Just an honest question, requiring honest analysis.
Our Republic has always respected and protected civil liberties during peacetime.
Back in the old days, when we actually united behind our troops and president to win WWII and other grave times of struggle, we always returned to the full enabling and encouraging of dissent once the war was over and won.
Why, ever since Vietnam, have we insisted on being such losers, as to allow the enemy to undermine us from within?
2007-04-08 23:33:57 · 16 answers · asked by Donald J 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First define the war. If it was to topple the government of Saddam it was won in a few weeks. If your referring to the war on terror it will not be likely be won in our life time or not at all.If the USA resorted to killing and imprisoning the dissenters and "unpatriotic" . we would have become the enemy we are trying to defeat. In this way "THEY" would win the war not we.
2007-04-09 00:07:33 · answer #1 · answered by oldtreeplanter 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
on the day that we are able to end asserting, "how are you able to assert that!!" to all and sundry who annoying circumstances the way we expect of... we can become smart and honorable. The reactionary tone on the two factors of the debate inhibits expertise, it prevents us from making smart options, and it turns us all into hypervigilant jerks... that's why many human beings in different worldwide places think of that we are very risky... we are, particularly, the richest, maximum fantastically armed u . s . a . in the history of the worldwide... we could nuke our enemies off the face of the earth with little attempt. We shouldn't dishonor the girls and adult males persons who're in harms' way on the direction of their commander in chief... they are often first rate and courageous people who've their own inner maximum ideals approximately no count if that's a rational ingredient they are noted as to do. (many don't) some persons, unswerving human beings, experience that the present president replaced into not legitimately elected the 1st time around, beleived that he might discover some excuse for armed conflict and that we'd finally end up with a extensive deficit and a loss of face in the worldwide community... and it variety of feels that we weren't a procedures off. some persons, unswerving human beings, did not see any of the possibilities placed earlier us as a extra efficient decision, and featuring negative aspects of their own. some persons, unswerving human beings, discover it distressing that the political debates are approximately such ineffective issues as debasing people who've lengthy on account that lost the champaigns somewhat than procedures we are able to handle the inability of literacy and healthful diets between our toddlers.
2016-10-28 06:03:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
The war is not winnable.
Victory is setting up a democracy in a country that is overflowing with Islamic extremists.
WWII was about ridding the world of a genocidal lunatic and some overconfident Japanese (we really didn't enter the war until we were attacked).
Vietnam and Iraq are wars against ideals, that is why they are opposed by some.
2007-04-08 23:48:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is the commander in chief, and he has directed the war for the past 4 years. Right wing conservatives admire Bush's steadfastness and resolve. The mainstream media has often said that Bush isolates himself from criticism. Bush's decisions have not been affected by domestic dissent, and he has said this himself.
2007-04-08 23:44:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe you didn't know that protesting is the real voice of the patriot and that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Killing off people that don't agree with war or your ideas would make Iraq this beautiful Paris on the Tigris?
There is a reason people didn't want to invade Iraq, one of them is what is happening right now on the streets of Baghdad.
Protesters in any form wouldn't change that reality.
Nice you'd like to blame this on anyone but your party. Face it, you took a big old bite of a $hit sandwich. ooorah!
2007-04-08 23:43:12 · answer #5 · answered by Malthusian 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Very likely.
Oh, you want differences between FDR and Bush, do you?
How about FDR openly threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they didn't stop ruling that his unconstitutional social programs were unconstitutional? Did Bush do that, or did just make appointments to existing vacancies?
FDR wasn't that great a president. Domestically, he handed the keys to the government to communists, and to credit him with winning WWII ignores the contributions of our allies in Britain and Russia, and Harry Truman.
2007-04-08 23:38:39 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
People have the right to protest, but protesting should be done in a responsible manner. All this hate and name calling does nothing except to embolden our enemies.
2007-04-09 00:05:15 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, Germany tried this during world war 2 and it didn't work then, so no.
2007-04-08 23:43:39 · answer #8 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Americans are losers.
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Wars of aggression; Illegal wars.
Give up the thought that you are the good guys.
You're the cancer. If warmongers like you were imprisoned or shot, now we would have peace.
Go Iran!
2007-04-08 23:45:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
because this is America and everybody has a right to their own opinion about the war and at least FDR had a brain
2007-04-08 23:43:25 · answer #10 · answered by plhudson01 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋