# Are antiwar protests causing more casualties than necessary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056 "2003-03-25T16:54:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/41 "2003-03-25T21:43:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Yeticus Rex \* > \*\*It would be quite selfish to say that only Americans and a handful of other countries deserve these freedoms when there are people in other countries who are dying by the thousands during their own “Peace-time” at the hands of their own brutal dictator and can’t say or do anything to oppose him without the fear of death, unless they get help from other countries. \*\* Which country would you like to invade and democratize next? ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/42 "2003-03-25T21:58:14Z")
Which country would you allow to let oppression continue? ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/43 "2003-03-25T22:01:30Z")
How about Uzbekistan? Oh wait, they’re part of the “Coalition of the Willing.” Guess we’ll let that dictator slide. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/44 "2003-03-25T22:12:11Z")
I think I asked a valid question. You did too, so I’ll answer and expect one back. I do not favor sending US troops into Sierra Leone in an attempt to democratize that country. Your turn. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/45 "2003-03-26T00:54:28Z")
Ravenman, I answered your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question and I will leave it at that. I had no intention of turning this into a game of “Risk”. There are many other factors to consider than to just make a laundry list of countries “to do” with severe civil rights issues…it took 12 years of hymnin’ and hawin’ to get to this point with a known brutal dictator regime, and I’m sure the next time it will take the same amount of time before we do the same thing to the next dictator (unless the dictator chooses to start it earlier). The anti-war position is unknowingly (and knowingly) trivializing the suffering of the Iraqi people through their protests - that is what’s disturbing at this time; even when some Iraqi civilians are already expressing their happiness at our arrival and welcoming the Coalition force. Ever had the proverbial 800 pound gorilla getting off your back? I think that’s how they felt… Ask a serviceman/woman what they saw or did (when they come back from Iraq) and if they felt if our government did the right thing; also ask them what boosted or decreased their morale when they saw how our country supported them while they were there. They won’t hold back. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/46 "2003-03-26T01:30:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CTB \* > _“Symposium: Ashcroft Justice: > At this crucial point in the War on Terror, it appears simply vital to ask: what is the real state of Ashcroft Justice? Are the concerns of the Left truly justified – or are they simply just a smokescreen for the destructive agenda of the Hate-America-Left?”_ > > It is not the left, but the “Anti-American-Left”. As I read this, they are distinguising between the Left and a subset of the Left, namely those on the left who are anti-American. I do not interpret it to mean that all leftists hate America. I would agree that their use of the term “Hate-America Left” to mean “Anti-American Left” is inflammatory. > [@](#): > > From [\*"Editorial: Black Muslim Traitors](http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6849): > Suppose the traitor who rolled three grenades into the tents of our soldiers in Iraq, killed a captain and wounded 15 others, was a member of Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church or Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral. Do you think his picture might be on the evening news or page one of the New York Times? In fact, the culprit, Asan Akbar (aka Mark Fidel Kools) is a black Muslim from South Central Los Angeles, and a member of the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center there. What this incident would show us, if the press were doing its job, is that there is a connection between the ideas people devote themselves to and what they wind up doing. (The fact that Akbar’s former middle name – which looks adopted as well – is “Fidel” is probably not without significance either.)"\* > > The traitor (yes they got that term right) who lobbed grenades, it must be pointed out is not only a muslim (horror of horrors) but has the bad taste to be of the black persuasion. Please, december, I beg of you, please explain how this site represents reasoned argumentation and not reptile-brain religion and race baiting. Their first point is that the _New York Times_ decided not to run Akbar’s picture because he is black. This has nothing to do with race-baiting; it’s a complaint about media bias. Their second point is that Akbar’s Muslim religion influenced his decision to lob the grenades. That seems obvious. IIRC he even made some comments to support that POV. I’m not surprised that Coulter’s article got your blood boiling; that was her intent. I agree that her style is inflammatory. If you want to complain about specific content, I’ll try to respond. ---
**Author:** ![Maximum\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b77776/32.png) [@Maximum\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maximum_C)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/47 "2003-03-26T01:51:49Z")
“Anti-American Left”, december? As I understand this label, it is yet ANOTHER exmaple of Conservative absolutism. What they’re probably talking about here are liberals who 1. point out that Americans don’t have some mystical, exclusive claim to the Right Way To Live and 2. criticize Ameican government polices that are insidiously based on this “America Is Always Right” philosophy. Conservatives who slap this label on these sorts of people are, frankly, assholes. They prefer the comfort of the absolute moral right of their own theories to any meaningful rational engagement. Even worse, they refuse to accept the idea that America may not be the end-all, be-all of mankind, and even \ that America might NEED the rest of the world to survive. This whole post is probably an example of something Coulter would whine as being anti-American. After all, I didn’t start my post by tying a small American flag to my cock and jacking off to the Battle of Bahgdad. But I would hope that a rational person would realize that making the jump from philosophies counter to the current state of American policy to misguided lunatics running around with dynamite crammed in their bellybutton. Its ok, though. Logic has obviously failed Coulter and her ilk, leaving them only with slander and empty empiricals. We should pity them more than dislike them… but be wary. -C ---
**Author:** ![Maximum\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b77776/32.png) [@Maximum\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maximum_C)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/48 "2003-03-26T01:53:11Z")
That’ll teach me to post after having two beers. Anyone know why the hell we can’t edit on this board? -C ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/49 "2003-03-26T02:06:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > GW doesn’t give a squat about anti-war protests. Even Saddam probably knows this. This is silly. Of course he cares. And he will certainly care if the protests are successful in wining over larger segments of the population. In light of your statement above you must be wondering what possible purpose the protestors have altogether, but I’ll tell you the secret - it is an attempt to influence US policy. I’m skeptical as to whether you yourself believe your own position, though – not knowing you – anything is possible. > [@](#): > > Iraqis are defending their homeland from invaders. The prospect that some liberals are holding signs and shouting slogans in the US is hardly going to be more inspiring than that. The motivation of defending their homeland is there in any event. The question is whether there is an additional aspect added by having a better chance of winning, or a detraction by having worse prospects. You seem to be suggesting that the Iraqis are so motivated by defending their homeland that they couldn’t possibly be more or less motivated. Nonsense. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > First of all, the O.P. assumes that Saddam and his followers are going to think logically and rationally about their chances of success, and I think it’s quite obvious that they do not, and never will. No, the OP does not rest on such an assumption. It’s not as if once a person is overly optimistic about his chances nothing has the power to make him more or less optimistic. This is a simplistic assumption that you seem to share with your sympathizer, errata. > [@](#): > > Second, the logic that anyone should support a war that they believe is wrong, merely in the hopes that it will be over quicker, is pretty scary. > > Third, just for the sake of argument, let us say that lives _could_ be saved by restraining free speech. We still would have to measure the lives saved against any lives lost in future wars, since the U.S. military would certainly be emboldened by the perceived lack of domestic dissent. > > Fourth, if the price of battling oppressive foreign regimes is to squelch dissent at home, then we have simply become our enemy. These three points are essentially the same, for purposes of this thread. I noted this aspect in my first post to this thread. Still, as mentioned, it would be a good idea to at least understand and appreciate the impact of what you are doing, before trying to justify it. But, I would imagine, it is a lot easier for people to theoretically argue in favor of causing loss of life while simultaneously denying that they are actually doing this, than it is for them to acknowledge in the face of wartime sentiments that they are deliberately causing the death of other people because they have decided that other goals are more important. Of course, this leads to the type of contorted reasoning and willful blindness that has been displayed by many people in this thread. So it goes. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/50 "2003-03-26T02:11:08Z")
FrontPage Mag., to me, is a source for background on some of the old-timers, on both sides of the fence. You have your neo-con. hippies versus your new-Democrat hippies, versus the unreconstructed hippies. It’s unique in that respect. The rest… Eh. I read it when I’m not over at WRH, Znet, or Counterpunch.😉 I like to have a balanced diet of crap. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/51 "2003-03-26T03:46:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > This is silly. Of course he cares. And he will certainly care if the protests are successful in wining over larger segments of the population. In light of your statement above you must be wondering what possible purpose the protestors have altogether, but I’ll tell you the secret - it is an attempt to influence US policy. Well, there are different motivations for different protestors, but I put their odds of influencing foreign policy as somewhere between diddly and squat. It’s mainly a form of self expression. People don’t change their minds about war because someone’s shouting and waving a sign. What will change people’s minds will be mounting casualties with no end in sight. When Johnny comes home in body bag, that’s when people start changing their minds about things like that. > [@](#): > > You seem to be suggesting that the Iraqis are so motivated by defending their homeland that they couldn’t possibly be more or less motivated. Nonsense. Nonsense? Is that the best “proof” you can come up with? Tell me, is there any way that you can measure the rise in Iraqi morale after protests and how this morale has caused a rise in deaths in the US/UK forces? Or is the unicorn invisible as well as pink? ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/52 "2003-03-26T04:06:54Z")
The hidden premise to the OP is that Saddam and Iraqi generals would be quicker to surrender or capitulate if there wasn’t any dissent. Obviously (to me, at any rate), this is extremely dubious. If nothing else, the fact that the Bush administration is prosecuting this war in the face of fierce domestic and international protest should convince them of the _seriousness_ of the administration’s goal of regime change, and capitulate _more_ quickly, rather than less. As many reasonable analyses point out, the Bush Administration is now in a position where it _has to win_, in order to justify the invasion after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/53 "2003-03-26T04:58:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Binarydrone \* > **Look, we on the left understand that The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive. Really. The problem is that _this is not why we invaded_. To date, I have not been given an honest answer as to why we have.** If you haven’t received an honest answer as to why we have invaded, how do you automically know that “The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive”, is not, in fact, the reason? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/54 "2003-03-26T05:04:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Binarydrone \* > **Look, we on the left understand that The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive. Really. The problem is that _this is not why we invaded_. To date, I have not been given an honest answer as to why we have.** If you haven’t received an honest answer as to why we have invaded, how do you automically know that “The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive”, is not, in fact, the reason? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/55 "2003-03-26T08:43:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > No, the OP does not rest on such an assumption. It’s not as if once a person is overly optimistic about his chances nothing has the power to make him more or less optimistic. Optimism is not the issue; resolve is the issue. My opinion of Saddam is that he will never surrender, no matter how dismal his chances of victory. The Iraqis are not fighting because they think they can defeat the U.S. Army. Optimism is already zero. Sheer determination is the only thing that can fuel a hopelessly outmatched army. You are trying to apply reasoned analysis where it is irrelevant. Saddam is quite obviously not looking at the situation logically, and any slight skewing of U.S. public opinion one way or the other is not going to affect anything. > [@](#): > > This is a simplistic assumption that you seem to share with your sympathizer, errata. On the contrary, yours is the simplistic view, and I don’t see what comparing me to **errata** has to do with the price of tea in China. > [@](#): > > These three points are essentially the same, for purposes of this thread. I noted this aspect in my first post to this thread. Still, as mentioned, it would be a good idea to at least understand and appreciate the impact of what you are doing, before trying to justify it. This is quite vague. Care to try again? > [@](#): > > But, I would imagine, it is a lot easier for people to theoretically argue in favor of causing loss of life while simultaneously denying that they are actually doing this, than it is for them to acknowledge in the face of wartime sentiments that they are deliberately causing the death of other people because they have decided that other goals are more important. Of course, this leads to the type of contorted reasoning and willful blindness that has been displayed by many people in this thread. So it goes. Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? WHO argued in favor of causing death? You need to be WAY more specific; right now what you are posting just sounds like bitter ranting. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/56 "2003-03-26T14:08:06Z")
I’ll tell you what’s happening. The prowar folks are gonna end up causing more casualties than necessary. As others have rightly pointed out, neither side in Iraq much gives a shit what American protestors have to say. But there is one armed, deadly contingent in this fight that does care: Al Qaeda. The more it looks to young Arabic men like the US is united behind a war of invasion, the easier it’s going to be for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists. Conversely, the more that young Arabic men see that people in the United States are protesting this war, the harder it’s going to be to recruit terrorists. We protestors are saving lives. Evidence? I’ve got every bit as much evidence for this dreamlace scenario as **Izzy** has for his. Inductive reasoning, I thought, went out of style during the Enlightenment. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![CTB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@CTB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CTB)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/57 "2003-03-26T14:19:24Z")
**december and Beagle** , I do not want to inadvertantly hijack this thread any more than necessary, so I wil capitulate that somewhere amidst the inflammatory tripe of FrontPage Mag, there may be some actual news. And it probably puts it in a way that makes those on the far right feel all warm and fuzzy. I am certain that you could point to equally repugnant sites representing the far left. Both sides deserve the right to stroke themselves verbally. I simply question that either of you would really want to use such a site to represent your views on any topic. The right side of the aisle has some valid arguments to make and these loonies are only capable of preaching to the choir… CTB ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/58 "2003-03-26T14:20:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* So, **Daniel** , just who _are_ you helping, other than Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party? \*\* Before I respond to this little bit of flamebait, let me ask you a question: are you under the impression that this article represents a majority view amongst Iraqis themselves? [Hint](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172697) Daniel ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/59 "2003-03-26T15:05:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **Before I respond to this little bit of flamebait, let me ask you a question: are you under the impression that this article represents a majority view amongst Iraqis themselves?** From the [Straits Times](http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,179365,00.html?) > [@](#): > > \*\*Nine in 10 Iraqis welcome US invasion \*\* > > I AM half Iraqi and residing in Singapore, and I would like to inform all your readers that nine in 10 Iraqis welcome the American invasion of Iraq. The 1/10 are linked to Saddam Hussein’s regime. > > The invasion should be seen through the eyes of the Iraqi people. Whether there is war or no war, Iraqis are dying. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056/60 "2003-03-26T15:10:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > Well, there are different motivations for different protestors, but I put their odds of influencing foreign policy as somewhere between diddly and squat. It’s mainly a form of self expression. People don’t change their minds about war because someone’s shouting and waving a sign. What will change people’s minds will be mounting casualties with no end in sight. When Johnny comes home in body bag, that’s when people start changing their minds about things like that. It is true that the body bags will have a huge impact on which way opinion will turn. Of course. But it is also true that seeing other people expressing an opinion reinforces those who might tend to think along the same lines. But more to the point is that it provides a gauge of current dissatisfaction and how far is needed to go before it becomes a more serious factor. Seeing that there is already all this vocal opposition as it is makes one tend to think that any amount of setbacks might raise the level to a point at which it becomes a political factor. If there was apparent broad(er) support for the war, one might conclude that it would take a lot more in the way of setbacks before public opinion reached the point of playing a role. > [@](#): > > Is that the best “proof” you can come up with? I am not attempting to “prove” anything here. If you wish to deny the obvious - as you evidently do - be my guest. > [@](#): > > Tell me, is there any way that you can measure the rise in Iraqi morale after protests and how this morale has caused a rise in deaths in the US/UK forces? “Measure the rise in Iraqi morale”? What in the world does this mean? All I’m saying is that the presence of protests causes Iraqi morale to be higher than it otherwise would be, and that this tends to forestall conceding defeat. I’m not about to “measure the rise” or figure out how many extra deaths are caused by protests or anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > Optimism is not the issue; resolve is the issue. My opinion of Saddam is that he will never surrender, no matter how dismal his chances of victory. The Iraqis are not fighting because they think they can defeat the U.S. Army. Optimism is already zero. Sheer determination is the only thing that can fuel a hopelessly outmatched army. You are trying to apply reasoned analysis where it is irrelevant. Saddam is quite obviously not looking at the situation logically, and any slight skewing of U.S. public opinion one way or the other is not going to affect anything. It is not a matter of Saddam himself. There are hundreds of people in the Iraqi army, from leaders to privates, and the morale of these people is as important as that of Saddam, or more. I guess we essentially disagree with regards to your statement that “Optimism is already zero”. > [@](#): > > This is quite vague. Care to try again? I’m not sure what was vague. But in brief, your latter three points were _justifications_ for protesting even at the price of more deaths. I would not argue those as part of the same debate. > [@](#): > > Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? WHO argued in favor of causing death? You need to be WAY more specific; right now what you are posting just sounds like bitter ranting. I was referring to your aforementioned justifications. I am suggesting that even for those who would justify it, it is a lot easier if you are also denying doing so. Which provides a rationale for the twisted logic presented here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-antiwar-protests-causing-more-casualties-than-necessary/164056.md?page=4)