dissenters in a democratic society should be protected during times of war?
109419
They should absolutely be protected ... to a point. If their actions become treasonous or put our soldiers' lives in jeopardy, they should be shut down and put in jail.\n\nLike in the Sedition Act of 1918.
662371
Democrats are against having your personal freedoms taken away from you, because you do not know how to properly use them. They are against having a caste system in this country. They believe that all people have the right to be heard and respected. They believe that in America, that those who are able should have they right to do. They believe that Government is by the people, for they people, not just the ones who can afford it, but all people should have an equal voice. The believe in the three major branches of Government, not that the President has the power to do whatever he deems is necessary at the time to promote his own agenda. Power to the People, not Power to the Government
769825
Our enemies are always emboldened when a Democrat nitwit opens his or her pie hole to badmouth our troops (Kerry,Murtha,Durbin) or the war effort in general. This is a fact that these idiots just don't understand. Kerry's comments about our troops has spread throughout the Islamic world like wildfire.\nThere is nothing wrong with dissent, mind you, but it ought to be done in a way that doesn't send the wrong signal to the enemy. But sadly, the Dems are just concerned with winning elections and not with winning this war.
850582
This is the difference; those who support the war are sending others on their behalf to die or be injured, to at the least, risk their lives.  Those who do not support the war see the hypocrisy in it and want the soldiers brought home.  One does not have to be a part of something in person to have an opinion on it.  But if that opinion involves sending others into harms way then those who wish to do so should be man/woman enough to go themselves.
1152758
I think there is an element of truth in what you say.  But I think what is at the heart of what you are saying is tolerance.  If people could have a little more tolerance for people that were different than themselves then maybe there wouldn't be so much war/chaos.
1057975
Some one who would give "Aid and Comfort" to the Enemy.\n\nSome one who would give away National Secrets to the Enemy, also, thus ensuring that they will have an advantage over us, or can cause great peril to our troops abroad.\n\nThose who dispense "dissention", to hinder the war efforts, when we are involved in a conflict and they try to stir up the people against the present war, so that invariably we will pull out our troops, and lose the war.\n\nA lot of people can be said to be Traitors, in my opinion...\n\nAnd its a good thing I wasnt President, or, they would be in JAIL!!!\n\nYou dont help the Enemy in ANY WAY, when it comes to our boys/girls, getting killed!!!!!!!\n\nThey should either be shot, or be in jail for life!\n\nI wish you well..\n\nJesse
989270
Historically you are correct, and generally it would occur through a draft, taking up a wide range of people from different socioeconomic groups. The Iraq war is fought by mostly the "warrior class" of professional soldiers (or reserves). I agree that most war hawks are hypocritical about their support of the war. We should go back to the days where the leader of the people was the leader of the battles, that way we will think twice about going to war.
141776
Got this answer off the web, puts some perspective on the whole situation.\n\n"Don't gush, lad, it doesn't leave room for the cartoon. Cecil does not dispute the general proposition that war between democracies is relatively rare. Common sense alone suggests that embarking upon a military adventure is simpler for a king or dictator than it is for a head of government answerable to a parliament. But proponents of this idea argue that a war between democracies has never occurred. One arrives at this comforting conclusion chiefly by setting up the rules to exclude all the non-conforming cases. The most egregious omission is civil wars, which account for a high percentage of the world's violent conflicts--159 of 575 wars between 1816 and 1980, by one count. The spectacle of the American Civil War, in which two popularly elected governments engaged in four years of the most brutal slaughter, refutes the bald notion that citizens will not vote for politicians who send them off to be killed. Clearly they will if they think the stakes are high enough.\n\nOK, you say, but at least democracies won't get into wars with one another for purposes of foreign aggrandizement. Here we get into the issue of what constitutes a democracy. The U.S. and Britain fought in the War of 1812; Britain at the time had a parliament and a prime minister. So did imperial Germany prior to World War I. Advocates of the peaceful-democracy school account for these cases by saying that neither Britain in 1812 nor Germany in 1914 were liberal democracies. The definition of liberal varies with the teller, but the simplest formulation, proposed by Dean Babst, who first advanced the peaceful-democracies idea in 1972, is that "if a hereditary ruler, such as a king, can choose the prime minister of president, then the country is not considered to have an elective government." This takes both Britain and Germany out of the picture for the period in question. That's fair enough in the case of Germany, where responsibility for the war can be laid pretty clearly at the feet of Kaiser Bill and the Junkers. But the War of 1812 was largely the work of the War Hawks in the democratically elected U.S. Congress.\n\nThe more basic objection to excluding all but liberal democracies is that throughout most of history the number of such democracies has been small. According to political scientist Michael Doyle, there were only 13 liberal democracies prior to 1900, and just 29 between 1900 and 1945--and many of those did not endure. Doyle counts 49 liberal democracies as of 1983; setting aside the confusing instance of Israel vs. Lebanon, none has fought another since 1945. But it may be argued that this merely reflected the postwar Pax Americana.\n\nOne would like to believe democracy = peace, but if we look at the big picture we find little to persuade us that it's a sure thing. Nazi Germany was not a democracy after 1933, but Hitler had been freely elected and the Nazis dominated the democratically chosen Reichstag. The United States and France conducted wars of great savagery in Vietnam and Algeria. The U.S. helped topple the elected Allende regime in Chile, with murderous consequences for the Chilean people.\n\nOne can easily make the case that what prevents war between democracies is not their liberal scruples but their wealth, coupled with the recognition that war would mean economic ruin. If we look down the list of wars over the last 50 years we see that in almost all cases one or both of the belligerents was poor. We now have a proliferation of poor democracies in the wake of communism's collapse. Will they refrain from attacking one another, as their authoritarian or totalitarian predecessors did not? One considers India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. Ukraine. Clearly the notion that democracies will not make war on one another now faces its great test."\n\n--CECIL ADAMS
1104762
Protesters who hope to save the people of Iraq/Afghanistan/Haiti/Palestine etc. from destruction must select the issues they confront and the means they employ in such a way as to attract as much popular support as possible for their efforts. There is no lack of clear issues and honorable means, surely, hence no reason why one should be impelled to ugly actions on ambiguous issues. In particular, it seems to me that counter-recruitment, properly conducted (as it has been so far ), is not only a highly principled and courageous act, but one that might receive broad support and become politically effective. It might, furthermore, succeed in raising the issues of passive complicity in the war which are now much too easily evaded. Those who face these issues may even go on to free themselves from the mind-destroying ideological pressures of American life, and to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world
167940
Democracy isn't an ideal system.  There are numerous flaws.  However it is the best form of government on the planet.  With a democratic society you aren't dragged out of your bed and taken off to some field and shot because you made a derogatory comment about your country's leader (Oh yes this does happen in other parts of the world.)  You say that freeing people from this type of persecution is unethical?!?  And these small groups that you are referring to are the ones dragging people out of their beds.\n\nOur founding fathers were living under an oppressive form of government.  If you read the deceleration of independence and even the preamble to the constitution you'll see what they were shooting for,  a form of government by the people and for the people.  Remember we are one of the newest country’s in the world but we also have the oldest constitution still in use today.\n\n\nWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America\n\nI truly wish you get the opportunity to travel outside the US.  So you can realize just how good you have it here. I don't know what college you are going to my dear but frankly you should ask for a refund.\n\nAnd remember the Freedom you are now enjoying to complain was paid for with the blood of this country's solders, IE that's why we aren't speaking German, Japanese or Russian.
118524
In my personal opinon I feel that your question can be answered on your definition of democracy.  Many political philosophers from the past such as Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Rousseau express societies responsibility differently.  \n\nOn one side you can define democracy as "the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community (American Heritage Dictionary)."  If this is the case then who has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot do.  The individual must be respected and must have a freedom as described in J.S. Mill's works "Utilitarianism" and "On Liberty."  He believes that people should be granted the maximum amount of freedom in oder to be happy and that other people should not interfere.\n\nWih that another definition of democracy is when "the common people, considered as the primary source of political power (American Heritage Dictionary)." According to Hobbes, Rousseau, and even Locke people should have a freedom to do what they like but not at the cost of violating the laws of nature or at the possibility of being a danger to society. If society dictates that abortion is bad, well for the sake of maintaining a stable society people within that society should adhere to the laws passed by the majority.\n\nWell thats my two cents.....
880128
I think national service is good, but it should be voluntary.  People shouldn't be forced to do anything.  The only exception would be if we had a legitimate need to go to war (such as WWII, not Iraq or Vietnam), it would be appropriate to have a draft so we could defend the freedoms that we all enjoy - or used to enjoy before the Bush dictatorship.
865490
No ... How can someone force democracy on someone else? If it's forced, then is it really a democracy? If there is ever to be democracy or peace over there, then they will have to resolve it themselves.
59119
It depends on how you define peace.  War is not when an aggressor attacks but when the one attacked fights back.  What is the sound of one hand clapping?  If they didn't resist, if they accept occupation, then there will be peace.  But at what cost?
983276
That depends on the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. They both need to stand up for their country and make it secure. Their inability to stop the violence is the only thing keeping our troops there. If I were an Iraqi citizen, who voted for a democratic government, I would be pissed if my neighbors were trying to screw it up by blowing up their fellow countrymen. Living in fear from thugs like that can only last so long. \n\nEither they stand up and make it stop, or I think our troops should stop playing the role of the "nice guy", and actually start fighting back no holds barred.
750678
The answer is no. The military is not a democracy. Its job is to kill people and break their stuff. Period. Their opinion on the orders they receive is irrelevant.
776216
yes i agree. war can be avoidable & have parmanent alternative.