Fighting for our Freedom...

[GovtSlave]

I'm experiencing momentary confusion over the idea of "fighting for our freedoms!"

Typically in wartime, we are reminded to support our troops who are fighting for our rights, etc. And we are reminded to thank our veterans who fought for our rights. People are fond of saying that it's because of our soldiers that we have a right to free speech (or freedom of religion, or freedom to protest, etc...). But when's the last war where our freedoms and rights were actually on the line?

I mean, my grandfather, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and all through Belgium and Germany, fought to overcome Hitler's forces. When during that conflict were American rights threatened?

I suppose in the newest conflict one could argue that they are fighting for Americans' right to live and thrive, since terrorism is one of the things we're going after, but still- I can see them fighting for our safety, but no terrorist bomb actually threatens American free speech or nullifies the bill of rights, does it?

I'm just confused at this notion- that all the wars we've been involved in are somehow connected to our Constitutional rights, and that we wouldn't have freedom if our armies hadn't fought to protect it. But when have these freedoms actually been threatened?

Am I being dense? Stating the obvious? I've just heard this so much the last few days (usually in reference to the protestors- it's the veterans who fought and died so the protestors could protest, so the story goes...) and it's starting to confuse me. I can understand fighting for life, for safety of home and hearth, and maybe for some other lofty goals such as ending a genocide, but I can't see how our actual freedoms in this country have been threatened, really...

Maybe I just have too much time on my hands- I respect our military and have nothing but love for veterans, but as much as I love the men who ended Hitler's insanity, I'm not sure how ending Hitler's insanity directly protected/preserved our rights as US citizens...

Sorry about the ramble, had the flu the last few days and am not thinking quite as coherently as I might be otherwise...

[corplinx]

I have some mixed feeling about this myself. The other day I imagined a world where every country was a totalitarian regime. In one lucky country the citizens revolt and are "free".

Are they truly free? Is any man truly free while others are not? I am not sure what the answer is. It seems that freedom implies a duty to spread freedom.

As long as we need a military, are we free?

I am not sure there are easy answers.

[GreyWanderer]

Well, what is freedom? Is it freedom of speech? Having the right to a fair trial? Or the right to bear arms?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by GreyWanderer
Well, what is freedom? Is it freedom of speech? Having the right to a fair trial? Or the right to bear arms?
The most important freedoms, I think, are: freedom of conscience in matters of faith, free press, and freedom to participate in one's government without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religious affiliation.

Oppresive regimes create economic and social problems that impose on neighboring, more democratic states. Democratic states have interdependent economies, so that when the security of one is challenged, others are affected.

In short, the prosperity and freedom of the U.S. is best insured, by the prosperity and freedom of the rest of the world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by GovtSlave
But when's the last war where our freedoms and rights were actually on the line?

Every minute of every day, they are threatened and attacked by the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, they're also the ones in charge of our military.

But you do make a very good point.

[Tmy]

Freedom of Press: You mean our press outlets that wont show certain video because its "iraqi propaganda". Isnt it state propaganda when Rumsfeld SUGGESTS that the networks not show the clips.

Freedom of Speech: Have you ever seen anti-war protesters under so much fire?


Free the Iraqi people? How about freeing the American people. Our freedoms keep getting whittled away. All in the name of terror defense.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Tmy
Freedom of Press: You mean our press outlets that wont show certain video because its "iraqi propaganda". Isnt it state propaganda when Rumsfeld SUGGESTS that the networks not show the clips.

If a delay of news for a few days would save American lives, I could live with that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Freedom of Speech: Have you ever seen anti-war protesters under so much fire? Tmy, I often come off patronizing even when I am not trying to. Please believe me that this post is not intended to be.

I am a big "free speech" advocate so apparently I'm confused. Maybe you could set me straight.

When you say "under so much fire" are you talking about other people exercising their free speech to speak out against the anti-war protestors?

Do you think that speaking out against the protestors is antithetical to free speech?

Or by "under so much fire" are you suggesting that our government has done something to curtail the speech of the protestors?

As I understand it most activists that have been arrested for breaking the law have not even been booked but only arrested and released.

Though I disagree with the protestors I am very proud to see that they have the right to voice their opinion. I have personally felt that there has not been enough opposition from the other side in the streets.

I would really appreciate your response.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Smalso]

I am against the war at this time. Maybe in the future it might be necessary, but I would rather see more success in the diplomatic area; that is, gaining more support from other countries before launching a war. In this, I believe that Bush should have paid more heed to Powell than he did. There is so much more at stake here than merely deposing Saddam and granting democracy to the people of Iraq. The repercussions could haunt the United States for years to come. I am not sure of Bush's reason for this war. He's hard to pin down on it. I have a hard time remembering how it all came about in the first place and the reasons keep changing.

That said, I agree that the protesters have the right to protest and that supporters of the war have a right to protest the protesters, as it were. And, just because I am against the U.S. being in Iraq, I am not saying that the troops there should not be supported. They are there obeying the orders of the president and their superior officers, as is their duty. Contrary to what some may say, it is possible to be against the war and not be anti-American. Jane Fonda had the right to oppose the war in Viet Nam, but, quite frankly, some of the ways she expressed it made me sick.

I know I have not addressed the point of this thread. Actually, I am trying to make it longer than the eleven pages RandFan's other one went.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by RandFan
When you say "under so much fire" are you talking about other people exercising their free speech to speak out against the anti-war protestors?

Do you think that speaking out against the protestors is antithetical to free speech?

Or by "under so much fire" are you suggesting that our government has done something to curtail the speech of the protestors?

As I understand it most activists that have been arrested for breaking the law have not even been booked but only arrested and released.

Though I disagree with the protestors I am very proud to see that they have the right to voice their opinion. I have personally felt that there has not been enough opposition from the other side in the streets.

I would really appreciate your response.

Thanks,

RandFan
Can I butt in? I think the problem is not so much with those that disagree with the protestors, so much as with those who suggest that the protestors should suffer violence for protesting. I have see people talking about running over demonstrators, shooting them, and imprisoning them. As far as I know this hasn't happened yet (the US is still a free country, I belive), but those that make these suggestions are misunderstanding the idea of free speach.
The detractors may very well speak up against the protestor, in fact they should, but suggesting violence or punishment is not in the spirit of debate/civilized disagreement.
Fair enough, some of the demonstrations have been equally unproductive and pigheaded, but the vandals are being persecuted for their crimes. Let the peaceful peaceniks be, it's their right to voice their opinion. And let the peaceful pro-war people be as well...

[Tmy]

Ok my reply: First off I knida ranted a bit since this thread seemed open to Im-paranoid-govt-out-to-get-me kind of rant.

2nd: There has been a nastyness aimed towards anti-war protests. Is it propaganda driven I dont know. It seems that when I put on the radio evryone is complaining about the protesters. On the news, protesters being arrested. Of all the protests in the country they focus on the few that get rowdy. Then its the communists who are behind the protests. Then they are called terrorsists for divertingthe police away from fighting terror. (talk about watering down the word "terrorist")

I havent been aroudn all that long, but back in the Gulf war I dont remember so much distain for anti-war protestors.

[schplurg]

I don't think most people have a problem with protestors when they aren't laying in the middle of the road in the financial district blocking traffic, as they are doing in San Francisco. When protestors take away other people's rights, that's where I have a problem. I believe the protestors have had PLENTY of press coverage without resorting to this behavior. Just because they won't get fired for not attending their jobs that day (assuming they have jobs at all) doesn't mean others have the same luxury.

I've heard them cry "Isn't the inconvenience of being late to work worth it, given the seriousness of the situation?"

No! That is MY decision!

By the way, what's this term "anti-war protestor"? Aren't they "war protestors", or are they protesting the anti-war movement? I always thought it was "war protestor", "abortion protestor". Of course my friends' "SUV" used to be called a "station wagon" ;)

A friend-of-a-friend of mine joined an earlier protest in SF "for the heck of it" and he ended up joining a "splinter group" that broke off from the main group and caused some minor vandalism on a side street. He said to me that he had a blast, though he admittedly doesn't know jack-s#!t about the situation. What a loser. I hope he doesn't represent the "normal protestor". There is hope, right?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
2nd: There has been a nastyness aimed towards anti-war protests. Is it propaganda driven I dont know. It seems that when I put on the radio evryone is complaining about the protesters. On the news, protesters being arrested. Of all the protests in the country they focus on the few that get rowdy. Then its the communists who are behind the protests. Then they are called terrorsists for divertingthe police away from fighting terror. (talk about watering down the word "terrorist") I understand your point and for the record I am against any call for violence against the protestors. In fact I am against any action that would impede the rights of the protestors.

Many of those who support the war feel that the protestors get most of the attention even though they (the protestors) are a minority. Those for the war, right or wrong, feel that their voice is not being heard. Emotions are high right now. Often the rhetoric of the protestors and the signs they carry are quite incendiary. I am often angered by signs and things said. This of course does not excuse any untoward behavior from those against the protestors but it does put it in perspective.

Those like me who support the war must understand that we are very lucky to live in a nation where dissent is tolerated. Those who are against the war need to understand that freedom of speech is for everyone including those against the protestors.

[Smalso]

Many of those who support the war feel that the protestors get most of the attention even though they (the protestors) are a minority. Those for the war, right or wrong, feel that their voice is not being heard.

But, do you think that those protesting the war are actually changing anybody's mind? I don't think that they do. Like abortion protesters, they make their views known in a dramatic way, but it doesn't seem to make much difference when you read the polls.