Replies

People who demonstrate against a war effort once American troops are committed in combat are de facto providing aid and comfort to the enemy and are therefore traitors. They should be hanged.

First of all, even the Sedition Act did not call for the hanging of antiwar protestors. And, second, this country can withstand antiwar protests in a time of war.

In World War 1 and World War 2 no one would have disputed this. Nor would it have been disputed during the Civil War.

Go back and read your history - there were antiwar protests during the Civil War and WWI.

No government can survive by not taking appropriate steps to assure subversive elements do not undermine its efforts to defend its interests.

We've done just fine so far without your approach, thank you.

"Go back and read your history - there were antiwar protests during the Civil War and WWI."

I'm sure the response by the government was far less tolerant than today. The right of habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War, German American clubs ceased to exist in WW1 and many German Americans were forced to Anglecize their names. Fred Astair is an example.

"And, second, this country can withstand antiwar protests in a time of war."

One of the worst experiences in recent American history was the viet Nam War. One of the reasons we lost that war, and there were many reasons, was because the national will to fight it had been destroyed by the countless war protests, teach-ins, and propaganda bombaring the American public from the leftist press. The scars of that war have lasted a long time and the target of those demonstrators was not just the government. Soldiers returning form that war were abused and shunned as though they were war criminals.

Even today, wives of men in service have received phone calls or letters from anti-war supporters telling them their spouses were killed, and soldiers in some parts of the Country, e.g. San Antonio, have been subjected to public attack when in uniform. We have people like the professor at Columbia who called for a thousand Mogdishus being defended as execizing freedom of speech.

The very same people who find this war so objectionable had no problem with Clinton's Bosnian War or his involvement in Haiti. They are, for the most part, highly selective, doctrinnaire leftists who hate America, loath Republicans and oppose any western state when it is in conflict with a third world nation.

I'd agree with dirtboy and I'd go farther.

Zulu, the silliness and the radicalness of the anti-war movement has, if anything, swayed fence-sitters to a pro-Bush position. I think that the broadcast of the anti-war movement's rallies on CSPAN has been a blessing, for example.

What's wrong is the media broadcasting their voices like it's a majority voice and giving the troops the wrong idea. Can you gentlement both agree that for such bias, perhaps the media should be hanged? ;)