Posted on 09/14/2006 8:41:56 AM PDT by wjersey
Was I specific, or did I just say...something?
Ellsberg = scum.
There are people who think that ending a armed conflict between parties is the end all and be all.
It isn't.
And I don't think Daniel Ellsberg or his cohorts are either willing to take responsibility for what happens when armed conflict ends, or even interested in what happens.
The shining example that people like Ellsberg use to illustrate the power of dissent to end armed conflict is the Vietnam war.
I would guess that the millions that were murdered and imprisioned in the bloodbaths that followed the US Congress's decision not to support South Vietnam might think it is not such a shining example.
I don't remember Richard Clarke being actively involved in the "no WMD in Iraq" stuff, he was the "Bush ignored the terror threat" person. I thought.
No, you really didn't SAY anything.
You would have preferred that the facts of how we got into Vietnam not have been made public?
Only if we win.
Silence speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.
He would have had to give the information directly to our enemies as opposed to the NY Times, Washington Post etc...
I agree.
It depends. Does it actually preevent a war, or does it merely delay it and ensure that when it does finally come, that it is more terrible?
So would surrendering. Yes, not everything that shortens the war is good.
In Star Trek - Deep Space Nine, there was an excellent episode on this type of traitorism. These really smart people (I think part of a genetic experiment) were brought to the station to analyze some captured war plans. They did an excellent job, and got access to more stuff.
They looked over all the data, and concluded that the Federation was going to lose, and the losses would be enormous.
So they decided the patriotic thing to do was to end the war. When the Federation refused to listen, they decided they should leak information to the enemy to end the war quickly -- in order to save billions of lives.
Needless to say, they were caught before carrying out the treason, although in the end they were not punished.
And of course, in the end the federation won the war.
Benedict Arnold thought the war with Britain was going badly, and was going to cost america everything (and himself as well). So he decided it would be "better" if he helped Britain win quickly, for everybody's sake.
As a result, people like Daniel Ellsberg are now called "Benedict Arnolds".
Yes, it does depend.
Exactly. There is always going to be some wishy-washy Soccermom type (or soccerdad) that is soft on terror, yet has access to sensitive information.
Do you normally align yourself with traitors, or is this a one-time basis?
You mean like winning? Why not just surrender. That would prevent, shorten or end it. Sheesh, you're a FReeper?
I really don't align myself with anyone, I just enjoy monitoring reactions.
Good thinkin'! If FDR had only thought like that, he could have greatly shortened WW-II by capitualting to the Japs.
And Churchill! If only Churchill were more like Ellsberg all that unpleasantness could have been avoided.
Too bad for the enslaved Chinese, Poles, Czechs and all, but think of the great bargain vacations we could all enjoy in Großdeutschland.
Have been for a while. Where did I mention surrender?
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.