Missileer said:
Rich said:
She thinks that we should pull out of Iraq. She's not calling troops murderers (as we did in Vietnam), she's not giving information to the enemy. She is just saying "we shouldn't be there". Luckily, in countries like ours she can do that - but if we get to the stage where we say "for scurity reasons you can't question the govt anymore", then we probably need a whole new revolution.
What do you mean by
"We did in VietNam?"Were you one of those?
OK let me clarify (& btw I wasn't "one of those" - should have used "as people" rather than "we") but what I was getting at was that there was an overwheling anti-war sentiment in the late 60s & early 70's that translated into the worst treatment of our soldiers. My point was that Cindy Sheehan isn't doing that.
Now I am a little confused - so clear this up for me. Hypothetically, if we were involved in a war that you knew was completely wrong and a waste of human life - you're saying that its your responsibility is to stay quiet about it in order to support the troops. And even if there was a "gang" that supported your views, they shouldn't receive any attention either.
I am not talking about a war which is questionable but a war that you know deep down in your gut is plain wrong.
Because I wonder how Ms Sheehan sees this war?
Yes, you are right, we have responsibilities to support our troops (and ensure the kind of treatment that troops received in vietnam doesn;t happen again- which is part of the importance of knowing and understanding history)
But we also have a responsiility to ourselves to question and seek the truth in things, even when it might be unpopular or even dangerous. That's why the Free Speech amendment is there in the 1st place.
As I said in a previous post, I don't happen to agree with pulling out of Iraq but given the choice between that and giving Ms. Sheehan the right to speak out against the war, I'd go with the latter every time.
(btw - for the record I was not "one of those" Never was and never wil be.)