Interesting thread.
The problem, as I see, it is that sometimes we forget that when you attack someone's opinion (be it a political opinion, or an opinion of a design solution like the Triad for example) you are attacking the person themselves. The reaction you will get depends on how you choose to attack the opinion, how the opinion was formed, and the honesty with which both parties address the opinion.
Some people are more concerned about being right than they are about knowing what is right and will do whatever they can to prove themselves right, whether they are or are not. Typically the ones who make the loudest noise about "being right" are the ones who have the fewest rational arguments and are theones who have the weakest egos.
In school we had to learn to construct and then defend opinions in front of both our peers as well as a panel of people who were far better versed in the subject matter than we were I.E. the Professors. What we learned was, just like anything, what you get out depends on what you put in. In those critiques when someone didn't do enough research, or relied on suspect sources, or worse still, relied on what they believed to be correct rather than what they could show to be correct, their opinion was be generally indefensable and as such their design decisions got torn apart. When all they had was the belief that they were right they had to face a difficult decision to either accept being wrong, and therefore not as smart and as infallible as they thought, or try to reduce the effect of being wrong by denigrating the other persons view point. Often that choice depended on how the profs chose to explain the error of their ways.
Some professors delighted in making a fool out of the student and we had our fair share of nervous breakdowns and shouting matches. It was never a pretty sight, and seeing those student's egos destroyed by their own doing (with a little help from the Proffs) was a humbling experience that taught me that if I am going to have an opinion I had better be prepared to defend it, at least against reasoned arguments. I also learned that arguments not based on reason are not arguments at all, but defensive tactics made to demean one party while aggrandizing the other. As such they're nothing more than desperate attempts to save face and can be ignored. Ironically the tactic is really shortsighted and it never failed to amaze me: The profs who were arrogant pricks never got the respect that they were really due and their sometimes valuable message got ignored, while the profs who chose to make their point without making the student feel like a retard were well respected if not admired. Even more ironic is that I learned a lot from both types of profs, albeit different lessons.
Now all of that is wayyy off topic but somehow it is related. Some people don't see that the important issue here is supporting the troops by reinforcing the reasoning to them why the decision was made in the first place. It's our duty as citizens to question the our Gov't decisions on war, as a democracy we have to ensure that they have the best interests of the country at heart, HOWEVER, once the reasoning has been presented, argued, refuted, or proven, it is time to get on with the task and accept that the decision has been made. The danger is that if we continue to rehash arguments that have already been argued, the troops on the ground will begin to do the same and their lives and the success of the mission depend on thier dedication and committment to the task at hand, not to mention what the enemythinks about our bickering and backseat driving.
What I'm getting at is arguing, debating and disagreeing should be based on the common goal of determining WHAT is right, rather than WHO is right. The troops out on the line shouldn't have any question that they are not just well supported back home and that the reason for them being there is right. Let them get on with the matter at hand, the time to debate the matter is before they go. Once they are there, fighting and killing, there is no turning back.
Perhaps declaring a War on Terror was a foolish leap into the unknown, I'm not convinced that it was, and I suspect that we won't really know until many many years have passed, debating the decision now is pointless. Regardless whether or not it was the right decision we've made the leap and so now we have to do everything in our power to help the guys that are fighting and dying to win. If that includes a big slice of humble pie then so be it. I think the guys in uniform are making a much more serious sacrifice than their ego so I don't think it's too much to ask that those opposed to the war swallow their pride and accept that they have lost the argument.
Anyway, that is all I'm going to say about that, sorry for the long post,
Andrew
)
