[Demosthenes]

This topic has come up quite a bit lately. It is one that I hear few people really grasping well and is at the heart of conservatives dislike for many liberals opinions and even the recent events surrounding Iraq and the European (Britian Aside) countrys' opposition to it.

Loyal opposition, what is it? According to http://www.yourdictionary.com/ Loyal has 3 meanings any one of which have some relevance when discussing "loyal opposition" They are:

1. Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.
2. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.
3. Of, relating to, or marked by loyalty. See Synonyms at faithful

Opposition, according to the same sourse actually has 7 definitions some of these are relative to science and mathematics but two in particular apply in relation to the topic:

1a The act of opposing or resisting.
1b The condition of being in conflict;
4. often Opposition A political party or an organized group opposed to the group, party, or government in power

So then as a composite definition (which was not available on the website) we could surmise that loyal opposition is defined as

1. the act of being in conflict while remaining faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.
or:
2. A political party or an organized group opposed to the group, party, or government in power while maintaining Steadfast allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.

Mix and match them as you choose but you must surely come up with some similar combination if you're to rationally define the term.

So what does this mean then? Not the words but how does this translate into real world actions? When used in the correct political context this means to me if you do not support a given party's stance on a given issue than you certainly voice your opinion but you do it in such a way so as to maintain your obvious loyalty to your nation as a whole. i.e.:

(incorrect according to this definition) These damn republicans are evil incarnate, and anyone who supports them must deserve to die! I hate the USA and all it stands for. Hey france and Russia do you see how evil this is? I am not part of this, please stop this madness!

(correct according to the definition) I disagree with the republican position on this issue however as I love my country I will be careful of the image I project to foreigners so as to not undermine the country's authority in this matter. I won't support this issue in any way but if the country's will is to move foreward in this way I will comply despite my disagreements.

Yes, I am picking on the liberals here, and I do see the type of incorrect behavior I indicated in the first example coming from both sides so don't get me wrong. My over all point is to tone down the rhetoric on both sides, currently the liberals are making more news concerning their positions on Iraq than any other readily available example.

To me these type of actions are just pure craziness and border on complete irrespobsibility. It seems the lesson that it is better to be seen as unified and wrong (at worst) than split and right (at best) has been lost. Perhaps another real world example is in order:

Incorrect: A child runs out in the street and nearly get itself killed. The father scoopes up the child and whoops it's ass. telling the child never to do that again, that if a car hit it, the child would die. The mother grabs the sobbing child out of the father's arms and begins soothing it immediately telling it that father's temper is legendary and that it shouldn't worry because father didn't mean to hurt it's feelings. She then turns to the father and yells at him for his actions. The child realizes it now has an ace in the hole if it wishes to get away with anything.

Correct: same scenario as above excpet this time the mother sends the child to its room. Once the door close the mother tells the father his reaction was not fair, that the car had come out of nowhere and the child was not entirely at fault. She chides the father, who concedes that he spanked the child partly out of panic. They agree to handle the situation differently if it arises again. However the child realizes, if for no other reason than the whoopin, that it should not run into the street and knows it cannot get around both parents.

Simplified? Yes it is, but a relevant example IMO- This is why so many conservatives have had so many hard feelings over the anti-war side's completely biased rhetoric. They throw out accusations with no proof (its all for oil) They claim WMDs are all made up (when they were willing to give the UN until December to find them) and they bad mouth the country while in foreign lands (Natalie Means) there is no excuse for this. Like it or not the country is at war. War is always a time for unity if for no other eason than to prove to our soldiers that they are not fighting in vain. How would any of us feel or what would we think if we just got back from a mission in Iraq where some of your buddies were killed in front of you and then turned on the tv to relax and you have to see all the fighting and hatred dividing the very country you represent? that is an unacceptable condition to my way of thinking. There is no excuse for such devisiveness.

If it's true that a country is only as strong as it allows it's internal opposition to, be than it's also true that the measure of that country's oppostion must also include it's sheer and utter loyalty to that country and the citizens this oppostion purports to represent. If the oppostion looses it's loyalty, it in turn looses it's relevance and runs the risk of loosing it's standing altogether.

At least this is my opinion. By all means voice yours...

[Noumenon]

The liberals are always complaining about the right calling them unpatriotic when the express their views, but to some extent its true. They aren't unpatriotic by their opposition, there is nothing unpatriotic about not liking the current administration, even during a war. Its what they don't do that makes many of them unpatriotic. I can't remember the last time I heard a liberal praise this country for anything. Surely, there are many good things about it, but liberals are obssessed with what they perceive as the negative things about America. You will rarely rarely see a liberal praising our troops without something negative to say as well (that is if they praise our troops at all). And their support for our troops seems weak and half-hearted when they oppose military spending and are opposed to virtually any war when a republican is in the white house. Liberals may say they are patriotic, but actions speak louder than words. No doubt, there are many patriotic liberals, but I think the unpatriotic ones outnumber them.

[arcis]

Loyal oppostion

Loyal opposition depends on the subject of the discussion.

If this subject is not really important for both sides, there can a thing like "loyal oppostion" what effectively means: "Ok, I am not really interested in the issue and I am not really affected by your decisions." Then loyal oppositions often comes to an agreement, which doesn't hurt the profits of any side.

The situation is changing if these subjects are becoming more and more important. For example: Preemptive wars, significant changes in the international politics, war and peace or human rights. This issues will essentialy influence the future of whole countries and even directly the lives of the people (Iraq). Can be there any kind "loyal oppostion" in the question of starting an unprovoked war against a defenceless country, which will probably cost thousands of lifes? The lifes of innocent people? No.

If a government of a country insists on a "loyal oppostion", this indicates, that they have trouble to find good arguments for their own politics. Or this shows their own unsureness and bad conscience. If they would have good and convincing arguments, there would be no need for "loyal opposition".

[Demosthenes]

Wrong! For my example I'll use Somalia and former President Clinton's decesion to send troops there despite a lack of a pressing national interest. I was firmly against this action. (as I am in Liberia) I didn't think we needed to play "world cop" once again for a people who were quite content to live in a world of shit, and would never appreciate the sacrifices we were willing to undertake on their behalf. But guess what? When the decesion was made that we were going over there I decided it was more important to respect the office and to voice support for our troops who were doing a job I certainly didn't want to do personally.

The situation is changing if these subjects are becoming more and more important. For example: Preemptive wars, significant changes in the international politics, war and peace or human rights. This issues will essentialy influence the future of whole countries and even directly the lives of the people (Iraq). Can be there any kind "loyal oppostion" in the question of starting an unprovoked war against a defenceless country, which will probably cost thousands of lifes? The lifes of innocent people? No.

This quite frankly is putting what's good for the individual ahead of what's good for the country. I find it beneath a nation that believes in itself. This type of attitude can contribute to the kind of upheaval no one wants. Often based more on ignorance or blind faith in the concpet that war solves nothing. Which is historically false. Not that war should ever be anything but te last resort, of course.

If a government of a country insists on a "loyal oppostion", this indicates, that they have trouble to find good arguments for their own politics. Or this shows their own unsureness and bad conscience. If they would have good and convincing arguments, there would be no need for "loyal opposition".

In your seeking to find an agenda behind my comments you have totally missed the point. You shouldn't have to insist on Loyal opposition. It should be something the opposition understands, as I do.

This is necessary to keep a country coherant. It is through slovenly politics and irresponsible loyalty that the opposition reverts to slanderous and questionable actions to defend their demagogery, in hopes of villifying the party in power so as to regain power themselves. The very fact that a german is posting regularly with such anti-american sentiments is proof enough of my point.

You see an opportunity to divide us and exploit it regularly, and the left just shakes their collective heads in agreement when people such as you speak, more concerned with foreigner's opinions and less concerned with our own unity. I find this distasteful. Rest assured the next time the Democrats take power I will be opposed to them but I will also be loyally opposed.

As an example I will use a statment made by Tsaler in another thread.

Bush might be Satan incarnate. At least the anti-Christ.

This is irresponsible. Whether you believe in the present party in power or not.

[CasX]

The liberals are always complaining about the right calling them unpatriotic when the express their views, but to some extent its true. They aren't unpatriotic by their opposition, there is nothing unpatriotic about not liking the current administration, even during a war. Its what they don't do that makes many of them unpatriotic. I can't remember the last time I heard a liberal praise this country for anything. Surely, there are many good things about it, but liberals are obssessed with what they perceive as the negative things about America. You will rarely rarely see a liberal praising our troops without something negative to say as well (that is if they praise our troops at all). And their support for our troops seems weak and half-hearted when they oppose military spending and are opposed to virtually any war when a republican is in the white house. Liberals may say they are patriotic, but actions speak louder than words. No doubt, there are many patriotic liberals, but I think the unpatriotic ones outnumber them.

So, they actually think, instead of blindly following along because their eyes aren't clouded with excessive nationalism?

Pointing out bad things and being critical is the best way to identify problems and deal with them, so you can move on to the next problem.

I think your post made me like liberals more, and conservatives even less (if that's possible). Liberals came across pretty well, in my opinion.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Liberals came across pretty well, in my opinion.

Thats, I believe, the point he was making, they come off as almost anti-american. They have the blame-america first policy. And it seems quite popular around the world right now.

[Truth-a-naut]

For my example I'll use Somalia and former President Clinton's decesion to send troops there despite a lack of a pressing national interest.

Wasn't Bush the one that did that?

[Demosthenes]

No, it was Clinton. I think the movie Black Hawk Down didn't mention that until the end, if at all but it occured in 1993, Clinton's first officail year in office.

[arcis]

@demosthenes

"This quite frankly is putting what's good for the individual ahead of what's good for the country."

Yeah, I see, you are starting to learn something. The people doesn't exist to serve the government. The government exists to serve the people. The President of America is an elected offical in the service of the american people. You american people are the boss of your president. Not the other way round.

"You shouldn't have to insist on Loyal opposition. It should be something the opposition understands,as I do that is necessary to keep a country coherant."

A loyal opposition is the result of a loyal government. And in the first place it is the task of the government to keep the country coherent. And the Bush government isn't very successful in this field in my opinion.

"It is through slovenly polotics and irresponsible loyalty that the opposition reverts to slanderous and questionable actions to defend their demagogery."

Should we restart the thread "Bush in trouble with truth"? http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/spe ... Reader$526
The demagogery of the opposition was provoked by the demagogery of the government. Not the other way round. Or would you say, that Bush invaded Iraq because the liberals were against the war? Hopefully not. I think it is important to distinguish between cause and effect. And you will agree, that the role of the opposition is always reaction and the role of the government is action.

"The very fact that a german is posting regularly with such anti-american sentiments is proof enough of my point."

I am only one German out of 82 millions or only one European out of 340 millions. Maybe there are some different views, especially in the UK. And
I know, I should be thankful and so on and so forth... :-).

"You see an opportunity to divide us and exploit it regularly"

And what are the remarks about new Europe and old Europe? No attempt to divide Europe? Poland in Iraq? It is the professed politics of America to divide Europe as much as they can to weaken the union, while the Americans can have their own way. Unfortunatly some countries in the future EU have to learn what is more important for them. But I am quite confident they will learn the essential things very soon. And what is essential you americans know best: money.

"and left just shakes their collective heads when people such as you speak"

I also visit some other american political forums. And there is a lot of head shaking in your country about the speeches of your president. :-)

I find it distasteful.

No absolutely not. I find this sort of discussion (and the speeches of your president) very funny.

"Rest assured the next time the Democrats take power I will be opposed
to them but I will also be loyally opposed."

I will repeat it again: Without loyal government, no loyal opposition. Therefore you will not get any troubles with your loyal opposition after the next election. ;-) But you should understand, that it is damned difficult
to show loyal opposition to America after Bush and/or Rumsfield explained their american view of the world.

Old and new what was it ....? I am proud to say: " I am part of very, very old Europe". I think, this shows you the results of the type of politics
made by G.W.Bush or whomever.

[Demosthenes]

Ok this is becoming something I did not intend. Its partially my fault because I used the Democratic objections to the war in Iraq as an example of disloyal opposition. So I've allowed some refutation of this to be fair, but now it's simply becoming another thread defending/critisizing the Iraq war and I'll be happily deleting any more posts along those lines. The Topic is LOYAL OPPOSITION in general. Not as it concerns the Iraq war specifically, nor any other specific topic.

Now Arcis:

Yeah, I see, you are starting to learn something. The people doesn't exist to serve the government. The government exists to serve the people. The President of America is an elected offical in the service of the american people. You american people are the boss of your president. Not the other way round.

Well he's doing the job I elected him to do, so I'm happy with that. I think Gerhard Schroeder is a rather dippy bastard myself, but you don't see me slamming him with the pure bias you do Bush. Not that I care that much, as your not American so you're opinion is largely moot...

A loyal opposition is the result of a loyal government. And in the first place it is the task of the government to keep the country coherent. And the Bush government isn't very successful in this field in my opinion.

Once again foreign opinions are irrelevant to discussions of Bush's success or failure. Take Tony Blair for example. He is very popular among Americans, some have suggested he could even beat Bush in the upcoming election, which is eerily possible. However what does that matter to the British. Not shit, that's what. Read Foxy himself's many posts critical of Blair.

Should we restart the thread "Bush in trouble with truth"?

No but I'm thinking as your trying desperately to derail the intent of the thread I should rename it : Arcis, trouble staying ON TOPIC!

The demagogery of the opposition was provoked by the demagogery of the government. Not the other way round. Or would you say, that Bush invaded Iraq because the liberals were against the war? Hopefully not. I think it is important to distinguish between cause and effect.

Wrong, and how the hell could you know this anyway? You're a foreigner. The only things you think you know are from watching what CNN chooses to show, no wonder you hate Bush and America, after being spoonfed all the Anti-Bush, Anti-American garbage that passes for news from that station.

And you will agree, that the role of the opposition is always reaction and the role of the government is action

Of course but too frequently theis reaction is overreaction, and is uncalled for and childish.

I am only one German out of 82 millions or only one European out of 340 millions. Maybe there are some different views, especially in the UK. And
I know, I should be thankful and so on and so forth... :-).

Your opinion seems quite common for a European, whether they are British or mainland Europeans. Which doesn't impress me much.

And what are the remarks about new Europe and old Europe?

WTF? Where did this come from? I guess the paranoia is coming out isn't it? The man is always trying to keep you down? Sup my brotha? and all that jazz? I don't think so. The only thing keeping Europe down is is itself. You are so disunified, in general, it is pure insult to say America is the reason poor little Europe can't function. The reason you can't function is because nations like France and Germany are so plainly out for themseves, and care little for the smaller countries except that they follow along like good little victoms of Imperialism.

I also visit some other american political forums. And there is a lot of head shaking in your country about the speeches of your president. :-)

I sure they're are. They are mostly going to be young, ignorant, and represent the very people I was referring to when I used them as an example.

No absolutely not. I find this sort of discussion (and the speeches of your president) very funny.

Oh...HA HA HA, you have learned to spin like a master Democratic strategist. Take my words and twist their meaning to suit you, how...predictable...

I will repeat it again: Without loyal government, no loyal opposition. Therefore you will not get any troubles with your loyal opposition after the next election. ;-) But you should understand, that it is damned difficult
to show loyal opposition to America after Bush and/or Rumsfield explained their american view of the world.

And you just don't seem to understand this concept at all. You are merely using this thread to continue your tirades against Bush so this will stop here. The intent of the thread is to discuss internal opposition within the posters own home country, I know that's tough for you because Germany has become Angelic after murdering 13 some odd million people just 50 short years ago, but gee Arcis why don't ya try that. As far as our gevernment being disloyal, it is for us to decide not you. I find it quite capable, and is doing a good job, for the first time in eigth years.

Old and new what was it ....? I am proud to say: " I am part of very, very old Europe". I think, this shows you the results of the type of politics
made by G.W.Bush or whomever

No this just shows me you are a paranoid, rambling madman...hmmm...Germany seems to come up with a lot of those....Europe's biggest enemy is itself. Not the USA, no matter which party is in power. Specifically France and Germany, and maybe Russia depending on how that country shakes out.

Enough with the off topic! Please post on topic without a previous agenda. Make it in relation to the general topic of LOYAL OPPOSITION. If you agree or disagree I don't care just leave other goals out of your posts or I will delete them mercilessly...Muhahahahahah, Muhahahahah [/quote]

[Truth-a-naut]

Your mistaken demo or maybe my sources are...
Clinton inherited the Somalia mission which was already in fulls wing thanks to Bush.
I always though that a few days after the Black Hawk Down fiasco Bush left office not before...

[url]dfoyle.web.wesleyan.edu/public_html/G311/ Research%20Paper%20Example%201.doc[/url]

Thats a research paper on the aforementioned topic, so its credibility may be a bit shaky.

http://free.freespeech.org/marquelinques/Somalia.html

[Demosthenes]

Your mistaken demo or maybe my sources are...

Possibly we both are little off, your sourse has numerous flaws and I will need to look further into the Somali oil connection, however my point remains valid whether the action was begun by Bush Sr. or Clinton. I was opposed to action here and was against said action during this affair. However I maintained support for my country despite this without resorting to slander and unfounded allegations against the ruling party. So my example of maintaining this personal standard that I hope others will adopt and live by stands. Not that I am claiming to have invented the concept.

To properly put this in perspective, let me say my reference to Black Hawk Down was not intended to be a reference to look to for accurate presentations of the facts. I merely had the impression that the movie brought this conflict to more light, and would clarify to which operation I was reffering. I know better than to buy into anything that has come from Hollywood.

If nothing else, for what its worth, at the time I was still a young liberal so I wasn't a fan of Bush Sr.