Dissent Can Be Disloyal

On December 24, 2004, Geoffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago law professor rhetorically asked in a Chicago Tribune commentary, “Is Dissent Disloyal?” His first paragraph states “Dissent in wartime can be the highest form of patriotism. If citizens believe that our military or political leaders have blundered or our reasons for fighting are unjust, they must voice these concerns if they are to meet their responsibilities in a self-governing society. Dissent is not disloyal.” He then gives examples of dissent through out U.S. history that he views as patriotic. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, the current dissent is not only un-patriotic; it is tantamount to an assault on the founding principles of our country.

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush was sworn into his second term as our president. Across the country, alternative counter- inauguration events were held to show displeasure in our unique democratic process. The organizers of these events included such groups as Anarchist Resistance, the International Socialist Organization, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).

International ANSWER is by far the largest and best organized of these groups. It is fronted by a former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who has called for revolt against “the imperialistic American capitalists who commit genocide against the peace-loving peoples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cuba, and Palestine.” A current ANSWER director, Brian Becker, is a member of the World Worker’s Party, which is a staunch supporter of North Korea. In other words, the group has expressed out right support for such peace loving tyrants as Slobodan Miloslevic, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, and Kim Jong Il, all of who have the blood of thousands on their hands. Yet, in ANSWER’s eyes, America is the enemy.

While democracy promotes political freedom, the free market promotes economic freedom. ANSWER is predictably against both. In fact, ANSWER is responsible for organizing many of the anti-World Trade Organization demonstrations that led to riots, the destruction of private property, and in one instance, even death. ANSWER ignores that capitalism and the free market have done more to raise the human condition than any other governmental or economic system known to man. Instead, it insists we would be better off with the command economy of the Soviet Union. Yet, the communists that run ANSWER fail to address the living standards under Miloslevic, Hussein, Castro, Arafat, and Jong Il. In short, ANSWER and its protest brethren favor income redistribution and thus the lowering of living standards for America. That their demonstrations have often turned violent shows they are willing to so by any means necessary.

Dissent can be patriotic. But we must also question the motivations of the dissenters. When the goal of the dissent is not to merely question American policies, but to radically transform our society into a tyrannical socialist state, the dissent becomes uniquely anti-America. While many of today’s peace activists may not subscribe to the radical politics of groups like ANSWER, we do have cause for worry when a group that wants to overturn our way of life has the capability of drawing literally hundreds of thousands of people to its rallies. We should not be naïve to the goals of those organizing the protests. Otherwise, it will cost us the America we know and love and that the world envies.

This guy gave a lecture entitled "Vietnam and the Iraq war" at the University of Chicago yesterday 20 January 2005 to a graduate student class. His entire lecture was an attempt to paint the American war effort in Vietnam has misguided at best and imperialistic hegemony legions worst. The antiwar left was portrayed as noble and idealistic rather than peopled by a hard core that actively hoped and worked for a US defeat, and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong as nationalists who wish to preserve their unique culture. He described the South Vietnamese government has won utterly disrespectful of human rights won the collecting to mention ANY of the numerous genocidal atrocities of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese. He described the Tet offensive has a surprise for the United States in which 1100 American soldiers died and 2300 ARVN soldiers, and not much more about it.

I challenged him on the following points, the reason the United States opposed nationwide elections in accordance with the Geneva accords was due to the murder and intimidation campaigns by Ho Chi Minh spoken of in professor Runnel's book Death by Government, that would have made the election a corrupt mockery. I pointed out that the national liberation front was a creation of the North Vietnamese third party Congress of September 1960, completely directed from the north. I pointed out the disastrous military defeat that the Tet offensive was for the North Vietnamese and that the Vietcong were almost wiped out by the fighting, and that it took the North Vietnamese until 1971 to reestablish a presence using North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. I pointed out how the north Vietnamese high command repeatedly said that they counted on the antiwar movement to give them confidence that they should hold on in the face of their innumerable battlefield reverses. I pointed out the antiwar movement prevented the gutless Lyndon Johnson granting General Westmoreland's request to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, which the North Vietnamese feared would do the most damage to their ability to prosecute the war, and thereby prolonging it to this nation and the South Vietnamese's disfavor.

When he tried to say that United States should have known it could not put down a local popular insurgency, I pointed out that the final victorious North Vietnamese offensive was a multidivision, combined arms effort lavishly equipped with Soviet and Chinese supplied tanks, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft. I pointed out to him that it was a blitzkrieg that Heinz Guderian would have readily recognized. I said how I didn't recall seeing any barefoot pajama clad guerrillas jumping out of those tanks in the newsreel fotage that showed them crashing through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon.

There were legions of half-truths and omissions that this professor spoke to in his extremely biased lecture. When I asked him why he left out so much that was favorable to the American effort in Vietnam, he airily dismissed my argument has being just another perspective, but tellingly he did not agree with the essential truth of what I said.

This guy is just another seditious liberal Commie sympathizer masquerading has an enlightened academic.

He was totally unable to relate how the situation in Iraq is comparable to the situation in Vietnam, but I helpfully volunteered one for him. That a seditious near traitorous fifth column of protesters is trying to undermine our efforts there with half-truths, lies, and distortions. I said that in that respect, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very similar.

This guy gave a lecture entitled "Vietnam and the Iraq war" at the University of Chicago yesterday 20 January 2005 to a graduate student class. His entire lecture was an attempt to paint the American war effort in Vietnam has misguided at best and imperialistic hegemony legions worst. The antiwar left was portrayed as noble and idealistic rather than peopled by a hard core that actively hoped and worked for a US defeat, and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong as nationalists who wish to preserve their unique culture. He described the South Vietnamese government has won utterly disrespectful of human rights won the collecting to mention ANY of the numerous genocidal atrocities of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese. He described the Tet offensive has a surprise for the United States in which 1100 American soldiers died and 2300 ARVN soldiers, and not much more about it.

I challenged him on the following points, the reason the United States opposed nationwide elections in accordance with the Geneva accords was due to the murder and intimidation campaigns by Ho Chi Minh spoken of in professor Runnel's book Death by Government, that would have made the election a corrupt mockery. I pointed out that the national liberation front was a creation of the North Vietnamese third party Congress of September 1960, completely directed from the north. I pointed out the disastrous military defeat that the Tet offensive was for the North Vietnamese and that the Vietcong were almost wiped out by the fighting, and that it took the North Vietnamese until 1971 to reestablish a presence using North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. I pointed out how the north Vietnamese high command repeatedly said that they counted on the antiwar movement to give them confidence that they should hold on in the face of their innumerable battlefield reverses. I pointed out the antiwar movement prevented the gutless Lyndon Johnson granting General Westmoreland's request to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, which the North Vietnamese feared would do the most damage to their ability to prosecute the war, and thereby prolonging it to this nation and the South Vietnamese's disfavor.

When he tried to say that United States should have known it could not put down a local popular insurgency, I pointed out that the final victorious North Vietnamese offensive was a multidivision, combined arms effort lavishly equipped with Soviet and Chinese supplied tanks, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft. I pointed out to him that it was a blitzkrieg that Heinz Guderian would have readily recognized. I said how I didn't recall seeing any barefoot pajama clad guerrillas jumping out of those tanks in the newsreel fotage that showed them crashing through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon.

There were legions of half-truths and omissions that this professor spoke to in his extremely biased lecture. When I asked him why he left out so much that was favorable to the American effort in Vietnam, he airily dismissed my argument has being just another perspective, but tellingly he did not disagree with the essential truth of the points I made.

This guy is just another seditious liberal Commie sympathizer masquerading has an enlightened academic.

He was totally unable to relate how the situation in Iraq is comparable to the situation in Vietnam, but I helpfully volunteered one for him. That a seditious near traitorous fifth column of protesters is trying to undermine our efforts there with half-truths, lies, and distortions. I said that in that respect, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very similar.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.