Replies

Dissent is a vey touchy issue. In no way am I a leftist or rightest. I belive in freedom of speech but I also believe in discretion on certain issues of sensitivity. That goes for both sides. Just face it there ae so many things tied to this war that the general public does not know about. All we know is that which we had heard on the boob tube or read about in newspapers and sometimes there is a tendency to falsify some info on the happenings. However, I don't think that dissenters are "anti-american" in totality, it's just the fact that some people don't believe war solves problems. War suppresses problems only to an extent that they re-present themselves at a later date along with the attatchments of hotility and vengence.

The brutality of the 9/11 attacks and the potential future link between international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction leaves the western world with no choice but to declare all-out war against this "evil".

The baby boomber generation lost itself in self-absorbed political correctness and a "can't we all just get along" attitude that left us vulnerable to attack by those who view our very civilization as, well, "evil". The signs were there but we ignored them. The brutality of the attacks escalated but we ignored them. It's the economy, stupid. Tofu. Starbucks. Face lifts. Imagine.

If ever there was a reason to do something "for the children", this war is it.

"However, I don't think that dissenters are "anti-american" in totality, it's just the fact that some people don't believe war solves problems"

You describe garden variety "pacifists". Krauthammer is not writing about pacifists.

"War suppresses problems only to an extent that they re-present themselves at a later date along with the attatchments of hotility and vengence."

Yup, Britain's problem with Napoleon showed up again. I suspect we will see Hitler and Tojo on the news any day now.

As far as "all we know is what we see on the boob tube"--I saw the buildings in New York fall to the ground, preceeded by lots of living people jumping to their deaths to keep from being burned to death--a horror worse than Pearl Harbor. War is the appropriate response.

"However, I don't think that dissenters are "anti-american" in totality, it's just the fact that some people don't believe war solves problems."

Agreed, some folks do believe that. You'll note however that most of those who take that stance have never lost a war. Losing, just one war, sharpens the mind.

If your point is that some people who oppose this war are well intentioned but befuddled about how the real world works, I don't disagree. But the vast majority of the leaders of their movement have no such delusions. They know that American pacifists are their most effective weapon against America. They are explicitly anti-american. During the cold-war, they wanted the Soviets to dominate the world. During the Vietnam War, they rooted for Hanoi. Today, they do everything they can to preserve Al Quaeda's ability to strike again.

So is dissent "touchy"? Nope. They can say anything they want. The government cannot put them in jail for it. Beyond that, they should have NO protection and no forum. The rest of us ought to shout them down and deprive them of their soap boxes and their positions of authority. Nothing in the first amendment requires the rest of us private citizens to help them spread their lies.

Dissent is "touchy" only for optional wars. Here, our national survival is at stake. Those who persist in pacifism, whether from befuddlement or ill-intentions, have shown their colors. Our national survival is VERY important to me and I, for one, am prepared to cut them no slack whatsoever.

However, I don't think that dissenters are "anti-american" in totality, it's just the fact that some people don't believe war solves problems.

From my experience, many (most?) of them are. Dissent from government policies is a right, but that does not protect the dissenters' motives from being examined or challenged.

"some people don't believe war solves problems"

Excuse me, but if you have someone who is trying to KILL YOU, and he is eliminated, doesn't that SOLVE THE PROBLEM??? H E L L O!!

If you just do homage and pay him money like Clinton did; you end up with 9-11. So, your analogy is erroneous.