[QUOTE=magellan01]
Are you aware of any study indicating the relationship between protests and a country’s withdrawal from a war zone?
[/QUOTE]
No, and given our experience in Vietnam it is a point on which I am not optimistic (the anti-war movement peaking in 1971 and the troops remaining until 1974).
[QUOTE=magellan01]
You raise an excellent question. I think I’ve been clear, though I may not have been, that I was interested in the moral responsibility an individual protester might have assuming the hypothetical. There are instances that we acknowledge that each of us might have a moral responsibility without that translating into a legal one, which I think the rest of your post is getting at.
[/QUOTE]
My overall objection is a moral one. I do not think moral and legal responsibility are always separable, or that responsibility is a concept that should be talked about lightly. To truly take responsibility for the death of others implies consequences, and in a modern society such as ours this would be handled through the civil legal system. Otherwise “responsibility” is just a throwaway emotion, a small moment of feeling bad of little consequence before forgetting about it and getting on with your life.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I think this gets to the crux of the issue. Does not your assessment of whether or not you’re acting in a principled manner require you to weigh the benefits of your actions against the unfortunate consequences. If say, you happen upon a car accident. A man is lying on the asphalt. He’s alert but can’t move. You feel sorry for him and see a soft patch of thick grass ten feet away. Part of you wants to pick him up and move him there. But part of you is also vaguely aware that in moving him incorrectly you might be causing him some irreversible spine damage. Now, if you did not have any notion that moving him might harm him, helping him by moving him oput of the road would be the moral thing to do, would it not? But if you add new information, i.e., moving him might cause him harm, the moral equation changes. And it can change again with yet more information. Let’s say the guy is lying not far from the car, in which you can see small flames, and gasoline is running from the ruptured gas line to where he is lying. This would probably cause you to do another calculation that says the moral thing to do is move him out of what appears certain danger and risk the unknown of the spinal damage.
The point is that a protest might be thought of as a good thing—and it might very well BE a good thing. But what if new information is added to the equation, that the protest you hold because you are opposed to putting our soldiers in harms way results in them actually being killed? Surely the protester is required to at least reassess his actions. I will say that I think there will be many different answers, as the root cause(s) for the protest changes from person to person.
[/QUOTE]
If we ignore the legal aspects and just talk about responsibility in the context of trying to choose the best action, the car accident analogy isn’t comparable to the protesters. Indeed, the car accident doesn’t even have a moral dilemma: it is clear what you should do, help the victim recover as much as possible. The difficulty is a practical one, with all the dangers facing the victim, which specific actions help him the most?
I agree in general making moral decisions is as you say, a difficult weighing of the effects of your decision, and trying to determine the right action is not always easy. But here I am specifically objecting to the idea that a protester is responsible if a different person decides to initiate violence based on either an objection to, or being emboldened by, the protest. This idea implies that the protester should allow the violent group to intimidate him into remaining silent.
To accept that the protester is responsible means that we would have to hold people responsible for other people’s actions far more often. Should a supporter of George W. Bush feel responsible if a terrorist group opposing G.W. Bush policies kills a bunch of people? I say no, the only ones responsible are the perpetrators of the violence. Declaring a supporter of G.W. Bush or a war protester responsible for the violence sets a very dangerous precedent, one where you are freely allowing the violent group to set your policies. I personally would prefer policies set by an honest debate free from intimidation.
If you like this could fit into the whole “weighing the options” paradigm by adding another factor: the long term negative effect of handing over a percentage of your decision making power to terrorist groups. I personally attach a lot of weight to this factor.
[QUOTE=Driver8]
My overall objection is a moral one. I do not think moral and legal responsibility are always separable, or that responsibility is a concept that should be talked about lightly. To truly take responsibility for the death of others implies consequences, and in a modern society such as ours this would be handled through the civil legal system. Otherwise “responsibility” is just a throwaway emotion, a small moment of feeling bad of little consequence before forgetting about it and getting on with your life.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that moral and legal responsibility aren’t always separable, but they needn’t be to be separable in a particular instance. And I agree that taking responsibility for someone’s death implies consequences. BUt I disagree that those consequences need be through the courts. For instance, I may be hunting in the middle of nowhere aim for a deer, miss, and that bullet strikes another hunter and kills him. Legally, as it was an accident and I did nothing “wrong”, I’d probably still feel morally responsible, to the point that I might give up hunting.
[QUOTE=Driver8]
If we ignore the legal aspects and just talk about responsibility in the context of trying to choose the best action, the car accident analogy isn’t comparable to the protesters. Indeed, the car accident doesn’t even have a moral dilemma: it is clear what you should do, help the victim recover as much as possible. The difficulty is a practical one, with all the dangers facing the victim, which specific actions help him the most?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My point had to do with what responsibility you would feel, and to what degree society wold hold you responsible if you acted in a manner that caused damage, i.e., moving the man. If you moved him and caused long-term damage, well, maybe you should have known that. If you moved him and caused spine damage but saved him from being engulfed in flames, the cost, moral and legal, wold be mitigated because there is another factor in the calculation.
[QUOTE=Driver8]
I agree in general making moral decisions is as you say, a difficult weighing of the effects of your decision, and trying to determine the right action is not always easy. But here I am specifically objecting to the idea that a protester is responsible if a different person decides to initiate violence based on either an objection to, or being emboldened by, the protest. This idea implies that the protester should allow the violent group to intimidate him into remaining silent.
[/QUOTE]
You make a very interesting point. But I think you go too far. But in a war we must take the enemies reaction to our actions all the time. This is why I am against waterboarding and other extreme measures of, shall we say, persuasion. If we do it we are in essence telling the enemy that that is rightly on the table if you are trying to get information from one of our soldiers. Using your metric, that wouldn’t be a valid reason, would it? Not to say that that is the only reason, but do you hold it to be a valid one?
Now, the position you take as far as not wanting to kowtow to the desires of the terrorists is a noble one. and I would respect anyone who took such a firm stance when it is their life on the line. But when the lives of others is at stake I think it is different. Especially when you might be getting them killed by not supporting their mission. I think there is something perverse in a soldier being killed or wounded because someone at home not only doesn’t support him in his mission (which, as a soldier he has no say in), but took an action that resulted in a death or injury that would not have happened otherwise.
[QUOTE=Driver8]
To accept that the protester is responsible means that we would have to hold people responsible for other people’s actions far more often. Should a supporter of George W. Bush feel responsible if a terrorist group opposing G.W. Bush policies kills a bunch of people? I say no, the only ones responsible are the perpetrators of the violence. Declaring a supporter of G.W. Bush or a war protester responsible for the violence sets a very dangerous precedent, one where you are freely allowing the violent group to set your policies. I personally would prefer policies set by an honest debate free from intimidation.
[/QUOTE]
Again, an excellent point. But, especially in a society where the leaders are freely elected, when one works against those leaders I think there is a higher burden. It’s one thing to be rough, maybe overly rough with an opposing team, but when you do that against your own team it is more questionable. On the other hand, I will admit that the action carries considerably more weight. (The image of Ditka going after his own teammate on the field comes to mind. Or Zell Miller speaking at the Rep. Convention.)
As I said, I think you make excellent points. But I see no reason why you wouldn’t want people to hold themselves accountable for their own actions. Assuming that protests increase violence against our troops, do you mean to say that you are just as likely to protest, and in the exact same way? That that new information wouldn’t—shouldn’t—cause you to take a fresh look at the moral calculation? As I mentioned much earlier, it seems to me that some people wants absolution for any and all negatives that come from a protest, much like the anonymous absolution enjoyed by mobs. I just don’t see how someone can argue for that.
Now, that may make protesting not as desirable for some. and I think that that is a good thing, for two reasons. One, it wouldn’t embolden the enemy (assuming it true for now, and 2) it would cause people to look for other ways to effect things. I think that protesting has become too easy a way to “do the right thing”. Much better, I say, for a couple million people to stay home and think for creative ways to change things.
As an example of a creative way to make a statement against the establishment, in this case the Supreme Court, I thought the idea for the Lost Liberty Hotel was brilliant.
[QUOTE=Driver8]
If you like this could fit into the whole “weighing the options” paradigm by adding another factor: the long term negative effect of handing over a percentage of your decision making power to terrorist groups. I personally attach a lot of weight to this factor.
[/QUOTE]
As do I. But I’d be more on board with ignoring the terrorists’ desires when it comes to actions that work against them. When said actions work against us in the conflict—while we are engaged in it—we should not ignore it, as we are then working against our own interests. Now, you might argue that the protests would end the war early, saving many, many more lives than would be lost by the protests. And that might be the case. But I am unaware that that opinion is anything other than just that. Baring that information, I think that a protester should weigh the pros (ending the war early) and cons of protesting (emboldening the enemy and causing harm to our soldiers) and be willing to live with the moral implications. That seems like a very reasonable thing to ask of someone. No?
Ending what war early? We aren’t at war. We’re involved in an occupation that has us stuck betwen opposing factions of someone else’s civil war, but that civil war has little to do with the US.
The so-called “War on Terror” is, of course, just a rhetorical phrase – a slogan, a bumper sticker, not an actual declared war with any defined enemy or objective (and has nothing to do with Iraq). There are a few thousand radicals who don’t like America, of course, and there is some risk that they will commit crimes of violence in the US, but that minor threat – such as it is – is aggravated by our presence in Iraq. leaving Iraq would reduce the hostility.
When theyou say that the enemy will might be “emboldened,” what do you mean, exactly? Emboldened to do what?
The fallacy I see with the argument that states what is said in the US affects what’s going on in Iraq is this: If well informed Iraqi insurgents want to take over their country by getting the US troops out of there, why are they not reducing the violence? Going underground for a while? They have heard George Bush saying for years that we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. They know that most Americans want our troops home ASAP which is predicated on the levels of violence there.
Thus, if this correlation was correct wouldn’t it make much more sense that over the last couple years the insurgents would be far more effective by holding their fire? Wouldn’t they have free run sooner if they stockpiled their IEDs and rarely used them until we’re gone? Wouldn’t it be easier to infiltrate the police, military, their government even than it is now if they simply made it seem for a while that peace is now in place thanks to the Americans and now they can go home? More time to secretly organize their militias?
The fact that we have not seen this happen without a surge strikes me that what’s going on in Iraq has less to do with us and much more to do with centuries old animosities and hatreds. If they were united enough to be emboldened they would also be united enough to fake a lull in the fighting there to wait us out.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Ending what war early? We aren’t at war. We’re involved in an occupation that has us stuck betwen opposing factions of someone else’s civil war, but that civil war has little to do with the US.
The so-called “War on Terror” is, of course, just a rhetorical phrase – a slogan, a bumper sticker, not an actual declared war with any defined enemy or objective (and has nothing to do with Iraq). There are a few thousand radicals who don’t like America, of course, and there is some risk that they will commit crimes of violence in the US, but that minor threat – such as it is – is aggravated by our presence in Iraq. leaving Iraq would reduce the hostility.
When theyou say that the enemy will might be “emboldened,” what do you mean, exactly? Emboldened to do what?
[/QUOTE]
Come on, Dio. We’re talking about the “war” in Iraq. The same way we talk about the war (also technically incorrect) in Vietnam. By embolden, as you should be able to glean from the thread, I mean they will step up their attacks on our soldiers in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Snag]
The fallacy I see with the argument that states what is said in the US affects what’s going on in Iraq is this: If well informed Iraqi insurgents want to take over their country by getting the US troops out of there, why are they not reducing the violence? Going underground for a while? They have heard George Bush saying for years that we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. They know that most Americans want our troops home ASAP which is predicated on the levels of violence there.
Thus, if this correlation was correct wouldn’t it make much more sense that over the last couple years the insurgents would be far more effective by holding their fire? Wouldn’t they have free run sooner if they stockpiled their IEDs and rarely used them until we’re gone? Wouldn’t it be easier to infiltrate the police, military, their government even than it is now if they simply made it seem for a while that peace is now in place thanks to the Americans and now they can go home? More time to secretly organize their militias?
The fact that we have not seen this happen without a surge strikes me that what’s going on in Iraq has less to do with us and much more to do with centuries old animosities and hatreds. If they were united enough to be emboldened they would also be united enough to fake a lull in the fighting there to wait us out.
[/QUOTE]
Great question. One that I’ve puzzled over. One senator, McCain maybe quipped about this very issue something to the effect, 'I guess they’re not that smart." But I think we’re seeing some of this. I think this was part of Al Sadr’s plan to quiet his factions. My guess is that the groups aren’t all that organized. Some guys in one area, or one faction, want’s to wait it out, and another group elsewhere have the means and the opportunity, and they take it. Maybe with the “america is evil” talk coming from the U.S. they think that their actions will be more welcomed by the population at large. Honestly, though, I don’t know. But I don’t think that just because there might not be complete unity and intelligent strategic planning doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist at all.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Come on, Dio. We’re talking about the “war” in Iraq. The same way we talk about the war (also technically incorrect) in Vietnam. By embolden, as you should be able to glean from the thread, I mean they will step up their attacks on our soldiers in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
But we don’t really have an “enemy” in Iraq. We’re just in the way of someone else’s civil war. Besides, they can’t step up any attacks on our troops in Iraq if we pull our troops out of Iraq, can they? What reason is there to leave American targets there?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
But we don’t really have an “enemy” in Iraq. We’re just in the way of someone else’s civil war. Besides, they can’t step up any attacks on our troops in Iraq if we pull our troops out of Iraq, can they? What reason is there to leave American targets there?
[/QUOTE]
No enemy in Iraq, fine. We should leave, fine. They can’t attack our troops if they’re not there, fine. Do you really think this is some grand insight? The fact remains that we are there. Our soldiers are there. They get attacked. So, while they are there, do you have an opinion concerning the hypothetical. Seriously, I’d like to hear your opinion on whether or knowledge of protests inciting attacks on our soldiers changes the moral equation for a protester at all.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t see what your problem is. There was a discussion a while back about whether or not, and to what degree, protests might embolden the enemy. A study come out that indicates that they may—MAY—in fact, do so. It has not been peer-reviewed, but it appears that it will be. But I’ve asked no one to take the study as proof of anything.
[/QUOTE]
I DON’T KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER. I DID TRY ALL CAPS BEFORE AND THAT DOESN’T WORK. PLEASE TRY TO PAY ATTENTION, HOWEVER. THAT GOES FOR ALL THE POSTERS IN THIS WOEBEGOTTEN THREAD.
If this is a study of, as you claim again, how protests embolden the enemy, then please tell me how many protests they measured. I put this question to anyone else posting on any side of this thread. How many protests did they measure?
Don’t any of you wonder for a moment when you read about something like this, “Gee, how would you go about measuring protests?” Don’t any of you have a shred of intellectual curiosity?
You should be able to answer my question above already, because someone kindly provided a link to the full text of the study, and I already highlighted it.
However, for about the fifth time, I will point out that they did not measure protests. You might wonder how they could draw any conclusions about protests “emboldening” the enemy. I sure do, and would say that they can’t.
What they did measure was probably as independent from actual protests as possible, and that was Bush administration statements. They were reportedly about “emboldening”, but to measure actual protests, that would be an exceedingly poor index.
So the study, your description, and this entire bumfuck of a “debate” should be: “Do Bush administration statements (when combined with the results of opinion polls) cause American deaths?”
Do you even grasp the problem yet? Does anyone here? It’s really quite remarkable to me.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No enemy in Iraq, fine. We should leave, fine. They can’t attack our troops if they’re not there, fine. Do you really think this is some grand insight?
[/quote]
On the contrary, I think it’s the Bloody Obvious, which is why your question makes no sense to me.
Well that’s a solvable problem, isn’t it?
I don’t accept your premise that advocating for leaving Iraq causes more violence against the troops. It’s their presence that causes them to get attacked.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I DON’T KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER. I DID TRY ALL CAPS BEFORE AND THAT DOESN’T WORK. PLEASE TRY TO PAY ATTENTION, HOWEVER. THAT GOES FOR ALL THE POSTERS IN THIS WOEBEGOTTEN THREAD.
If this is a study of, as you claim again, how protests embolden the enemy, then please tell me how many protests they measured. I put this question to anyone else posting on any side of this thread. How many protests did they measure?
[/QUOTE]
You, however, have missed magellan01’s point regarding the topic.
Earlier discussions turned around the concept of whether various forms of protest actually brought harm to U.S. troops. Prompted by a flawed study that used the words of the administration to pretend that there had been any actual “loud” protests, magellan01 thought it would be interesting to raise the topic again.
It really does not matter (in the terms of this discussion) whether there actually was any protest or whether the quotes used in the study were simply more lies by the administration to whip up support for its position: the discussion is still one regarding whether (hypothetical) protestors bear some (hypothetical) reponsibility for any (hypothetical) casualties subsequently inflicted by those opposing the military.
You have made your point strongly and well, but the discussion is still one of hypotheticals and the fact that the story that prompted the discussion did not establish anything like its “headline” claims does not eliminate the possibility of discussing the issue.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You, however, have missed magellan01’s point regarding the topic.
[/quote]
tomndebb, the study does nothing of the sort. To repeatedly post that it does is completely false. If his point has moved away from the false claims about what this study says to a hypothetical, that’s certainly fine.
I wonder why, if that’s the case, and if I’m missing his point, is he still purporting, a handful of posts above this one, that this study may (MAY) prove anything of the sort.
It does not. It cannot. It could only prove, if anything, that the Bush administration causes American deaths by making such statements, along with the release of polling results.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It does not. It cannot. It could only prove, if anything, that the Bush administration causes American deaths by making such statements, along with the release of polling results.
[/QUOTE]
No. There is the remote (if unlikely) possibility that the Bush statements used to trigger the counts in the report were, in fact, responses to “loud” protests and there is the even more remote (if even less likely) possibility that the Iraqi insurgents actually heard about the protests and launched their attacks in response to them. Thus the use of the word “MAY” is legitimate and moves this discussion into the realm of the hypothetical. As long as magellan01 is not defending the study or making claims that it says anything more than providing a jump-off for a separate discussion, your point, now established, is not pertinent to the rest of the debate.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t accept your premise that advocating for leaving Iraq causes more violence against the troops. It’s their presence that causes them to get attacked.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a hypothetical. Sheeze! have you read the thread? If you are not able to or interested in entertaining it, simply don’t. I don’t know what else to tell you.
And just so you know, there is no prize for restating the obvious over and over again, not that will necessarily stop you. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
tomndebb, the study does nothing of the sort. To repeatedly post that it does is completely false. If his point has moved away from the false claims about what this study says to a hypothetical, that’s certainly fine.
I wonder why, if that’s the case, and if I’m missing his point, is he still purporting, a handful of posts above this one, that this study may (MAY) prove anything of the sort.
It does not. It cannot. It could only prove, if anything, that the Bush administration causes American deaths by making such statements, along with the release of polling results.
[/QUOTE]
Believe what you want. Participate in the discussion concerning the hypothetical or not. But you seem intent on not allowing the hypothetical. Odd, that, but knock yourself out. I didn’t respond earlier because it seemed perfectly clear what I was asking and why. I’m glad that it’s now been explained to you by someone else. Still, I would be interested in your response —ASSUMING THE HYPOTHETICAL. Maybe those caps you like so much will win you over and you’ll find the power to do so.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
It’s a hypothetical. Sheeze! have you read the thread? If you are not able to or interested in entertaining it, simply don’t. I don’t know what else to tell you.
And just so you know, there is no prize for restating the obvious over and over again, not that will necessarily stop you. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically, what if masturbation caused earthquakes? Would you stop masturbating?
No, I would not stop advocating to pull troops out of Iraq EVEN IF hypothetically, my doing so emboldened the insurgency. For one thing, I am not responsible for other people’s choices, for another thing we don’t have to be there. If the troops get attacked, the blame lies with thsoe who sent them there and keep them there without just cause, not on me for simply stating obvious truths.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, I would not stop advocating to pull troops out of Iraq EVEN IF hypothetically, my doing so emboldened the insurgency. For one thing, I am not responsible for other people’s choices, for another thing we don’t have to be there. If the troops get attacked, the blame lies with thsoe who sent them there and keep them there without just cause, not on me for simply stating obvious truths.
[/QUOTE]
So, IF it were shown that your actions resulted in the deaths of american soldiers, and therefore Iraqis no doubt, that would not change your actions. Okay. Would it effect the way you think about your protesting. Would you weigh your protesting and the extra deaths that would result against not protesting and keeping a few more people alive? Or would you not even bother to do the calculation with the new information? I ask you this in all seriousness. Of course, to answer you need to accept the hypothetical.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, IF it were shown that your actions resulted in the deaths of american soldiers
[/quote]
My actions would not be resulting in the deaths of American soldiers even under your hypothetical. Like I already said, I am not responsible for other people’s choices.
“Affect” is the verb, “effect” is the noun.
I think that more people will die if we don’t protest than if we do.
I think it also goes without saying that this is purely an academic exercise since I don’t accept the hypothetical for second.
Well, speaking for myself, since I side with the insurgency when they’re attacking Coalition targets, I’d say that* if *it was shown to me that my protests emboldened the insurgency, I’d be happy that my strategy was working. So it’d motivate me to protest even more.