Is it wrong to criticize a war?

Question

It seems some conservatives in the U.S. think so, and deride liberals for their criticisms. I have seen it said, as well, that the criticism is some sort of new trend. I dispute that.

What if I said the war in Iraq was, "the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation"... can I say that without being derided?

Those were the words of President Grant, looking back at the Mexican-American War. Another war pushed forward under false pretenses. Another sovereign nation attacked for no reason beyond not doing what the U.S. wanted.

Was Grant being unpatriotic? I don't think so. He was a great patriot and a great military leader. He was also willing to call out injustice by its name. We, like Grant, are entitled to do the same without having our patriotism assailed.

Cheyenne, good quote. Paine was way ahead of his time.

Tok, I didn't say he was a great president. Just a great patriot and a great general.

Jamie, I agree.

Mind, I also agree with you. It's a shame more people didn't say such things during Polk's administration, but they were lied to and didn't realize what was really going on when the war began. Sounds all too familiar.

Desmond, Yes, though the more apt comparison is between Bush and Polk, methinks.

Cork, I wish I had more faith in the election process, but I agree.

roadkill, a frightening thought. And that's definitely one of the reasons it bothers me when citizens are critisized for questioning the government.

Jot, I'm definitely all for free expression. And yeah, no war is good.

Corleone, agreed.

Fin, too true as it turns out. (added some alliteration in the response for ya ;)

Leo, yes, the false pretenses I referred to, exactly.

Lared, you can. You have the right to. I am just asking "is it wrong to criticize" because so many people come down on those who do. But you're sort of saying, "We have the right to criticize you and tell you not to criticize!" Which only sounds good if you say it fast.

Industrial, agreed, and history does have plenty of lessons to teach. Unfortunately, all the world's superpowers benefitted from leaders who were violent agressors. Certainly true for the Roman Empire, and true for the British. Also notable that both of those empires are no longer empires. We might learn a lesson from that, as well.

rmis, I do believe that war is bad, yes. That does not mean I don't believe it is, at times, a necessary evil. It doesn't mean I don't support the military, either. There is a difference between a just and an unjust war. Next, I did not vote for George W., but even if I did, of course I could still criticize him. Voting for someone doesn't mean you are obliged to back everything your candidate does in a future you can't see in advance. And talking directly to the president about a grievance isn't very likely. The media works as a fairly efficient intermediary. I appreciate having yours views here in spite of our disparate positions, and I thank you.

Chuck, an extremely well thought out response, and one that touches on many important issues. Fear always earns the #1 slot, I think.

Dick, good point. Pigeon-holing people who criticize or people who oppose them is probably not all that productive. War doesn't do much about overpopulation, however. Was that tongue-in-cheek? Not a noticeable effect on the global birth/death ratio. As a measure to control population growth it's a frightening thought, anyway. But you mention how many have died, and how a comparison of casualties can be used as a justification for casualties, and that's worrisome, too.

Mark, the logic is sound and I agree, though I am not sure how hard we, as a nation, really are working to protect those freedoms lately.

--out for now... some great answers, I'll check back later. :)

Dubbbed, thank you for the reminder there. In theory, U.S. citizens can rely on those words. In practice, that doesn't always seem to be the case.

Hi answer man, well, you've taken up my broad strokes there and answered rather directly with regard to the concepts of "right" and "wrong", which can be difficult to define in the political arena.. or any arena for that matter.. and may vary based on what moral code is adopted as the standard. And I agree that war itself is not good... but I'd be hard pressed to say nothing good every came from war. Some very palpable good things came of war, even if those things were only good for the victors. And some wars have had to be fought, and the outcome was better than if they had not been fought. But I basically agree with you, and I certainly agree that if it seems necessary to speak that out that it's not wrong to do so.

bird, thank you for responding. Your answer exemplifies exactly the sort of reaction that confounds me.

1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for more deaths than the Times can be indirectly accused of causing through their exercise of 1st Amendment rights.
2. We don't have the freedom to support our enemies actually, that's called treason. Do you believe liberals are traitors for daring to question the administration?
3. Again, no. Treason.
4. We have the duty to protect the rights of terror -suspects- who are under interrogations. And even if they are known terrorists, we have the duty to see that are treated in a humane manner.. because it's the right thing to do, and because if we don't, we become what we despise.
5. Back to treason again. And no, we don't have that freedom if we plan to continue to be American citizens.
6. Are your "decent" people the ones who agree with the president at all costs? Plan to do that for a Democrat as president?

Thank you.

hi girl afraid, you know, it's interesting how often Nazi Germany comes up in the political arena, and who gets compared to the Nazis. I guess it's because that was a war that had very black-and-white sides in ways we haven't seen since. We look to that as a shining hour, and I daresay we should. D-Day was costly, but necessary, and we stemmed a palpable evil. Still, we later ended the war by utterly destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki and every man, woman, and child within those cities. I question that. I am critical of that, too. I think it's my duty to be. Was WWII a necessary war... yes, I think it was. But were the bombs necessary? Maybe not. Many say they "saved countless lives"... but they also cost countless innocent lives. But I digress. There are some freedoms in the U.S. that the current administration appears to be eroding, ironically, in the name of freedom. And that seems to be the wrong path... a path whose end might well deserve the comparison you make.

Ben, thanks for responding. Our support our troops as individuals who are doing their best and serving their country, I just don't support the war itself or the administration that is sending them there. I also don't think pulling out would make us a laughing stock of the world... but given the way we're viewed internationally anyway, we have little to lose. But you don't continue a war to save face. Admitting that we, as a country, were wrong... that would be a start. And that might even garner us a modicum of respect internationally. Granted, it's not practical to cut and run overnight as the Israeli's did when leaving Lebanon, as the situation is much different now in Iraq (a situation we created.) But a reasonable timetable to pull out doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

Answer 1

so you and a lot of your friends here believe war is bad. OK what is your answer to people wanting to kill you. how do you confront terrorism. the second part yes it is wrong to criticize a war if you voted for it which a lot of democrats did. when your country is at war and you are an elected official who thinks the president made mistakes you talk to him not the media. you don't go on TV and give the enemy their talking points like in the video released the other day.

Answer 2

This country was founded upon the premise that dissent is essential to a healthy civilization. Our founding fathers were unhappy with the state of the world as they knew it. They took the essential steps to make changes.

There are several attitudes that I believe are fundamental to our society today that have resulted in our current dilemmena. They include:

1. Fear. Many Americans are taught from childhood to fear anything different from themselves. This teaching begins in family and church. All too often we grow up in homogeneous neighborhoods where we are taught that "they" do not belong here and to be careful if "they" show up. This applies to all different groups and "they" can be virtually anyone. This attitude is re-enforced in the far right wing, fear based church that so many are attending today. This church teach a false (I believe) Christianity based upon fear of God rather than God's love. Consider that fear drives hatred which drives war.

2. A failed, or failing, education system. We are rapidly dumbing down our country. The average high school graduate cannot write a literate sentence (let along paragraph), cannot read a book more complex than a Tom Clancy novel (if that), and most certainly cannot do even marginally complex math. Look at the education of the average US terrorist. Yes, I said US terrorist. I mean the folks who have blown up abortion clinics or killed abortion docs. I mean the ones who scream profanities at homosexual funerals and/or weddings. A good and healthy education should give us the tools to educate ourselves without boundaries. A good and healthy education should make us fully literate in at least one language, at least marginally literate in math, and should promote an actively questioning mind. We do not have a healthy education system in this country today and we are paying the price.

3. Demagoguery rather than leadership in the US political arena. Look at our policial "leaders". It does not matter which party you look at. These people live for the sound bite. Look at the definition of demagogue (from dictionary.com): "a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people." Where are our true leaders. Where is an FDR or JFK or Lincoln, or . . .? Our system, as it now works leaves us with the likes of Bill Clinton and George W. Lets challenge our candidates to answer in depth questions with depth. Lets have debates that are true debates.

There are other fundamental problems that have lead to this war and to the idea that opposition to this president is treasonous, but I believe that these three are fundamental. I will be interested in hearing others.

Answer 3

No one who thinks the war is justified will criticize a war. Anyone who thinks a war is not justified or intelligently executed has every right to criticize. After all our "leaders" are using my taxes and my solders and giving my country a black eye in the international community. Just because we are the most powerful country on earth does not give us the right to demand others think or do as we wish. Just look at the history of the British empire and you can learn all kinds of things to do wrong. Bush seems to think he can ignore facts and history and accomplish what ever he is trying to do.

Answer 4

No. If we didn't have the right to criticise, we wouldn't have any rights at all. Look at Germany under Hitler, but before the war - you could be sent to prison for disapproving of the regime and have SS blackshirts follow you into the voting booth to make sure the opposition didn't get in. If someone tries to silence you for speaking out against the war, surely we're in a dangerously similar situation...

Answer 5

I'm not interested in conservatives or liberals, that's confusing the issue. I think war is wrong, so criticizing war is a good thing.
But remember that war is a splendid weapon against overpopulation.Remember the smirk on Bush's face when 2000 US soldiers had been killed, and he answered that 40.000 Iraqis had died? Well, nowadays US soldiers in Iraq are under attack every day. And how many Iraqis are dead? I lost count.

Answer 6

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Answer 7

I think you have all the right to criticize war either positively or negatively, is your right, but what we are not able to do is insult other people whom don't think in the same way we do. Besides that no war is good doesn't mater from which point of view can be seen, but that's my opinion. No body has the right to insult you because you want to criticize war, perhaps, go ahead and express your self.

After a couple of hours thinking in this I believe that the only president who was against to go to Korea and Vietnam and to do any military action against Cuba was Mr. John F. Kennedy, who criticized war and we all know what happened to him and who killed him, please and don't come to tell me that who did it was the guy named Oswald, he was only a puppet.

Answer 8

No, it's not wrong at all, especially if war for the wrong reasons. Grant was not being unpatriotic, he was doing his duty as a leader. He saw that the Mexican-America was wrong and said something about it. It shows he had character, a sense of right and wrong. I completly agree with you. If we couldn't speak out against the war, then we'd be slaves to the corrupt politicians and the corportations that control it.

Answer 9

The FIL is obviously an A--hollow, you already reported it became a no win situation. in case you and your hubby are on the city it would be rude to not bypass to, yet, not something says which you will desire to work together in something extra desirable than the common conversational bits and products. If he desires to get into it with you purely turn your lower back and forget approximately approximately him, if he keeps only bypass away. Whats your husbands address all this, real its his father, yet, you're his spouse, if his father is out of line then possibly your husband would desire to tell him to end. do not you purely love kinfolk dynamics?

Answer 10

Yes, we have the freedom to cause our own soldiers to be killed, as the New York Times has done.
Yes, we have to freedom to support our enemies.
Yes, we have the freedom to give comfort to terrorists.
Yes, we have the freedom to treat terrorist prisoners with love and care, like the Democrats are doing.
Yes, we have the freedom to betray our own country.
But, no decent person would ever do any of those things. Only very pitiful people would.