There seems a growing chorus of anger when people criticise the War in Iraq, people say 'shut up, respect the Government, your leaders etc', I feel that without speaking out on what I feel is wrong is creating an environment that these people say we are fighting to prevent.
2007-01-24 00:35:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Maybe the newspapers should tell you the truth about Iraq instead of showing just a few bad things --- while ignoring a myriad of good things.
2007-01-24 00:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by david 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
First, we are not a true Democracy. We are a representative republic. I make this point because there are differences between these 2 types of government structure. Now to your question. I think people should speak out when they do not like something and they should not be denigrated for it. However within this acceptable framework I do believe people should confine themselves to the actual established facts and should further respect the rights of those holding opinions counter to their own. These 2 conditioned are not being met by many when expressing their discontent. As evidence consider the situations below.
How many times a day does someone who dissents against the president or the war include statements like and all who support it are stupid sheep?
How many times a day does someone expressing honest dissent get called a terrorist sympathizer or anti American?
Both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and attempt to engage in honest debate on the issues. If this were to happen it would be surprising what we could accomplish as a people. Unfortunately, it is just never going to happen and thus complaining about the bad behavior of some is useless in general. The best course is to present your position honestly and then ignore those ignorant responders who only wish to denigrate you.
2007-01-24 08:55:04 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good point, but the US is not a true democracy but a Republic where we send representative to Washington that we believe will represent our opinions and choices. This is a good form of government because many of us American do not have the stomach to see what we voted for carried out. With a republic we are able to wash our hands of what we see as mistakes as if we never voted specifically for it; therefore; not feel responsible. The majority of Americans voted for GWB and many feel it's not going well in Iraq, and now they want to change horses half way through the race. Many in Congress voted to go into Iraq and now are trying to deny any accountability. All the people who voted with and for George W. Bush knew the type of man he is: He says what he means and means what he says. He made a commitment to the Iraqi people and intends to keep it. He told the American people the war would be long, he got approval by congress to go into Iraq; he laid all his cards on the table and took a chance. On his watch he will see that what he promised the American people will come to tuition. I respect GWB and I don't respect other politicians who take no accountability for their votes. These people are equivalent to a fair weather friend. Speaking your mind is great, but when you're not true to yourself and just jump on the bandwagon of what is in vogue and popular you are as fickle as a young school girl. It's time for us Americans to have real solid core convictions that don't change with the blowing of the wind.
2007-01-24 09:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by Ron P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have found topics where everyone agrees to be not worth discussing. True Democracy should encourage dissent!
No single decision occurs in a vacuum - at times we must recognize we have made a mistake, but we can't go back in time and make the other decisions. Sometimes it takes all our collective ideas to figure out what to do next.
2007-01-24 08:55:41 · answer #4 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
But I think it all depends on the nature of the dissent. If it includes calling our president names, and perhaps saying he should be assassinated, or calling our troops names like "baby-killer", or insisting the government planned 9/11, or trying to be armchair generals, however, it's WRONG and should not be tolerated.
Go ahead and disagree, that's fine, and it's what makes our country great. If a person says that they disagree with President Bush, or the war in Iraq, that's fine. But do it respectfully! I'm TIRED of all the name-calling of our president.
I never did it to former President Clinton, and I still try not to, even though I never could stand the guy. I wish others would have the same respect.
2007-01-24 08:42:48 · answer #5 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It does not matter what you do, there will always be dissent of some kind. It is that dissent, and their voice, that makes a Democracy work. But there need to be a respect on both sides, or that dissent turns into revolt.
2007-01-24 08:49:30 · answer #6 · answered by Todd B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing wrong with HONEST dissent. However, if Bill Clinton was still President all the Democrats would support the war, and the Republicans would be against it. You cannot have true democracy with the two party system. We must have a multi-party system.
2007-01-24 08:45:53 · answer #7 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unless everyone is a robot then there will be disagreement on almost any topic. In a free society people need to be free to express their opinion.
Having said that, there will always be people who think only their opinion matters (selfishness) and are willing to be rude and slam others (bad taste). And allowing people with poor behavior is also a sign of a free society.
2007-01-24 08:54:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your real question is "what is wrong with protesting the war when we live in a free society?"
Here's why: dissent emboldens our enemy. The enemy will not give up if they think we don't want to win.
That is why you can't support the troops without supporting the war. You are embolding the enemy and causing more American deaths.
2007-01-24 08:48:43 · answer #9 · answered by Ransom 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Democracy implies freedom of dissent - it is not only acceptable but it is a criteria of a civil government.
And if dissent is forbidded (and it is not) democracy will be a failure unless we find a way to please everyone simultaneously.
It is stupid to support my government in everything it does even when I strongly disagree.
I am not stupid.
2007-01-24 08:41:25 · answer #10 · answered by nemesis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, how do you know if you are doing the right thing if there isn't someone there to point out potential flaws.
It need not be violent, but I should be able to stand up and at least voice an opposing viewpoint
2007-01-24 08:47:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋