main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Dissecting Political Talking-Points (Now Disc: Protecting Our Freedom)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jedi Merkurian , Aug 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Given the intensifying political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere, there?s bound to be some rhetorical ?talking points? that get thrown about with great frequency. This thread can be a place where we can examine, debunk, or validate the accuracy of such catchphrases and statements.

    Now just because I?m the one who started this thread, I?m not the only one who can propose new talking points to examine. Likewise, this discussion is not limited to U.S. rhetorical points. Feel free to PM one of us to change the topic.

    I?ll start the thread with a phrase I hear bandied about all the time, by both the left and the right, and it just bugs me. Let me also preface this by saying that I have nothing but respect for our men and women in uniform; I have family serving right now on active duty. But how exactly is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq ?protecting our freedom??
     
  2. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Because apparently all the terrorists come from there, and Islam is the new Communism and the West is obsessed with destroying it because it's "evil" and so on. Nothing new really, same old same old.

    Although, I don't see how people in another country have any impact on our freedom, they don't make the laws. It is the governments that control freedom, and frankly they have too much control over it and shouldn't have so much.
     
  3. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    ?I don't see how people in another country have any impact on our freedom??

    This is exactly why I find the rhetoric so puzzling. As it see it, our freedoms, at least in regards to what is happening today, cannot be ?protected? by use of military force. In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, are we more free, or less free? If we?re less free, was it because of the terrorists, or governmental response? If we?re more free, was it because of military intervention?
     
  4. Kawphy

    Kawphy Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    There's a very complex bit of justification. I think it's what they call the 'bush doctrine.'

    Basically, the reason that region is not democratic is because the population is extremely religious, and one religion has a majority (either sunni or shia, depending on the nation). If they can break the entanglement of islam and government, if they can spread the western value of secularism, the middle east may spontaneously settle down in a new 'enlightenment.' Keep in mind, the '4 corners' of the Kabaa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram] are The Black Stone, The Iraqi Corner, The Syrian Corner, and the Yemeni Corner. That's the structure they pray towards, when they pray to Mecca.

    So if you can successfully convert a theocratic country to a successful secular one with free speech, you can 'plant the seed' of western democracy.

    Curiously, Iraq was a secular government under Saddam. And the whole conflict was a quagmire. And it was justified by lying to the US public (implying a connection with 9/11). And Bush presented it as a 'crusade', adding a subtext of christian imperialism.

    Nonetheless, communication is a side-effect of conflict. US soldiers came back steeped in middle-eastern culture, and they brought a lot of western culture to the middle east. Al Jazeera helped steer the political dialog in the region in a way far superior to our news networks in the states. And the introduction and popularization of modern communications technologies (cell phones, internet, etc) all over the Middle East, Persia and North Africa, really did set the stage for a new awakening and an 'Arab Spring.' I don't think Bush deserves 'credit' for this, but it does vindicate some aspects of his plan. That said, I believe the awakening is a result of the communications technologies, not the invasion and war. None of the revolutionary states are looking to Iraq as a model for reconstruction.

    But (certain) traditionally western values are definitely on a rise in that region.
     
  5. Kawphy

    Kawphy Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    I think the concept of 'Quantitative Easing' (and it's relationship to 'controlled inflation', and how 'controlled inflation' can be used to avoid a deflationary spiral, increase growth, decrease unemployment, and reduce wealth disparity) is worth exploring in this thread...
     
  6. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Sure is, since many feel that the ending of the gold standard, which gave the government direct control over the money supply, has been one of the greatest "freedom eroding" actions of the century. Some even consider it a backdoor tax through inflation.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  7. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    I don't think the Middle East can ever be truely like the West if it does not seperate religion and politics. Then again, who are we to say our way of life is the way everyone else has to live?

    Islam is not going to take over the world, whatever certain extremists might say, so our freedom in that sense is not really in danger.
     
  8. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I think the so-called "War on terror" has been a thorough attempt to attack our freedom by the government in a decade-long process that goes on to this day. Protecting our freedom would be if the military was doing something about the TSA, for example, not Iraq.
     
  9. firesaber

    firesaber Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Thats the key, keeping it in context of modern times. Terrorism is not going to destabilize our country or overthrow our form of government. The statement of Protecting our Freedom was probably last truly accurate and relevant in WWII. Perhaps a case could be made for the Cold War. Where you had an organized, well equipped military force threatening your shores leading to the possibility of conquer or occupation.

    This is not remotely the case now. More accurate would be to say something along the lines of protecting our citizens at home and abroad. Are they more protected after military intervention? Remains to be seen as it's not over yet and we haven't had a terrorist incident in the U.S. or an embassy in a while. But, the violence continues in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Afghanistan having one of it's most recent deadliest month for service members.

    As for Governmental restrictions of freedom I think you have to go back to the Patriot Act arguments. The word freedom is very subjective to people.
     
  10. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Terms like "war on terror" and "protecting our freedom" are appeals to emotion to justify measures which would not otherwise fly. If a government is going to wind back freedoms and liberties which people take for granted then you have to make an extraordinary case for their justification - "the war on terror" and the associated justification of the war to "protect our freedom" is a perfect example of an extraordinary case based upon an extraordinary event.
     
  11. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Terms like "war on terror" and "protecting our freedom" are appeals to emotion to justify measures which would not otherwise fly. If a government is going to wind back freedoms and liberties which people take for granted then you have to make an extraordinary case for their justification - "the war on terror" and the associated justification of the war to "protect our freedom" is a perfect example of an extraordinary case based upon an extraordinary event.

    This is essentially correct.

    Firstly, the only times a serious notion of protecting one's freedom comes into effect is when a country is acting as a clear aggressor to another sovereign state. Almost always including at least one state with whom it shares a border. If America really had to be worried about protecting it's freedom as a sort of real emergency, it would probably have to look first if Canada was pushing its military weight around against the US, or if Mexico were pushing its military weight around against either the US, Guatemala or Belize.

    Beyond that, the US would have to look at if the state is doing the same against other neighboring states. Therefore protecting the freedom of Americans might mean by extension protecting the freedom of another victim state, such as Poland circa 1945 or Belgium circa 1914 (both invasions were for different reasons but regardless, they were clear violations of what we would today consider international law).

    If that's not going on, there's really nothing that can be done or should be done until uprisings occur in a nation.

    Think of it like a bunch of families living on the same street. A good number of these neighboring families are abusive, and many other families on the street know it, because people can hear what's going on in these houses, and neighbors talk. So long as what's going on in the house stays in the house though, there's little the neighbors can do.

    BUT: if the father of one abusive household ups and decides he's going to give one of the other neighbors "what for", anyone in the community can at this point do the obvious: call the cops. At which point not only has the father of the abusive household most likely assured his own physical defeat, but has surrendered the right to privacy of his family system. At this point authorities are in the clear moral right to start digging around that place and expose the abuses within the family.

    Further, if the children of the abusive family go to the authorities or begin acting out... the equivalent of a popular uprising in a state... the neighbors can then also intervene and call the police, or the police can intervene on behalf of the abused victims, or whathaveyou. Then the same result occurs. But this situation is a little more touch and go, just like in the international realm. Sometimes it works out like Libya, sometimes it works out like Hungary in 1956 or Tiannamen Square -- and, just like families, the more "respectable" or powerful the family, the less likely a popular uprising is to succeed unless there is at least partial support from a parental figure/political-military figures.
     
  12. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    I've always felt that "protecting our freedom" is a highly disingenuous propaganda term used for political gain and to justify a policy of overkill against terrorism. Terrorism is a really complex issue that has to be handled through a variety of methods, but apparently a bunch of windbags see fit to reduce it down to a cheap talking point. This leads to a wholesale abandonment of cool-headed and rational thinking, which then results in atrociously bad policies like the Iraq war.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.