[QUOTE=elucidator]
We had an election, widely understood as showing that we, the people, are sick to puke of this goddam war. What was the result? A “surge”. So why would anybody be “emboldened” by public dissent? Unless they are complete shit-for-brains.
[/QUOTE]
Yet, it appears they are.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Even if true, so what? We swear to uphold the Constitution above all else, followed by the orders of those appointed over us. The right to free speech is foremost in the Bill of Rights.
The principles that we promise to uphold should be exercised by the citizens of the country we fight for. Otherwise, why bother?
[/QUOTE]
Did you not read my post where I pointed out that this is not a free speech issue? It’s a “taking responsibility for the free speech you enjoy” issue.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And that absolves you (figurative “you”) of deaths that might not have taken place?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, if everyone had listened to me then no American soldiers would have died in Iraq, because we’d never have gone there. If they started listening to me today, then the number of future American deaths in Iraq would be greatly reduced because we’d be pulling out a lot sooner than we will under the current administration. The problem isn’t that people are criticizing the war, it’s that the Commander in Chief isn’t listening.
Furthermore, even if criticism of the war has “caused” deaths by emboldening terrorists (and I’m not convinced of that point), there’s no way it’s causing more deaths than it’s preventing. I say preventing, because presumably if the only people willing to speak up were those in favor of the war, then it would foster an unrealistically positive impression of how the war is going, and result in us staying there longer than we otherwise would. If criticizing the war now means it ends even, say, a year sooner than it otherwise would, then that criticism is easily preventing far more American deaths in Iraq than it’s causing.
[QUOTE=tim314]
Hey, if everyone had listened to me then no American soldiers would have died in Iraq, because we’d never have gone there. If they started listening to me today, then the number of future American deaths in Iraq would be greatly reduced because we’d be pulling out a lot sooner than we will under the current administration. The problem isn’t that people are criticizing the war, it’s that the Commander in Chief isn’t listening.
[/QUOTE]
Responses of the just say “I don’t want to address the actual OP” using different words. I will grant you that if people had listened to you the world would be a better place. I will grant you that if they listened to you now, the world would be a better place. Happy? Good. Now maybe we can get back to the actual debate I posed.
[QUOTE=tim314]
Furthermore, even if criticism of the war has “caused” deaths by emboldening terrorists (and I’m not convinced of that point), there’s no way it’s causing more deaths than it’s preventing.
[/QUOTE]
If you can prove this or that protesting will cause the war to end sooner, we can talk, until then, feel free to open another thread to that effect.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
they should be aware that their protestations might be emboldening the enemy and resulting in U.S. deaths.
[/QUOTE]
<cheney> “So?” </cheney>
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Did you not read my post where I pointed out that this is not a free speech issue? It’s a “taking responsibility for the free speech you enjoy” issue.
[/QUOTE]
Great. Now they’re aware. I’ll let them know when they should be responsible for forcing my hand up in the air after sticking a pen into it so I could sign my enlistment papers.
They are no more responsible for the deaths of my fellow servicemembers (and friends) than I am for that 16-year-old girl who will be dying in a car accident sometime tomorrow, or that 35-year-old guy who shoots himself to death. Should I be? I drive a car, I am a gun advocate, do I bear any responsibility for enabling them? Not at all.
Nothing the war protesters say or do has any bearing on the guy about to go on duty in Baghdad right now. The bomb that will kill him is already planted. The gun that will shoot at him is already in the hands of his attackers. You’re positing causation where none exists.
Truthfully, I’m sick of it. As someone who has been there (albeit for a shorter time than some) and seen stuff that I would rather not have seen, I fight so that people can call me names and denigrate my service if they choose to. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to respect it. And there is nothing that they can say or do that can cause my death or those of my fellow soldiers. The catalyst for that was way back in 2003, when we invaded the homes and lives of the people of a sovereign nation. Compared to that, talk is cheap.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Ms. Chenoweth notes that the study could be improved if they tested for pro-resolve statements, to eliminate the grey area you cited. BUt she seems impressed by it.
[/quote]
Did we have a change in the universe, recently, where correlation began to equal causation? I saw a report of a study that was claimed to have been statistically well built, describing correlation, but was reported with an unsupported claim for causation. The ball is still in your court.
In addition, there has been no evidence presented that the increase in violence is sustained following protests. (For that matter, we do not (yet) have any actual definition of “anti-resolve” language.)
Deaths and injuries also go up when attacks are launched (as we were incessantly reminded at the beginning of the “Surge”). Should we refrain from launching attacks that will increase causalties?
If placid little protests are ignored for years and years before they finally result in a withdrawal, are they more moral than a few outspoken rousing protests that result in attacks, (not necessarily even casualties), of 7% to 10% but which shorten the war by several years with an annual reduction of deaths by 100%?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And let me ask you, and others, this, as well: Let’s say that the findings are factual and that future studies will support this. If so, does that matter at all? Don’t you think that changes the equation. Most of the time we evaluate protests for the possible good they can do, assuming there is no downside. That’s what was argued here months (years?) ago. But if that premise is false, do not protesters have a moral responsibility to take the negative effects of their actions into account. Let’s assume that you are against the war. Let’s assume that you think it idiocy and want everyone home. Your reasons for this are that lives are being lost—on both sides—needlessly. You care about the Iraqis and our own soldiers and want them brought home to put an end to the killing. And you protest to those ends. But now, let’s ASSUME it is proven that your actions are causing more clashes and causing more deaths. That every time you protest and it makes the news IT DOES embolden the enemy and they increase their attacks, upping the body count across the board. IF that were shown to be the case, would you not have a moral responsibility to change your methods?
[/QUOTE]
See my preceding statement.
In addition, if the war is morally wrong, ending it is more important than some limited number of increased causalties. As I recall, you initially argued that protests would result in an increased resolve by the insurgents to continue fighting forever. (That even might be true.) However, the evidence you have presented says only that after some hoopla about our withdrawal, the insurgents are more likely to respond either to the protests or the administration’s re-affirmation of an intent to continue by launching a few more attacks for a few days. Your original point remains to be proven (or even supported.)
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Responses of the just say “I don’t want to address the actual OP” using different words. I will grant you that if people had listened to you the world would be a better place. I will grant you that if they listened to you now, the world would be a better place. Happy? Good. Now maybe we can get back to the actual debate I posed.
[/quote]
I responded to the direct question you asked me. You asked me “Does that [the fact that proponents of the war have caused more deaths] absolve you of deaths that might not have taken place?”
My answer is (1) the people responsible for those deaths are, first, the killers, and to a lesser degree the people who sent our soldiers off to war in the first place. I’m not responsible for deaths that wouldn’t have happened if people listened to me. (2) I furthermore shouldn’t be blamed because criticism prevents more deaths than it causes.
That is a direct answer to a question you asked me in response to my previous comment. For you to call it non-responsive suggests you aren’t interested in hearing any opinions that differ from your own.
You haven’t given “proof” of your contention that criticism of the war results in deaths of American soldiers. A single study showing a correlation between media coverage of criticism and increased attacks doesn’t remotely demonstrate a direct causative relationship between the two, and for you to suggest otherwise shows a woeful ignorance of basic scientific reasoning. What part of “correlation does not imply causation” don’t you understand?
To examine one specific example from your OP, an increase in attacks in the two weeks prior to the 2006 election could just as well be due to the insurgents hoping to influence the result of the election as to the insurgents responding to press coverage of war criticism. More generally, it seems that almost all the correlation the researchers described could be due simply to the insurgents being encouraged by the fact that they’re being mentioned on TV at all, rather than that the war is being criticized. Greater media coverage of war criticism is almost certainly correlated with greater media coverage of the war as a whole.
Getting back to your criticism of my previous response, your OP makes the very clear implication that “We shouldn’t criticize the war because to do so results in increased attacks on American soldiers.” I gave a response explaining why I think criticism of the war is justified even if it does increase attacks and you basically said “I don’t want to hear reasons for criticizing the war, I just want to talk about how critics are responsible for the deaths of our troops”. This suggests you aren’t really interested in a debate. If you want to hear your own opinions repeated back to you, go buy a parrot.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
First, that assumes it will work in the end. Second, it assumes that the body count due to these “increased” protests will be less than the total deaths otherwise.
[/quote]
Actually, it assumes that there is nothing else available to us, and since I don’t believe that political assassination is ever acceptable, that’s true.
By “less ugly protests” do you mean “protests that are less ugly”, or do you mean “fewer [ugly] protests”? Either way, you’re mistaken. Any actions that allow for the acceptability of ending this thing in a forward direction, instead of backing out and refusing to fire another shot that is not in defense of our retreat, will necessarly result in more, not fewer deaths, on both sides.
They also won’t occur if Shrubya [gets Cheney’s permission and] does what I’m demanding he do.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Great. Now they’re aware. I’ll let them know when they should be responsible for forcing my hand up in the air after sticking a pen into it so I could sign my enlistment papers.
They are no more responsible for the deaths of my fellow servicemembers (and friends) than I am for that 16-year-old girl who will be dying in a car accident sometime tomorrow, or that 35-year-old guy who shoots himself to death. Should I be? I drive a car, I am a gun advocate, do I bear any responsibility for enabling them? Not at all.
Nothing the war protesters say or do has any bearing on the guy about to go on duty in Baghdad right now. The bomb that will kill him is already planted. The gun that will shoot at him is already in the hands of his attackers. You’re positing causation where none exists.
Truthfully, I’m sick of it. As someone who has been there (albeit for a shorter time than some) and seen stuff that I would rather not have seen, I fight so that people can call me names and denigrate my service if they choose to. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to respect it. And there is nothing that they can say or do that can cause my death or those of my fellow soldiers. The catalyst for that was way back in 2003, when we invaded the homes and lives of the people of a sovereign nation. Compared to that, talk is cheap.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be simply making believe the study wasn’t done. I respect and thank you for your service, AD, but simply looking at the much larger decision to put people like you over there doesn’t mean that subsequent smaller decisions are free of consequences. And the one’s making them free of responsibility.
None of this should be taken to imply contempt for the source, the widely read and trusted Washington Times, whose fair and balanced reporting is the stuff of legend and compares favorably with that liberal agit-prop organ, the New York Times. The “Grey Lady” of New York, the “Scarlet Harlot” of Washington
Anybody else printing this? This shit reeks of agenda. Now, mind you, thats rather a subjective response, based on very indefinite parameters, difficult to quantify. Kind of like deciding whateverthefuck an “anti-resolve” statement might be.
Just guessing here, but I got two bits that says any serious study of their metics and methodology will reveal that this “study” ensuckens dead donkey balls.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
You seem to be simply making believe the study wasn’t done. I respect and thank you for your service, AD, but simply looking at the much larger decision to put people like you over there doesn’t mean that subsequent smaller decisions are free of consequences. And the one’s making them free of responsibility.
[/QUOTE]
You’re trying to share responsibility for killing 5,000 soldiers and countless civilians, but you can’t. I understand that it’s a painful burden to bear, but it is YOUR burden, not ours.
You can’t honestly believe that war protesters will just accept partial blame for the deaths caused by the war they’re protesting. That’s the kind of nonsensical doublespeak that belongs in Orwell fiction.
[QUOTE=tim314]
I responded to the direct question you asked me. You asked me “Does that [the fact that proponents of the war have caused more deaths] absolve you of deaths that might not have taken place?”
My answer is (1) the people responsible for those deaths are, first, the killers,
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=tim314]
and to a lesser degree the people who sent our soldiers off to war in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Fine. And the Wright Brothers. But we are talking about AFTER that decision had been made. I absolve them of no guilt. Any President who send soldiers into battle is yoked with that forever.
[QUOTE=tim314]
I’m not responsible for deaths that wouldn’t have happened if people listened to me.
[/QUOTE]
You’d be right if you voiced your opinion and did nothing else. You would be free of blame. But if you take a subsequent action, and THAT action causes additional deaths that would not have occured had you not taken that action, do you not bear some responsibility for those deaths?
[QUOTE=tim314(2) I furthermore shouldn’t be blamed because criticism prevents more deaths than it causes.
You haven’t given “proof” of your contention that criticism of the war results in deaths of American soldiers. A single study showing a correlation between media coverage of criticism and increased attacks doesn’t remotely demonstrate a direct causative relationship between the two, and for you to suggest otherwise shows a woeful ignorance of basic scientific reasoning. What part of “correlation does not imply causation” don’t you understand?[/QUOTE]
I understand fine. This is a debate. In the OP I said that based on the study, it “appears” that a position I offered a ways back was right. I have subsequently—for the purpose of meaningful debate—constructed it as a hypothetical. I have asked you to assume the study is correct and would be proven after additional studies would be done, making the link more causal.
[QUOTE=tim314Getting back to your criticism of my previous response, your OP makes the very clear implication that “We shouldn’t criticize the war because to do so results in increased attacks on American soldiers.” [/QUOTE]
My point is NOT that we shouldn’t criticize the war. When this issue initially came up, I even wrote a strong letter calling for its end. My point is that criticiziing the war has consequences and that we should take them into account. If we are aware of consequences and still decide to act, we bear some resposibility for those actions and their consequences. If someone like Der Trihs, who actively wishes every American soldier death, goes through the calculation and still wants to protests vociferously, fine. I do not seek to stop him except to the extent that I may disagree with him. BUt he would be doing the morally correct thing as far as working to make something happen that he WANTS to happen, i.e. the killing of American soldiers.
[QUOTE=tim314I gave a response explaining why I think criticism of the war is justified even if it does increase attacks and you basically said “I don’t want to hear reasons for criticizing the war, I just want to talk about how critics are responsible for the deaths of our troops”.[/QUOTE]
Untrue. And sorry if I was unclear, but I am interested in how one can be free of responsibility for an action—and its consequence—when that action is known to cause that consequence. (Again, for the purposes of debate, we’re assuming the study to reveal fact.) So, please try rereading. Maybe the addition of what I have written subsequently will help. If not, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
I don’t think that the study says what you think it says. It does say that protesters actions have an unintended temporary negative effect. It does not claim to explore all of the effects of protests of the war. It is quite possible that the longterm effects of criticism and protest are that the war is shortened by many years. The study does not address that possibility.
Magellan, with all due respect, you must understand that for many if not most of us, protesting this war is our patriotic and moral duty. Did you think that people who support the war have a monopoly on those feelings? It’s a matter of love of country and love of fellow human beings. It’s not about getting Bush and Cheney.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
You’re trying to share responsibility for killing 5,000 soldiers and countless civilians, but you can’t. I understand that it’s a painful burden to bear, but it is YOUR burden, not ours.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to disappoint you and let you know that your actions were only 80% effective. The number is 4,000. And for some reason you seem to think I advocated this war. I did not. Any of the arguing for the war I’ve done has simply been countering what I think is extremism. I have never like Bush, never voted for him, and look back at the day he got the nomination as a sad and maddening one, yet I’ve argued against the hyperbolic vitriol against him, as well. So, in the future, you might want to know what you’re talking about when you start flapping your gums.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
You can’t honestly believe that war protesters will just accept partial blame for the deaths caused by the war they’re protesting. That’s the kind of nonsensical doublespeak that belongs in Orwell fiction.
[/QUOTE]
IF—IF subsequent studies are done and they all show they same thing, yes the morally honest among them will accept responsibility for their future protests. If one did not know a causal link occurred beforehand, they shouldn’t feel obligated to share in the blame.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
None of this should be taken to imply contempt for the source, the widely read and trusted Washington Times, whose fair and balanced reporting is the stuff of legend and compares favorably with that liberal agit-prop organ, the New York Times. The “Grey Lady” of New York, the “Scarlet Harlot” of Washington
Anybody else printing this? This shit reeks of agenda. Now, mind you, thats rather a subjective response, based on very indefinite parameters, difficult to quantify. Kind of like deciding whateverthefuck an “anti-resolve” statement might be.
Just guessing here, but I got two bits that says any serious study of their metics and methodology will reveal that this “study” ensuckens dead donkey balls.
[/QUOTE]
You could be correct about that, 'luci, although I’m not sure how much ire it’s appropriate to direct toward the authors. According to the story in the OP’s link, the study has been submitted to the Quarterly Review of Economics, but evidently, not yet accepted for publicaton.
Although I usually search with Google, I went with Yahoo! today, and found the following hits on the title of the paper: here. As you can see, it appears the OP’s selection of The Washington Times is a function of the type of neighborhood he prefers to hang out in, rather than Rev. Moon’s publication being a sole source.
I was also able to find a .pdf with the study itself, here.
At great personal inconvenience, I have painstakingly typed the final paragraph of the study, as I found it in the .pdf. Bracketed keystrokes are, of course, mine, and represent my attempts to correct typographical errors on the part of whoever created the documents in the .pdf.
Your remarks about the vagueness of the term “anti-resolve statements” are well-taken.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I don’t think that the study says what you think it says. It does say that protesters actions have an unintended temporary negative effect. It does not claim to explore all of the effects of protests of the war. It is quite possible that the longterm effects of criticism and protest are that the war is shortened by many years. The study does not address that possibility.
[/QUOTE]
The possibilities you point out are, in fact, possibilities. If we were to learn that some of what you posit were true, I’d be happy to reevaluate my position. As it stands, a while back I was of the (admittedly) pure opinion that the types of protests we were seeing were bad because they would embolden the enemy. People of the other side were of the opposite opinion. No problem. I post this today because a study was actually done looking into the very issue. And it appears to support my position. I do not claim it PROVES my position. Which is why I have subsequently constructed it as a hypothetical.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Magellan, with all due respect, you must understand that for many if not most of us, protesting this war is our patriotic and moral duty. Did you think that people who support the war have a monopoly on those feelings? It’s a matter of love of country and love of fellow human beings. It’s not about getting Bush and Cheney.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair, for some it’s as much about Bush as anything. But you are right. I look at it as there are several groups of people. Group A will protest no matter what. They believe in their cause, and it makes them (understandably) feel good. Some in this group, (again, assuming the study is true) would go as far as to accept the responsibility for the additional deaths, as they feel that the long-term good of their action outweighs the short-term bad. (I’d quibble with them about they are gambling, to a degree, with those additional lives, but we’ll leave that for now.) There’s is another group who is as opposed to the war as the first. But these people might blanch more at their actions causing additional deaths. They may even do the long-term/short-term calculation, but see it as the gamble I think it is. This group would probably alter their actions as to not have the negative consequence attached to them. The point is that these two groups are not equal. The first one does bear some responsibility for the known consequences of their actions. They may be right!! They may cause the war to end sooner that it would, thereby saving more lives than would have been lost otherwise. But just as they should rightly be held responsible for the good they cause, they should be held responsible for the bad they cause, i.e., those additional deaths.
I should note that part of my original point was that the methods being used were the most effective. Given where we are now I feel more certain about that.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
By “less ugly protests” do you mean “protests that are less ugly”, or do you mean “fewer [ugly] protests”? Either way, you’re mistaken. Any actions that allow for the acceptability of ending this thing in a forward direction, instead of backing out and refusing to fire another shot that is not in defense of our retreat, will necessarly result in more, not fewer deaths, on both sides.
[/QUOTE]
That is an assumption. It would probably mean fewer deaths for us. For them? I fear not.
Has outspoken support of Israel angered the enemy and caused civilian deaths?
It seems to be disingenuously convenient to hold terrorists accountable for their own actions only until you can find evidence that actions or policies you oppose are provoking them. (If anyone thinks I’m on their side, read that sentence again.)
The justifications for those actions are probably also similar to both sides. We stand up and speak, or fight, for what we believe in and expect that it’s worth it in the end.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Did we have a change in the universe, recently, where correlation began to equal causation? I saw a report of a study that was claimed to have been statistically well built, describing correlation, but was reported with an unsupported claim for causation.
[/QUOTE]
And I never claimed otherwise. The study is merely a piece of evidence that seems tio indicate that my original point form long ago may have been correct. Hence, my asking you to entertain the hypothetical.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If placid little protests are ignored for years and years before they finally result in a withdrawal, are they more moral than a few outspoken rousing protests that result in attacks, (not necessarily even casualties), of 7% to 10% but which shorten the war by several years with an annual reduction of deaths by 100%?
[/QUOTE]
Let me entertain your hypothetical. (See, it is possible.) I’d say it would depend on the level of confidence one could reasonably have about their rousing protests having the result they wish for. If they had good reason to believe it high, then the rousing protests would be moral. The less certain they are of that outcome, the less moral it becomes. And I wouldn’t necessarily say “more” moral, even if they were right and it worked. For some, they might make a moral decision to not to want to ever cause another death. Some pacifists are like this. And I wouldn’t call them unmoral or less moral than others.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
In addition, if the war is morally wrong, ending it is more important than some limited number of increased causalties.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. And if your actions to end that war result in deaths, you best be damn sure you are correct, because those deaths go in your negative column, just as the lives saved go in your positive column.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
As I recall, you initially argued that protests would result in an increased resolve by the insurgents to continue fighting forever.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t sound right. I see no reason why I or anyone would think that something done today would cause someone else to do something forever.