PDA

View Full Version : Good Night and Good Luck


irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 09:20 PM
Tonight I watched Guilty By Suspicion with Robert De Niro. Great film and one that always makes me mad because it involves McCarthyism. It's a really bad black mark against the U.S. yet some of the things said during that time apply today pretty heavily. And much of it on this very forum.

I give you Murrow's quote:
If we confuse dissent with disloyalty— if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox— if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the ... confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought.


I don't see how it can be put any more succinctly or eloquently than that. I've seen it time and time again on this forum, the main stream media and in every day experiences.

Are we confusing, in this era of the "GWoT", dissent with disloyalty?

ClevelandBronco
04-14-2008, 09:25 PM
I don't think there's anything like McCarthyism going on these days, so no.

irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 09:36 PM
I don't think there's anything like McCarthyism going on these days, so no.

Sorry, my mistake. We just have domestic spying so you don't have to rat anyone out.

:shake:

patteeu
04-14-2008, 09:51 PM
What happens when you confuse disloyalty with dissent? Any word from Murrow on this issue?

banyon
04-14-2008, 09:56 PM
What happens when you confuse disloyalty with dissent? Any word from Murrow on this issue?

What's your corollary remainder?

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:25 PM
What's your corollary remainder?

I have trouble imagining how such a thing could be quantified. Subjectively, I don't think a large portion of what passes for dissent is really full-blown disloyalty, but I think it exists (as it did during the 60's when there really were radicals who wanted the communists to prevail in the cold war).

I do think that there is a second group of irresponsible dissenters who fall short of disloyalty but who do more damage to their own country than good though. I'd say that Jimmy Carter is dangerously close to the latter category.

irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 10:29 PM
I have trouble imagining how such a thing could be quantified. Subjectively, I don't think a large portion of what passes for dissent is really full-blown disloyalty, but I think it exists (as it did during the 60's when there really were radicals who wanted the communists to prevail in the cold war).

I do think that there is a second group of irresponsible dissenters who fall short of disloyalty but who do more damage to their own country than good though. I'd say that Jimmy Carter is dangerously close to the latter category.

Where does Bush fall on that scale? He's done a shitload of things that have damaged the country.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:31 PM
Where does Bush fall on that scale? He's done a shitload of things that have damaged the country.

Bush isn't engaged in dissent pretty much by definition.

But you didn't answer my question. Any thoughts on the downside of mistaking disloyalty or irresponsible dissent for legitimate dissent?

banyon
04-14-2008, 10:34 PM
I have trouble imagining how such a thing could be quantified. Subjectively, I don't think a large portion of what passes for dissent is really full-blown disloyalty, but I think it exists (as it did during the 60's when there really were radicals who wanted the communists to prevail in the cold war).

I do think that there is a second group of irresponsible dissenters who fall short of disloyalty but who do more damage to their own country than good though. I'd say that Jimmy Carter is dangerously close to the latter category.

Difficult to imagine? I'll bet.

I'm asking for the analogous reply to the remainder of the quote:

if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox— if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the ... confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought.

Taco John
04-14-2008, 10:38 PM
Looks like this thread could use some of this...

http://www.uvprocess.com/products%5CSAFETY%20PRODUCTS.A1.SKIN%20CARE%20PRODUCTS.SKINCARE%5CUV%20SKIN%20LOTION.SKINCARE%20K%5C SKINCARE%20K_I002001hand_WebPic1.JPG

irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 10:47 PM
Bush isn't engaged in dissent pretty much by definition.

But you didn't answer my question. Any thoughts on the downside of mistaking disloyalty or irresponsible dissent for legitimate dissent?

I'd need an example of mistaking disloyalty for legit dissent because I can't think of anything that would qualify.

Irresponsible dissent for legitimate dissent will always be debated just like the start of life is now. It depends from person to person.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:51 PM
Difficult to imagine? I'll bet.

I'm asking for the analogous reply to the remainder of the quote:

That's really the same question I was asking IrishJayhawk.

Here's one idea for an answer though. If anyone can feel free to say and do the most damaging things imaginable to our war effort in the name of dissent, we will lose our ability to wage effective war. And we will lose the credibility we need to recruit committed allies. We are seeing some of this in Iraq right now. When people like Harry Reid stand up and say the war is lost or people like Nancy Pelosi suggest that the time has come to put withdrawal ahead of success on the priority list, Iraqis who might otherwise have collaborated with us will choose to wait it out rather than get their names on lists that may come back to haunt them once we abandon them.

irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 10:55 PM
That's really the same question I was asking IrishJayhawk.

Here's one idea for an answer though. If anyone can feel free to say and do the most damaging things imaginable to our war effort in the name of dissent, we will lose our ability to wage effective war. And we will lose the credibility we need to recruit committed allies. We are seeing some of this in Iraq right now. When people like Harry Reid stand up and say the war is lost or people like Nancy Pelosi suggest that the time has come to put withdrawal ahead of success on the priority list, Iraqis who might otherwise have collaborated with us will choose to wait it out rather than get their names on lists that may come back to haunt them once we abandon them.

So people who compare this war to Vietnam are hurting the war? Isn't that exactly what the quote means - confusing dissent (for the war) with disloyalty (wanting to destroy America)?

Taco John
04-14-2008, 10:58 PM
That's really the same question I was asking IrishJayhawk.

Here's one idea for an answer though. If anyone can feel free to say and do the most damaging things imaginable to our war effort in the name of dissent, we will lose our ability to wage effective war. And we will lose the credibility we need to recruit committed allies. We are seeing some of this in Iraq right now. When people like Harry Reid stand up and say the war is lost or people like Nancy Pelosi suggest that the time has come to put withdrawal ahead of success on the priority list, Iraqis who might otherwise have collaborated with us will choose to wait it out rather than get their names on lists that may come back to haunt them once we abandon them.


The only thing I care about militarily is the defense of our nation. Our ability to "wage war" means nothing to me outside of that.

Logical
04-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Tonight I watched Guilty By Suspicion with Robert De Niro. Great film and one that always makes me mad because it involves McCarthyism. It's a really bad black mark against the U.S. yet some of the things said during that time apply today pretty heavily. And much of it on this very forum.

I give you Murrow's quote:



I don't see how it can be put any more succinctly or eloquently than that. I've seen it time and time again on this forum, the main stream media and in every day experiences.

Are we confusing, in this era of the "GWoT", dissent with disloyalty?

I hope you are not suggesting that abandoning your principles by leaving this forum is the answer. The answer is the same ones that the people who stood up to McCarthyism had to provide, stand-up for what you believe in and stick with it. Meanwhile take heart you can't be blacklisted in the real world for doing it.

irishjayhawk
04-14-2008, 11:06 PM
I hope you are not suggesting that abandoning your principles by leaving this forum is the answer. The answer is the same ones that the people who stood up to McCarthyism had to provide, stand-up for what you believe in and stick with it. Meanwhile take heart you can't be blacklisted in the real world for doing it.

No, not leaving. Just made an observation that McCarthyism isn't necessarily dead - just in a different context.

SNR
04-14-2008, 11:09 PM
That's really the same question I was asking IrishJayhawk.

Here's one idea for an answer though. If anyone can feel free to say and do the most damaging things imaginable to our war effort in the name of dissent, we will lose our ability to wage effective war. And we will lose the credibility we need to recruit committed allies. We are seeing some of this in Iraq right now. When people like Harry Reid stand up and say the war is lost or people like Nancy Pelosi suggest that the time has come to put withdrawal ahead of success on the priority list, Iraqis who might otherwise have collaborated with us will choose to wait it out rather than get their names on lists that may come back to haunt them once we abandon them.Don't you have to bring intention into this? They don't call the war lost because they want a victory for radical islam, terrorism, despotism, whatever you may call it what we're fighting in Iraq. I think in the Cold War we had people who believed in communism, hated what the US was doing, and therefore rooted for the other guys to win.

I think guys like Harry Reid, while making asses of themselves in saying we suck, are just trying to do what they think is best for the country, and that's bringing the troops home where they're out of harm's way. They've held this viewpoint for a long time (although not at the very beginning) and this is their version of bringing out "the big guns".

For instance, do you call a soldier responsible for a friendly fire accident that caused the deaths of fellow men a traitor to his country? It wasn't an act of disloyalty. You obviously control him, investigate, and make sure nothing like this ever happens again by perhaps discharging him from the army and such, but you don't accuse him of disloyalty after he has been found not guilty of murder.

Logical
04-14-2008, 11:33 PM
No, not leaving. Just made an observation that McCarthyism isn't necessarily dead - just in a different context.

Sadly I see your point, I think pateeu is a bright guy but he would be Frank Burns reporting everything to the CID Captain.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 05:55 AM
So people who compare this war to Vietnam are hurting the war? Isn't that exactly what the quote means - confusing dissent (for the war) with disloyalty (wanting to destroy America)?

I guess it depends on what kind of comparison you're making and why you're making it. If you're intentionally trying to demoralize the American people with your comparisons for the purpose of motivating them to stop supporting the war, is that not an action designed to contribute to American failure in the war effort?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 06:00 AM
Don't you have to bring intention into this? They don't call the war lost because they want a victory for radical islam, terrorism, despotism, whatever you may call it what we're fighting in Iraq. I think in the Cold War we had people who believed in communism, hated what the US was doing, and therefore rooted for the other guys to win.

I think guys like Harry Reid, while making asses of themselves in saying we suck, are just trying to do what they think is best for the country, and that's bringing the troops home where they're out of harm's way. They've held this viewpoint for a long time (although not at the very beginning) and this is their version of bringing out "the big guns".

For instance, do you call a soldier responsible for a friendly fire accident that caused the deaths of fellow men a traitor to his country? It wasn't an act of disloyalty. You obviously control him, investigate, and make sure nothing like this ever happens again by perhaps discharging him from the army and such, but you don't accuse him of disloyalty after he has been found not guilty of murder.

I did bring intention into it in a previous post where I identified as damaging both disloyalty (intention to cause the nation harm) and irresponsible dissent (recklessness that causes the nation harm). In fact, I made the very same point you did about communist sympathizers during the cold war.

I doubt that Harry Reid wants radical islamists to achieve an ultimate victory, but I think he wants the US to lose the war in Iraq and he wants that loss to be blamed on the Republicans.

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 10:30 AM
I guess it depends on what kind of comparison you're making and why you're making it. If you're intentionally trying to demoralize the American people with your comparisons for the purpose of motivating them to stop supporting the war, is that not an action designed to contribute to American failure in the war effort?

There we have it. Protesting and getting more people to protest to stop the war is - to patteeu - a form of disloyalty.

Seriously, why don't you just adopt the slogan "Submit, or else" and be done with it.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 10:37 AM
There we have it. Protesting and getting more people to protest to stop the war is - to patteeu - a form of disloyalty.

Seriously, why don't you just adopt the slogan "Submit, or else" and be done with it.

How can it be anything but disloyalty if you strive to make your country lose a war? If that's not disloyalty, the term has very little meaning.

Or alternatively, would an al Qaeda propagandist who is striving to demoralize the American people for the purpose of motivating them to stop supporting the war be acting consistent with some kind of loyalty to America?

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 11:13 AM
How can it be anything but disloyalty if you strive to make your country lose a war? If that's not disloyalty, the term has very little meaning.

Or alternatively, would an al Qaeda propagandist who is striving to demoralize the American people for the purpose of motivating them to stop supporting the war be acting consistent with some kind of loyalty to America?

Well, see, that's where your continuing semantics on "winning/losing" come into play.

Protesting the war does not mean one wants the US to lose. Only you seem to be making that connection.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 11:19 AM
Well, see, that's where your continuing semantics on "winning/losing" come into play.

Protesting the war does not mean one wants the US to lose. Only you seem to be making that connection.

No, I'm not making any connections. I'm saying that in those cases where the intention of the person is to cause us to lose the war, their dissent has crossed over into disloyalty. Obviously, I have my suspicions about certain people, but I'm not saying that all dissent is disloyal. Pat Buchanan is a good example of someone who is fairly responsible in his dissent.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 11:37 AM
Patteu made a good point regarding the difference between disloyalty and irresponsible dissenters. I think it's important, and often overlooked (purposefully or otherwise) that dissent does not occur in a vaccuum. It has its consequences and those that choose to dissent without accepting responsibility of what those consequences entail are 1. irresponsible 2. stupid. 3 disloyal or 4. a combination of the above. There are clear and demonstrable outcomes from dissent, that's the point. To dismiss arguments outlining very real and very likely scenarios related to dissention is disingenuous. Disloyalty would dismiss those arguments but do so in precisely the same fashion as those who are irresponsible, so distinguishing between the two is nearly impossible and is obviously problematic.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 11:40 AM
Well, see, that's where your continuing semantics on "winning/losing" come into play.

Protesting the war does not mean one wants the US to lose. Only you seem to be making that connection.

Make no mistake, there will be "winners and losers" to come out of the current effort in Iraq, whether you want to believe it or not. Victory will be claimed by one side or the other. Should it be our side then we get another tic on the stat sheet of success and move on. Should it be the opposition in this effort then they have taken down the infidel, the super power, the superior nation and shown that America is nothing more than a paper tiger waiting to be slain at the hands of the true believers. As I said, there are most certainly consequences for dissention.

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 11:41 AM
No, I'm not making any connections. I'm saying that in those cases where the intention of the person is to cause us to lose the war, their dissent has crossed over into disloyalty. Obviously, I have my suspicions about certain people, but I'm not saying that all dissent is disloyal. Pat Buchanan is a good example of someone who is fairly responsible in his dissent.

Yet you never acknowledge the fact that the war would be worse if we - in your words - "win" than if we broke loose and - in your words - "lost". It's automatically lost = disloyalty.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 11:50 AM
Yet you never acknowledge the fact that the war would be worse if we - in your words - "win" than if we broke loose and - in your words - "lost". It's automatically lost = disloyalty.

I don't acknowledge that winning the war would be worse than losing it because I don't believe that to be the case. The way our system works is that we elect leaders to make judgments on issues like these with the best available information. Once we commit to a foreign policy, particularly but not limited to a war policy, the rules of dissent change, IMO, as the stakes rise from matters of political embarrassment and economic setback to matters of life and death and national security.

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 11:54 AM
I don't acknowledge that winning the war would be worse than losing it because I don't believe that to be the case. The way our system works is that we elect leaders to make judgments on issues like these with the best available information. Once we commit to a foreign policy, particularly but not limited to a war policy, the rules of dissent change, IMO, as the stakes rise from matters of political embarrassment and economic setback to matters of life and death and national security.

Again, it's just your semantics coming into play. We could legitimately win the war in Iraq. We could. And there can be DRASTIC consequences. And therefore, in some ways we lost.

There seems to be no grey in your eyes.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 12:03 PM
Again, it's just your semantics coming into play. We could legitimately win the war in Iraq. We could. And there can be DRASTIC consequences. And therefore, in some ways we lost.

There seems to be no grey in your eyes.

It could be that we'd all be better off converting to Islam, adopting sharia law, and pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden too. If an American worked to undermine the war effort because he really believed that that was the case, would you call it disloyal or is it legitimate dissent based on the guy's heartfelt yearning for what he thinks would be best for the country?

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 12:32 PM
It could be that we'd all be better off converting to Islam, adopting sharia law, and pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden too. If an American worked to undermine the war effort because he really believed that that was the case, would you call it disloyal or is it legitimate dissent based on the guy's heartfelt yearning for what he thinks would be best for the country?

Poor example for the sole fact that it would be not protesting the war but changing all of American doctrines, beliefs etc. That is, changing the Constitution.

And jumping to extremes doesn't help your case of semantics and extreme backbending to support the war and label protesters as dissenters or disloyal Americans.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 12:38 PM
Poor example for the sole fact that it would be not protesting the war but changing all of American doctrines, beliefs etc. That is, changing the Constitution.

And jumping to extremes doesn't help your case of semantics and extreme backbending to support the war and label protesters as dissenters or disloyal Americans.

You don't like the example because it makes it clear that disloyalty can be cast in the same terms as dissent which you consider legitimate.

I'm sorry you don't like to hear it. Some dissenters are responsible dissenters. Some are irresponsible dissenters. And some cross the line into disloyalty. It's funny that you accuse me of failing to see gray when it's you who appears to want to pretend that all dissent is good, patriotic activity.

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 01:24 PM
You don't like the example because it makes it clear that disloyalty can be cast in the same terms as dissent which you consider legitimate.

No, i don't like the example because you say we need to submit to sharia law, convert to Islam etc. That's totally different than what we're talking about and you know it.

It's an extreme and if people weren't so gullible for extremisms more people would call you on it. (In general)


I'm sorry you don't like to hear it. Some dissenters are responsible dissenters. Some are irresponsible dissenters. And some cross the line into disloyalty. It's funny that you accuse me of failing to see gray when it's you who appears to want to pretend that all dissent is good, patriotic activity.

I have never said that all dissent is good, patriotic activity. But you cannot throw extreme examples like you did above and expect that this is why protesters are against america. You're drawing a line that doesn't need to be drawn because it's so far fetched.

Since you seem to be jumping to all sorts of extremes to defend a position I don't think anyone has suggested, please cite some examples and some hypotheticals for both groups and especially your stupid example regarding turning the country into a Islamic state.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2008, 01:57 PM
No, i don't like the example because you say we need to submit to sharia law, convert to Islam etc. That's totally different than what we're talking about and you know it.

It's an extreme and if people weren't so gullible for extremisms more people would call you on it. (In general)



I have never said that all dissent is good, patriotic activity. But you cannot throw extreme examples like you did above and expect that this is why protesters are against america. You're drawing a line that doesn't need to be drawn because it's so far fetched.

Since you seem to be jumping to all sorts of extremes to defend a position I don't think anyone has suggested, please cite some examples and some hypotheticals for both groups and especially your stupid example regarding turning the country into a Islamic state.

The problem is those who would undertake to do the things Patteau cited in his example would never stand for being called disloyal, they would characterize their actions and beliefs as dissent. There's no hay to be made in outing yourself as disloyal, dissention has a much better ring to it.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 01:57 PM
No, i don't like the example because you say we need to submit to sharia law, convert to Islam etc. That's totally different than what we're talking about and you know it.

It's an extreme and if people weren't so gullible for extremisms more people would call you on it. (In general)

Yes it is an extreme example. It was a response to your equally extreme, although less specific example:

We could legitimately win the war in Iraq. We could. And there can be DRASTIC consequences. And therefore, in some ways we lost.

:shrug:

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 02:34 PM
Yes it is an extreme example. It was a response to your equally extreme, although less specific example:



:shrug:

That's not a very big extreme. We felt the Gulf War for years after it was "completed" and we "won". Obviously, you aren't a fan of blowback in the least despite claiming you think it has validity or something. Of course, I lose track in the back bending.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 02:46 PM
That's not a very big extreme. We felt the Gulf War for years after it was "completed" and we "won". Obviously, you aren't a fan of blowback in the least despite claiming you think it has validity or something. Of course, I lose track in the back bending.

I think it's quite an extreme so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think success in Iraq has to be judged in light of the blowback that could be generated as well as the positive results. I believe we've exposed ourselves to blowback in the past, but I'm pretty comfortable with the overall net results of those tradeoffs (afterall we live in one of the most prosperous, safe, and free countries in the world).