by Nick F.
Hi Meagan…
Just a couple of points here.
1. On the legality of the war that you bring up, I think we are going to discuss that part later, so I will leave it for now, but it is an interesting topic.
2. Your statements about the English language are correct, but I have to emphasize a point here. You may be an English major, but most are not. Words and definitions have meanings beyond their text book definition. One could almost claim that the literal definitions of liberal” and “conservative” have little in common with their “colloquial” definition. Perhaps a better definition for “modern liberals” is progressives.
Either way it is a it disingenuous for some one like Barbara Streisand to make such a comment in the context she was. Her very statement was a suggestion that while liberals fought communism, fascism, etc. conservatives did not. Again this does not take into account current understanding of the political terms.
I must also take issue with your version of extreme conservativeism. Only because, for the sake of argument we have to have a clear understanding of what were talking about when the terms are used in these pages. Edmund Burke is considered by many of us in the conservative movement as being the “Father of Modern Conservatism” and it would be difficult to see even an “extreme version” of his theory’s in the embodiment of the KKK.
3. Personal experience. You must understand that while ones personal experience does not make their position more “right” than yours. It does make it more “valid” as long as there is a question of what actually happened. Any experience that you have, that I do not, automatically makes your opinion on that particular experience more valid. Whether or not your opinion is correct is still up for grabs, but you have to at least concede, THAT ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL we take the word of someone who has been there and done that over someone who has not.
My other points of contention will come out at a later date.
Anyway, its great to “read” you here again Meagan, and I look forward to discussing these issues with you in the future.
Nick
P.S.
On one point I want to defend you. I do believe that it can be considered completely patriotic to oppose a war EVEN when you have troops in contact. If we simply shut down debate whenever we had troops in harms way, it would run contrary to all of our principles about freedom of speech, and would provide politicians a shelter from having their actions called into check.
By the same token, those who do oppose a war should be careful to understand that while they have the right to do so, and in some cases a moral obligation, they must never lose sight of the fact that their actions have consequences which will be paid by the soldiers who have gone in their name.
If one feels the need to protest, it is incumbent upon them to be right! Furthermore they must present an alternative solution.
The end state of armed conflict is to destroy the enemies will to fight. By protesting the war in a Republic you are inadvertently assisting the enemy in this task. This reality cannot be avoided, therefore one must be careful on how they protest, and they should be reasonably sure that their position is just. If they have not made provisions to ensure these conditions then they are culpable for defeat; not in a legal sense, but certainly in a morale one.