinton presented clear proof and their was no question. Bush used the evidense Clinton provided and there is suddenly no credible evidense. This is just partisan political bs. The left needs to be honest for a change.

 

[Stinger]

Other countries do not join us because they know the war was unwarranted. Present honest and concrete proof that Iraq was a threat to us. The Democrats are squealing and squawking because they were lied to and it is costing Americans their lives. That is a justifiable reason. Why should people show unity to a leader who was not honest with them?

I agree 100% except for the fact it's a bunch of garbage put out by the Democrats so they can regain political power. Why should any country join us if they believe what the Democrats are spouting, true or not. Why should the terrorist begin to see the light when they can hope the Democrats win and then they win? Of course the fact is there were no lies told, what we went to war for was by and large what everyone believe and 99% acurate, we just didn't find any stockpiles of the WMD Saddam had and used previously. What we do know, as documented by the Kay report is that he was even MORE dangerous than we thought and as documented by the Duelfer report was well on his way to implimenting his next plan to dominate the middle east. You should try reading them.

I do agree that it is a very difficult war to plan and carry out. It is not easy to plan against an enemy who hides until they are ready to blow themselves up, and then it is too late. The Democrats should stop complaining about the war not being planed out well enough unless they have a better method.

Every war is difficult to plan and carry out. Thankfully we do not have the great military genious Nancy Pelois or the great leader Howard Dean at the helm. This war was planned out by the greatest military planners in existence. NOONE could have done it better, period. And this Monday morning quarterbacking being engaged in by the likes of Biden and company is down right absurd. They complain we should get out and then complain we should send more people in. They cite unnamed generals and unnamed sources while the generals actaully in charge state unequivically they have what they need. If there is one thing I am sure of if they wanted more George Bush would give it to them as opposed to the Democrats who have voted against funding them.