Agree/Disagree and why . . . Politics stops at water's edge.?

Question

In other words, I might disagree with my President on the war and how its going, but I keep my mouth shut and don't go on TV and start bashing the Ottoman empire for something that happened 100 years ago,

I for one just am joe q citizen and will probably go on yahoo answers and say my little stupid opinions and probably fight with pnac and ret roch cop and them every day, but no one from other countries is going to see it or care what i have to say,

now, when elected officials start doing stupid things like this, it hurts our foreign policy and our national interest and puts us troops in harms way

agree or disagree, politics stops at the waters edge (as it applies to elected officials)

Answer 1

Well, I would agree IF someone is actually putting American troops in danger by what they are saying, then they ought not say it.

However, I do disagree. As American citizens, we all have the right to freedom of speech. Dissent is one of the highest forms of freedom. I disagree with the president; I think his foreign policy sucks on many fronts. Not just the foreign policy in regards to Iraq, but also with Israel and Mexico and many other countries.

Answer 2

The world is too interconnected to have politics stop at the water’s edge. Government officials are involved in the activities of other nations on a daily basis. Any comments by citizens concerning those activities, for instance, would involve the other countries.

For example, when Bush endorsed the contracting of managing our major ports to the UAE, the political criticism here necessarily involved the UAE.

Answer 3

You are hillarious! I know the Y! battles well.....
It sure feels like being on the Golden Gate Bridge deciding whether to jump or not. Just at the water's edge. I am not sure other than pure political agenda, as blatant as Madamn Speaker portray's, is the only excuse.

I noticed amidst the verbal warfare in the Republican debates last night the term. International Conflict/Concerns. As the mood shifts from just Iraq to severe global positioning and threats to our ideals on Super Power Status. I found that positive. Bill Clinton blew the heck out of Sudan, Afghanistan and even Iraq. So Bush is on war #2. But few remember.

Distractions. And a public all too willing to gobble it up. Accountability to? Whom? Certainly not to our own National Security. Politics as usual. And those leaders are all watching like a wolf pack. Just read to pounce. They smell it.

I love the thumbs thing.... also note President Bush was for the legislation to support the genocide bill. However, he realized early on the potential for damage to our troops and relations in the area far out weighed an age old travesty. As bad as it was we do not wish to revisit history as the future unfolds. Thanks.

Answer 4

Well said, and agree whole heartily. We in the confines of our homes, office, and the streets can and should voice our dissent. But publicly, United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Our politicians should be held to a much higher standard, and it is disgraceful how they use the Networks to broadcast to the world our dirty laundry and political damaging opinions.

Answer 5

There are 3 million Armenian descendants in California. They hold protests asking for recognition.
Reagan supported the 'genocide' label, and used it.

It was not a anti-Bush action.

Answer 6

disagree.
I mean where would you draw that line precisely? Would it be okay to condemn genocide going on right now? When republicans talk sh!t about the french would that be okay? How can one talk politics and not be speaking globally?

Answer 7

According to U.S. politics, its owns the waters edge, the water, the lands accross the water, and the moon.

Answer 8

Historically, that was the case. However, Bush Derangement Syndrome has so clouded liberals' mental faculties that it is no longer true.

Answer 9

i agree... i'd add the megabucks hollywood celebs into that group as well