[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
If those students are so out of hand that they can’t be constrained by campus security, then they have no business on campus in the first place.
[/quote]
Sure they do. That’s what football teams are for. Seriously, are you suggesting that any student, based on one instance of disorderly conduct, regardless of academic record and/or lack of prior arrest/disciplinary record, should be bounced because they argued with campus security? Really?
Dammit! It’s not my day, apparently. :smack:
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Okay. Let’s concede for a moment that you’re right here.
If those students are so out of hand that they can’t be constrained by campus security, then they have no business on campus in the first place.
For the sake of the rest of the student body, they ought to be expelled.
[/QUOTE]
The security team not being able to cope does not necessarily mean that the students were out of hand. It’s possible that there were simply too many students for the team to handle. I don’t know what security is like at American universities, but I doubt it would be capable of controlling even a totally peaceful protest (which i’m not saying the students were) without aid.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
Sure they do. That’s what football teams are for. Seriously, are you suggesting that any student, based on one instance of disorderly conduct, regardless of academic record and/or lack of prior arrest/disciplinary record, should be bounced because they argued with campus security? Really?
[/QUOTE]
No, you’re right. I’m not a zero tolerance nut.
However, this sort of thing is getting way out of hand at colleges. And I don’t care if a student riots over a Final Four victory or an antiwar protest.
I like things nice and peaceful, and i think students ought to face some sort of sanction if their disturbance of that peace goes beyond normal college hijinks.
The real test here for me will be whether any of these students are disciplined over this protest. If they’re not, the school itself ought to be.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No, you’re right. I’m not a zero tolerance nut.
However, this sort of thing is getting way out of hand at colleges. And I don’t care if a student riots over a Final Four victory or an antiwar protest.
I like things nice and peaceful, and i think students ought to face some sort of sanction if their disturbance of that peace goes beyond normal college hijinks.
The real test here for me will be whether any of these students are disciplined over this protest. If they’re not, the school itself ought to be.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. I’ll go along with that.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I disagree. Yes, people are almost always killed by another person, but my point is there is someone to take that place. With A not there, C will instead be that G.I, helicopter pilot, armoured car gunner. It’s not as if there’s simply no person there; that role is filled by another. An different individual, certainly, who is likely to react in different ways to situations - but not so different that they won’t follow the same orders.
[/QUOTE]
Unless so few people join that the military is forced to pull back, or start a draft ( which would be a victory for the antiwar folks, of course ).
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
How about # 6 : Stop conquering, raping and torturing people.
[/QUOTE]
How does that mission fit in with the current topic at hand? All I see is an adolescent hissy fit that generates a ton of negative public backlash. From an intellectual standpoint, I would love to see colleges encourage or even mildly force students through classroom exercises follow their emotions to a logical end with clear goals and next steps. That is just effective training from both an intellectual standpoint and a practical one. Young protesters usually get an F on both of these measures and the people that could influence them fail to call them on it. I guess that is why conservative thought seems to be much more tactically successful these days in the U.S. for better or for worse. Thuggish intellectual circle-jerks may make young immature and sheltered young adults feel effective but they do just the opposite and I wish they would realize that for their own sake.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?
The follow-through on thinking seems to be a little lacking here (and with most protests of this type). Real goals and action points seem to be absent other than just general thuggery.
[/QUOTE]
Here are my thoughts:
The US is the most militarized industrialized country. This is despite the fact that we have no credible enemy country that likely to attack us. Fighting domestic terrorism is better served by improving intelligence, border security, and police.
Our presence overseas is making us less secure rather than more secure. A major grievance of Bin Laden is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
I’d suggest ramping back military spending to match that of Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. Keeping shipping lanes open is a burden that should not be completely borne by the US. The mess in Iraq needs to be cleaned up. I’d suggest that the rich Arab countries can foot the bill and a UN force can be deployed.
The draft should be reinstated so that Jenna and Barbara Bush can be put in harms way and we don’t have the burden of defending the country fall on the backs of the poor as we do now. Then we can haul W back into the National Guard after he is impeached to make up for the time he lost when he deserted during wartime.
But, there is still no excuse for threats of violence during protests. A sit-in would have been more effective.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Here are my thoughts:
The US is the most militarized industrialized country. This is despite the fact that we have no credible enemy country that likely to attack us.
[/QUOTE]
This is worng, actually. Measured in terms of % of GDP spent on defense, the winner hands down is Israel, for obvious reasons.
Most of the Gulf states also outspend us on defense.
As to your assertion that there is no credible enemy that can attack us, that is wrong as well. There are many that can do so, especially if you count an attack on American interests or American allies as an attack against us.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Fighting domestic terrorism is better served by improving intelligence, border security, and police.
[/QUOTE]
You’re presuming we can’t do both. I don’t presume that.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Our presence overseas is making us less secure rather than more secure. A major grievance of Bin Laden is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the bases are being removed from Saudi soil. Do you think that will have any impact on bin Laden’s hatred of us? Or was that just rhetoric on his part, just one more bit of meat for his troops to chew on?
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
I’d suggest ramping back military spending to match that of Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. Keeping shipping lanes open is a burden that should not be completely borne by the US.
[/QUOTE]
The answer to this isn’t ramping back our spending, but for other countries to spend more. Already some have shown signs of not being able to handle well their allied commitments.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
The draft should be reinstated so that Jenna and Barbara Bush can be put in harms way and we don’t have the burden of defending the country fall on the backs of the poor as we do now.
[/QUOTE]
No way.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Then we can haul W back into the National Guard after he is impeached to make up for the time he lost when he deserted during wartime.
[/QUOTE]
That would be a neat trick. He has an honorable discharge, and I don’t know of too many cases where those qere ever questioned after they were granted.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
It concerns me, too. But that’s a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers.
[/quote]
This is, I believe, a fundamental difference between us. I can’t sign away my own moral responsibility: if I agree to follow your orders, and you order me to do something that’s legal but immoral, I am morally obligated to disobey your order. If that means breaking my previous agreement, then that means I put myself in a sucky, no-win situation; I have to figure out whether the immorality of breaking my word is worse than the immorality of committing the act you’ve ordered me to commit.
It is a matter of individual soldiers.
If that’s the case, then there’s precious little reason to require any individual soldier to follow an order, is there? If the soldier doesn’t want to do so, allow a different individual to fill the same role.
That just isn’t how the world works. Soldiers are not fungible.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?
There really is no better way, at this point. There is no way a civil war can be prevented by prolonging our presence.
The lowest, stoned-est, most dirtiest hippie in Santa Cruz is ten times a better person than someone who says that a person who exercises his First Amendment rights should be beaten, or prosecuted, or have his educational opportunity terminated.
Why do all these right-wingers hate America so?
[QUOTE=RTA]
The lowest, stoned-est, most dirtiest hippie in Santa Cruz is ten times a better person than someone who says that a person who exercises his First Amendment rights should be beaten, or prosecuted, or have his educational opportunity terminated.
[/QUOTE]
The First Amendment guarantees the right of peaceable assembly. This display wasn’t one of those. Therefore, it isn’t protected.
And you know that.
Sorry, but no. “Raucous chanting” is not violence, and is not the equivalent of violence.
It is a disturbance of the peace at something like a job fair.
Some of the protesters were wearing masks, which is in violation of California state code.
The last protest by this group resulted in injuries and property damage.
Yep, sounds really peaceful to me.
So to review: this protest wasn’t peaceful beacuse it was a “disturbance of the peace” (Orwell’s on line 1), because some people were “wearing masks” (rubber masks of Bush, I imagine), and because, an entire year before, one person had suffered one unspecified injury due to an incident that the article does not describe.
Oh, and the recruiters allege that some of their tires were “slashed”, presumably by a mob of drugged out, knife wielding peace protestors.
Therefore, this was a violent protest … Am I correct in understanding this train of thought?
Not violent, but certainly not peaceful. Since they were preventing other students from getting to the recruiters, they were infringing on their rights.
Would you consider Operation Rescue to be conducting a peaceful protest if they blocked the clinic door?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This is, I believe, a fundamental difference between us. I can’t sign away my own moral responsibility: if I agree to follow your orders, and you order me to do something that’s legal but immoral, I am morally obligated to disobey your order. If that means breaking my previous agreement, then that means I put myself in a sucky, no-win situation; I have to figure out whether the immorality of breaking my word is worse than the immorality of committing the act you’ve ordered me to commit.
It is a matter of individual soldiers.
[/quote]
Allow me to be more specific. When you talked about deaths of noncombatants, that is certainly a matter of military or political policy. It’s the result of overarching military goals (as set by the government) and individual policy on when and when not to shoot, what training recruits receive, etc. as set by military policy. Do you not agree?
Having said that, I agree in that I would be unable to sign away my own moral responsibility. I don’t see however how joining the army would be; I may be wrong, but you can at any time refuse to take an order. Depending on that order and the situation, yes, you’re in a no-win situation. So? You’ve still taken moral responsibility, otherwise the order would not have seemed repugnant to you. To figure out which of the two is less immoral is again to take responsibility. And you are left with the freedom of choice, within the confines of the army to which you made a ( free ) commitment.
I’m getting slightly annoyed that you’re jumping to the conclusion i’m horribly immoral in some way every post. I understand where you’re coming from, but I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt.
Not at all. As in my last post, where I explained why soldiers are morally responsible despite someone else being able to “take your place”, soldiers are also legally and contractually obligated. One reason for a soldier to follow an order; they’re contractually obliged. They signed forms, they agreed to take orders, and to accept punishment for not following those orders. Another; it sets a precedent, showing other soldiers that not following orders will get you punishment. Third; It may just be that the soldier wants to follow that order.
I had to look that word up. Learning already! 
In practice, given the same training and experience, yes, soldiers are fungible. One helicopter pilot can be exchanged for another, one G.I, etc. with little significant change. What makes you think otherwise?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Having said that, I agree in that I would be unable to sign away my own moral responsibility. I don’t see however how joining the army would be; I may be wrong, but you can at any time refuse to take an order. Depending on that order and the situation, yes, you’re in a no-win situation. So? You’ve still taken moral responsibility, otherwise the order would not have seemed repugnant to you. To figure out which of the two is less immoral is again to take responsibility. And you are left with the freedom of choice, within the confines of the army to which you made a ( free ) commitment.
[/quote]
Okay, this reads differently to me from the matter as you originally stated it: you said that “That’s” (referring to killing civilians) “a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers.” If you’re saying that it’s the individual soldier’s responsibility to make these moral decisions, then I think we’re in agreement.
I’m in no way trying to imply that you’re the least bit immoral; I’m confused how I’ve given that impression. My apologies, in any case.
Well, yes, in the same sense that guns are fungible: but if I don’t have a gun in my hand, another gun doesn’t magically appear to take the spot.
Do you agree that, because someone else will take the place of a drug seller who chooses to stop selling drugs, the drug seller is under no obligation to stop selling drugs? I believe it’s a similar situation: there are many cases in which plenty of people are willing to take an action that you don’t take, but if the action is immoral, this is not a reason to take the action.
Daniel
The day that the first anti-war protestor cuts down a military recruiter with a shotgun, or shoots one through his kitchen window with a hunting rifle, that is the day I think it would be reasonable to draw a correlation between the death-cult terror organization you just named, and a group of college students demonstrating - non-violently, as you attest - against the military’s policy of open discrimination.
I would agree that anyone who says that Operation Rescue has every right to block clinics and intimidate women in crisis doesn’t have a leg to stand on when condemning a rabble of UC Santa Cruz undergrads.
But you would give anti-abortion protesters that right, to block others from going about their business, if you endorse what protesters in Santa Cruz did.
We can’t endorse specific tactics if they’re wielded by one group, and condemn them when they are wielded by another.