So, are you actually saying that being reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving are bad things? Woah, dude, you are way beyond reaching. Sorry. Good luck, you're going to need it.
I have an idea, let's found a nation on the principles of being unreasonable, malevolent, and war-loving! That should be a hoot!
Do you really think that all of your beliefs are right just because they happen to be yours?
No, I don't, and you definitely have the right to disagree with me.
I do, however, think that killing is wrong. I think that dismembering children is wrong. I think these are fairly uncontroversial views, held by the vast majority of ethical phiolsophers throughout the ages. I also think it is fairly uncontroversial that the end does not justify the means. Given these ideas, it is clear that war is wrong, not just in my own personal opinion, but by the standards that our entire civilization claims to agree to. Any argument in favor of war is an attempt to justify these actions, which we all agree are wrong, thus claiming that the end justifies the means, which we all agree is incorrect.
When people are so skilled at doublethink that they can hold beliefs which they themselves, on close examination, will admit are totally wrong, I think it's fair for me to say that they are wrong. This is not just my opinion, it is, if you look at it, actually your opinion and theirs as well. Sometimes propaganda can make people a little confused about what they believe.
If I bring before you an Iraqi child and ask you, "Is it right for me to brutally tear this child limb from limb," you will say "no." If I ask you, "Is there any argument I could possibly make which would convince you that I should brutally tear this child limb from limb?", you will say "no." So how can you stand there acting as though you have a brain in your head, and tell me that you think war is right, or that it is reasonable for anyone to hold the opinion that war is right?
"Act on that maxim which you can consistently will be made universal law." --Emmanuel Kant
The kind of moral relativism you advocate can lead you to accept all manner of atrocities, because after all, those perpitrating them are just following their own opinions, right? I do not buy moral relativism. There are some things that are just wrong, period, no matter how you look at it or what beliefs you hold, it's still wrong, and war is definitely one of those things.
I most definitely do not support Saddam Hussein or the brutal regime that the CIA installed and supported during the Iran-Iraq war. NOBODY is taking that position.
protesting this war == supporting Saddam
This is an infantile simplification of the issue, and is blatantly wrong. There are other ways to do things besides blowing shit up. There are other ways to oppose dictators besides killing children. The US, and any other country, has the right to oppose Saddam through the normal political and diplomatic process. However, no country, no matter how big or powerful, has the right, under international law, to invade and occupy another country because they don't like that country's government, for any reason.
It's a subtle (though arbitrary) distinction, but if you stretch your brain a little you may be able to see it. It is right to oppose Saddam Hussein. It is not right to oppose him by killing children. It is better to oppose him in other ways.
Making war most certainly insures that more innocent people will die.
Sometimes it matters whether you're actually right or not.
At the beginning of Gulf War I, I went to a protest at the federal building of my hometown. On one side of the street, there were a bunch of hippies singing songs about love and waving signs and dancing and generally having a good time. On the other side of the street was a crowd of obnoxious, belligerent rednecks armed with two-by-fours, shouting obscenities and threatening to kill people. They chased one guy up a tree and tried to stone him, they consistantly tried to escalate the situation into a riot, and it was a wonder nobody was seriously hurt.
It was pretty easy to see who was right and who was not.
Recently, the anti-war crowd seems to have gotten a little angrier, and a little less sedate. Given the atmosphere that seems to have developed during the post-9/11 Nazi furor, I think this is somewhat understandable.
Of course, I wouldn't know from personal experience, I don't live in your silly-ass, God-forsaken country any more, thank God.
Oh, yes, it's quite clear that they are taking more than one play from the old Nazi playbook. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky pointed out, US intelligence did a detailed critical analysis of Nazi strategy just after WWII, along the lines of "they did this right, they did that right, this could use improvement" and basically perfected and refined the strategy to a science. It's pretty clear that they've been using it as a blueprint ever since. Pretty disturbing.
Intelligence, critical thinking skills, and memory.
Memory in particular. I seem to remember learning a few things in history classes that have something to do with the actual effects that war has on people and politics. I seem to remember something about the rise to power of the Nazi party and the way the German people went along with it. I seem to remember something about what happens when you let a country start invading other countries preemptively, detaining people of a certain race etc. Another image from history classes which comes to mind is that of a troupe of Japanese soldiers marching towards Hiroshima with their melted eyeballs running down their faces like tears. I seem to remember a few things about the last dozen or so wars, operations and police actions the US has been involved in, images of children torn limb from limb, entire populations displaced, cities devistated, explosions and fire and blood.
War is hell. There is no such thing as a just war. There's just war. It's always hell. It always has been, and it always will be. I read somewhere that half the population of Iraq is under 16. Do you think the bombs are smart enough to tell how old their target is?
"But it's OK, see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV." --Pink Floyd.
Others have mentioned the PNAC document which outlines the real reasons for the war, but I knew all of that before I read it. Has anyone read any history? The US has been doing this kind of shit for most of the last century. They were never even remotely justified before. Do you think they possibly could be now? Do you imagine that any of the propaganda being used to justify the war is anything but lies and spin? Sure, Saddam is an evil bastard. The world is full of them. If we went to war every time an evil basterd was in charge of a country, we'd be at war all the time... oh yeah... never mind...
One of the great lessons of WWII was, just because your enemy is evil, that doesn't mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
This is not a game of Doom, kids, this is real life. People are dying, dying horrible gruesome deaths, and we sit here and discuss it like it was a football game. It's horrible. War can never be justified, never be condoned, never be allowed by people of conscience.
but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
I wouldn't be too sure of this. Sen. Robert Byrd made an excellent speech about this right before Congress signed away its part of the system of checks and balances. He was even waving a copy of the Constitution when he delivered it. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. The Constitution is dead.
we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years
Or of this either. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."
The real reasons for this war are outlined in this document, which basically says that US global strategic interests demand a strong military occupation of the Gulf, and they have to justify this somehow. Issues of oil and WMD are peripheral to the overriding strategic concern of maintaining and extending US global dominance.
Just as illogical is saying that doing nothign will make them stop.
Well, that's true, and would be a good argument for war if war and doing nothing were the only options. How about trying to address the issues which have pissed the muslims off in the first place (and yes, there are many legitimate issues, though of course they don't justify murder any more than Saddam's evil nature justifies murder)? How about trying to build a good relationship through dialogue and diplomacy? How about trying to convince them not to kill people by being reasonable and forthright and moderate, instead of by killing people?
and I personally, dont think "dont defy us or attempt to pose our will" is such a bad thing to broadcast. If you have the big stick, it is kind of pointless to whittle it to a toothpick!
Woah, I don't even know how to respond to this sort of thing. Sounds like a schoolyard bully attitude to me. If you have the big stick, does that justify gong around hitting people with it? Does might make right? Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
Yeah, let's kick 'em while they're down, and make everyone fear us. That will ensure peace and justice in the world for sure!
Is not going to work a rather important part of "the pursuit of happiness"?
Not at any job I've ever worked!;-)
I have to admit you have a point, and I definitely agree that protests for peace should be peaceful and not harm anyone, including commuters.
However, my emotional response to your argument is that, compared to the scale of what's going on here, your having your commute disrupted is a pretty minor thing, and it seems kind of petty to complain about it.
I mean, do Iraqi children have rights? Does your right to pursue your happiness override their right to life? I realize this argument is irrelevant to the question of whether disruptive protests are OK, but let's try to have a sense of perspective. A lot of people are dying horrible, gruesome deaths right now, and you guys are complaining about traffic problems? Great green gods!
Yes, I can see that. And what I'm talking about is, how does making war against an islamic nation make the muslims less likely to attack the US, exactly? The primary terrorist threat comes from extremists, not the mainstream of any particular country or government. The idea that violence acts as a deterrant to further violence is simply flawed. Violence begets violence, terror begets terror, war begets war. Fighting for peace is like fsking for chastity.
War increases the probability of terrorist attack from people pissed off about the war. That's what I'm saying. The message this sends to governments is not "don't engage in terrorist activity," but rather, "don't you dare defy us or attempt to oppose our will, or else."
However, you never hear a rational arguement from these protestors.
Well, this may be true, I haven't talked to all of them myself, but you may be right. I have heard a number of rational arguments against the war from lots of people, like for instance the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and China. But they don't really count as protesters, do they?
On the other hand, I have yet to hear a single rational argument in favor of this war or any war from anyone ever, under any circumstances. This makes it a little hard to be rational about the issue.
The logic, obviously, is to get attention, and it clearly worked. Whether or not you agreed with it, you heard what they had to say, didn't you?
All this war is doing is giving terrorists more fuel for their fight. They can say, "look, the Americans have attacked us without provocation and against international law, so how can you blame us for wanting to retaliate?"
Do you really think that a hardcore Iraqi soldier (who hasn't decided to surrender already) is going to feel much solidarity for a bunch of hippies, or even care what they think one way or another? Or that the protests could possibly do anything to weaken the "argument" raining down on Baghdad right now?
The logic of protest is to get your voice heard. Nobody thinks the US is going to stop the war. Some still feel compelled by conscience to express their opinion about it.
All this does is make rogue superpowers / global leaders / world polic states / whatever look bad. It will not convert terrorists. It will just piss them off.
Dude... when someone points the big guns at you and says, "support us or else," what do you do?
One of those countries was Nicaragua, for crying out loud. Can you imagine that the population of Nicaragua actually supports the US in anything? Have you ever met any Nicaraguans? My guess is, if they were serious about opposing Iraq, Hussein would be dead by now. Those Nicos are a bunch of hard core motherf**ers.
It looks to me like those countries with the courage to speak their minds are openly against the war (the fools, they will surely be punished for this temerity), whereas those who lack it are going along.
I wish I had been there when this guy was asking his question. I oppose the war strongly, and I can explain to you pretty well both "why it's happening" according to the Bush admin and the mass media, and why it's really happening.
"Saddam is a bad guy." pretty much covers the pro-war position.
This document pretty well explains the real reasons behind the war. Basically, US long-range global strategic interests (i.e. world domination) demand a massively increased military presence in the Gulf. This means invasion and occupation. And they have to justify it somehow...
Slashdot Mirror
I have an idea, let's found a nation on the principles of being unreasonable, malevolent, and war-loving! That should be a hoot!
Oh, come on, get a grip, these people are not going to hurt your wife. That's silly.
Well, yes, killing people is one way to liberate them. They will certainly be free of this mortal coil!
No, I don't, and you definitely have the right to disagree with me.
I do, however, think that killing is wrong. I think that dismembering children is wrong. I think these are fairly uncontroversial views, held by the vast majority of ethical phiolsophers throughout the ages. I also think it is fairly uncontroversial that the end does not justify the means. Given these ideas, it is clear that war is wrong, not just in my own personal opinion, but by the standards that our entire civilization claims to agree to. Any argument in favor of war is an attempt to justify these actions, which we all agree are wrong, thus claiming that the end justifies the means, which we all agree is incorrect.
When people are so skilled at doublethink that they can hold beliefs which they themselves, on close examination, will admit are totally wrong, I think it's fair for me to say that they are wrong. This is not just my opinion, it is, if you look at it, actually your opinion and theirs as well. Sometimes propaganda can make people a little confused about what they believe.
If I bring before you an Iraqi child and ask you, "Is it right for me to brutally tear this child limb from limb," you will say "no." If I ask you, "Is there any argument I could possibly make which would convince you that I should brutally tear this child limb from limb?", you will say "no." So how can you stand there acting as though you have a brain in your head, and tell me that you think war is right, or that it is reasonable for anyone to hold the opinion that war is right?
"Act on that maxim which you can consistently will be made universal law." --Emmanuel Kant
The kind of moral relativism you advocate can lead you to accept all manner of atrocities, because after all, those perpitrating them are just following their own opinions, right? I do not buy moral relativism. There are some things that are just wrong, period, no matter how you look at it or what beliefs you hold, it's still wrong, and war is definitely one of those things.
OK, cool, I'm listening. Go ahead...
"The first and simplest way for us to reduce the level of violence and terror in the world is to stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky
I most definitely do not support Saddam Hussein or the brutal regime that the CIA installed and supported during the Iran-Iraq war. NOBODY is taking that position.
protesting this war == supporting Saddam
This is an infantile simplification of the issue, and is blatantly wrong. There are other ways to do things besides blowing shit up. There are other ways to oppose dictators besides killing children. The US, and any other country, has the right to oppose Saddam through the normal political and diplomatic process. However, no country, no matter how big or powerful, has the right, under international law, to invade and occupy another country because they don't like that country's government, for any reason.
It's a subtle (though arbitrary) distinction, but if you stretch your brain a little you may be able to see it. It is right to oppose Saddam Hussein. It is not right to oppose him by killing children. It is better to oppose him in other ways.
Making war most certainly insures that more innocent people will die.
Mmmm... yes... tell that to the people they kill.
At the beginning of Gulf War I, I went to a protest at the federal building of my hometown. On one side of the street, there were a bunch of hippies singing songs about love and waving signs and dancing and generally having a good time. On the other side of the street was a crowd of obnoxious, belligerent rednecks armed with two-by-fours, shouting obscenities and threatening to kill people. They chased one guy up a tree and tried to stone him, they consistantly tried to escalate the situation into a riot, and it was a wonder nobody was seriously hurt.
It was pretty easy to see who was right and who was not.
Recently, the anti-war crowd seems to have gotten a little angrier, and a little less sedate. Given the atmosphere that seems to have developed during the post-9/11 Nazi furor, I think this is somewhat understandable.
Of course, I wouldn't know from personal experience, I don't live in your silly-ass, God-forsaken country any more, thank God.
Yeah, we had to, you see, because the CIA stopped propping them up right around that time. Somebody had to take over the job!
Fortunately for the Leftist/Nazi axis, there will still be one Nazi regime left after Saddam falls.
Oh, yes, it's quite clear that they are taking more than one play from the old Nazi playbook. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky pointed out, US intelligence did a detailed critical analysis of Nazi strategy just after WWII, along the lines of "they did this right, they did that right, this could use improvement" and basically perfected and refined the strategy to a science. It's pretty clear that they've been using it as a blueprint ever since. Pretty disturbing.
Memory in particular. I seem to remember learning a few things in history classes that have something to do with the actual effects that war has on people and politics. I seem to remember something about the rise to power of the Nazi party and the way the German people went along with it. I seem to remember something about what happens when you let a country start invading other countries preemptively, detaining people of a certain race etc. Another image from history classes which comes to mind is that of a troupe of Japanese soldiers marching towards Hiroshima with their melted eyeballs running down their faces like tears. I seem to remember a few things about the last dozen or so wars, operations and police actions the US has been involved in, images of children torn limb from limb, entire populations displaced, cities devistated, explosions and fire and blood.
War is hell. There is no such thing as a just war. There's just war. It's always hell. It always has been, and it always will be. I read somewhere that half the population of Iraq is under 16. Do you think the bombs are smart enough to tell how old their target is?
"But it's OK, see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV." --Pink Floyd.
Others have mentioned the PNAC document which outlines the real reasons for the war, but I knew all of that before I read it. Has anyone read any history? The US has been doing this kind of shit for most of the last century. They were never even remotely justified before. Do you think they possibly could be now? Do you imagine that any of the propaganda being used to justify the war is anything but lies and spin? Sure, Saddam is an evil bastard. The world is full of them. If we went to war every time an evil basterd was in charge of a country, we'd be at war all the time... oh yeah... never mind...
One of the great lessons of WWII was, just because your enemy is evil, that doesn't mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
This is not a game of Doom, kids, this is real life. People are dying, dying horrible gruesome deaths, and we sit here and discuss it like it was a football game. It's horrible. War can never be justified, never be condoned, never be allowed by people of conscience.
I wouldn't be too sure of this. Sen. Robert Byrd made an excellent speech about this right before Congress signed away its part of the system of checks and balances. He was even waving a copy of the Constitution when he delivered it. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. The Constitution is dead.
we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years
Or of this either. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."
The real reasons for this war are outlined in this document, which basically says that US global strategic interests demand a strong military occupation of the Gulf, and they have to justify this somehow. Issues of oil and WMD are peripheral to the overriding strategic concern of maintaining and extending US global dominance.
"It's OK to see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV."
--Pink Floyd
Well, that's true, and would be a good argument for war if war and doing nothing were the only options. How about trying to address the issues which have pissed the muslims off in the first place (and yes, there are many legitimate issues, though of course they don't justify murder any more than Saddam's evil nature justifies murder)? How about trying to build a good relationship through dialogue and diplomacy? How about trying to convince them not to kill people by being reasonable and forthright and moderate, instead of by killing people?
and I personally, dont think "dont defy us or attempt to pose our will" is such a bad thing to broadcast. If you have the big stick, it is kind of pointless to whittle it to a toothpick!
Woah, I don't even know how to respond to this sort of thing. Sounds like a schoolyard bully attitude to me. If you have the big stick, does that justify gong around hitting people with it? Does might make right? Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
Yeah, let's kick 'em while they're down, and make everyone fear us. That will ensure peace and justice in the world for sure!
Not at any job I've ever worked! ;-)
I have to admit you have a point, and I definitely agree that protests for peace should be peaceful and not harm anyone, including commuters.
However, my emotional response to your argument is that, compared to the scale of what's going on here, your having your commute disrupted is a pretty minor thing, and it seems kind of petty to complain about it.
I mean, do Iraqi children have rights? Does your right to pursue your happiness override their right to life? I realize this argument is irrelevant to the question of whether disruptive protests are OK, but let's try to have a sense of perspective. A lot of people are dying horrible, gruesome deaths right now, and you guys are complaining about traffic problems? Great green gods!
Yes, I can see that. And what I'm talking about is, how does making war against an islamic nation make the muslims less likely to attack the US, exactly? The primary terrorist threat comes from extremists, not the mainstream of any particular country or government. The idea that violence acts as a deterrant to further violence is simply flawed. Violence begets violence, terror begets terror, war begets war. Fighting for peace is like fsking for chastity.
War increases the probability of terrorist attack from people pissed off about the war. That's what I'm saying. The message this sends to governments is not "don't engage in terrorist activity," but rather, "don't you dare defy us or attempt to oppose our will, or else."
Well, this may be true, I haven't talked to all of them myself, but you may be right. I have heard a number of rational arguments against the war from lots of people, like for instance the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and China. But they don't really count as protesters, do they?
On the other hand, I have yet to hear a single rational argument in favor of this war or any war from anyone ever, under any circumstances. This makes it a little hard to be rational about the issue.
All this war is doing is giving terrorists more fuel for their fight. They can say, "look, the Americans have attacked us without provocation and against international law, so how can you blame us for wanting to retaliate?"
Do you really think that a hardcore Iraqi soldier (who hasn't decided to surrender already) is going to feel much solidarity for a bunch of hippies, or even care what they think one way or another? Or that the protests could possibly do anything to weaken the "argument" raining down on Baghdad right now?
The logic of protest is to get your voice heard. Nobody thinks the US is going to stop the war. Some still feel compelled by conscience to express their opinion about it.
Oh my goodness, excuse me for disrupting your trip to work with my opposition to mass murder. I feel so sorry for you...
Since when do you have a right not to have your life disrupted?
Since when do you have a right to use the Mass Ave Bridge? Where in the constitution is that written?
All this does is make rogue superpowers / global leaders / world polic states / whatever look bad. It will not convert terrorists. It will just piss them off.
How is it that people so often assume that brutally attacking and killing people is likely to make them less pissed off?
Dude... when someone points the big guns at you and says, "support us or else," what do you do?
One of those countries was Nicaragua, for crying out loud. Can you imagine that the population of Nicaragua actually supports the US in anything? Have you ever met any Nicaraguans? My guess is, if they were serious about opposing Iraq, Hussein would be dead by now. Those Nicos are a bunch of hard core motherf**ers.
It looks to me like those countries with the courage to speak their minds are openly against the war (the fools, they will surely be punished for this temerity), whereas those who lack it are going along.
OMG! We can't let him get away with that! Doesn't this punk know who he's talking to?!
"Saddam is a bad guy." pretty much covers the pro-war position.
This document pretty well explains the real reasons behind the war. Basically, US long-range global strategic interests (i.e. world domination) demand a massively increased military presence in the Gulf. This means invasion and occupation. And they have to justify it somehow...