Antiwar protests.

au, my statements were not personal - they were my opinion, if you wish to take them that way, I am sorry.

Saddam is but one person, I do not beleive that the rights of the freedom fighters should be stopped. The only way this war will stop today is through the freedom fighters, and the freedom fighters are the protestors. The killing can stop today - Bush just needs to listen. If everyone in America went out on the streets today, even the arrogant Bush will stop the killing.

Truth is not arrogant, it is the mighty sword that stops the liars! The one thing they fear!

"...If only that were so...."

But you've expressed it here, Au, quite consistently! I just wish I understood what you mean.

///

BillW
I take nothing written ona2k personal or serious. This is just a place where people can air their views and argue to their hearts content and nothing more.
As for Bush listening forgedaboutit

From my local paper. I send a reply that protesters are not against the troops. Truth suffers during a war.

au, I hear what you are saying, my sorrow is that you would possibly take a response from me personally. We have found many times side by side and you are one person I have always appreciated hearing from.

I understand where you come from regards this subject. I remember the day you said the war is a forgone conclusion and that you would not from hence forward damage the men in the field.

I too will not damage the men in the field - it is just at what level we stand. I believe that protest helps the men in the field and you don't. We both stand with such convection for our beliefs; but, they are both based on the same premise.

Might I add, this does not change my belief in you nor the fact that I consider you a friend - one I would trust to watch my back at any time or place!

BillW
Thanks for the sentiment it is appreciated.

The sentiment is well earned and you are welcome!

I'd feel comfortable with either of you guys watching my back.

And actually, I'm comfortable with the concept of protesting "War", whether or not a war happens to be around at the moment. There really is no way to rationaly or ethically support "War", which in itself is admission of failure of reason and a violation of ethics. Unfortunately, it may become necessary to accept that a particular war is an undeniable fact.
Not all wars attract much notice. There are depressing numbers of both distinct and of inter-related armed conflicts in progress at the moment, and a number of them have nothing to do wiith the current Iraq situation. Notably inconspicuous is protest recognizing, let alone addressing, most of them. No, the protestors aren't protesting "War", they're protesting "America's War".
The current mainstream polls of US sentiment give The Current Administration a pretty good reportcard, one which in fact has been getting better. The Anti-War protestors do not enjoy a similar situation; their disapproval scores tally right along with The Administration's approval scores. A sizeable majority of the poll repondants are specifically disinclined to strongly object to much of what is going on, apart from the protests. This is US sentiment alone, of course, but statistically, The Americans Polled are behind The US while a sizeable majority of Americans Polled specifically do not endorse the war protestors.
Some of this certainly is accountable as natural response to a perceived shared crisis. But just some. I think there is a sense among a majority of Americans that the protestors are Anti-American, and I see little effort on the part of the Anti-War faction to dispel the notion. That will not help their cause in The US.

Timber -- That's a great statement about war.

As for the protesters (I count myself among them), many of us are doing it in part to show solidarity with anti-war people world wide, war being, as you point out, an admission of failure. I think many of us know that, within the US, the media decide who's in and who's out, who's popular and who's not. People tend to go with the flow. To that extent, the US is not just failing as a "good citizen of the world," but indeed as a democracy. The protesters seem to be the only ones right now who see that and who are behaving like loyal democrats and Americans.

There was an article about this in the NYT recently, about how the anti-war movement is moving away from disruption and to more focused protests (govermental buildings, etc.), but I can't find it in a search. ("Anti-war" or "protestors" as keywords yield, ahem, a few hits.)

This seems to ignore the reality that some people refuse to be reasoned with. Life would be fairly simple and the challenges we face would be mild and few if we lived in a world where all people were willing to be reasonable and rational. We don't live in that world, and that fact complicates things a bit. The last time I hit another person it was because that person was not rational, was unwilling to be reasonable, and attempted to do me harm. The fact that I was forced to strike him was not due to a failure of reason on my part, but rather was a necessary response on my part to a failure of reason on his.

So perhaps you are right, but we need to consider with whom the failure rests. Sometimes a military response is a rational reaction to someone else's failure of reason.

Defensive use of force is likely to be very much easier to justify than pre-emptive use of force, and these aren't really comparable situations.

Censorship of anti-war protest (or anti-government protest) simply cannot be appropriate in the context of liberty, democracy, and free speech principles. In such a context, a war is justifiable only if it reflects the will of the people, and such can only be determined where all speech is permissable.

In the context of authoritarian control, none of the above apply.

Any policies which seek to quell, reduce, or illegitimize such speech are authoritarian.

Exactly, Blatham.

Tres, "Failure of reason" is often unilateral. War, IMHO, is the result of that failure, regardless whether the failure is unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral. If reason triumphs, peace reigns. If reason fails, war looms.


Absolutely.


Here we disagree, at least in principle. "The Will of The People" should be no determinant. It was "The Will of the people" that we engage Spain a bit more than a century ago ... that did not legitimize that conflict. It was "The Will of The People" that we not become involved in WWI, and again, at least until Pearl Harbor, it was "The Will of The People" that we not become involved in WWII. That did not illegitemize either conflict.

Freedom of speesh is at once a boon and a burden. All rights entail obligations. In the exercize of some rights, some folks fail to acknowledge the obligation part. I suppose that is one of their rights, too.

If you take "freedom of speech" out of the present context and move it over into the cultural context, Timber, you'll see the same dilemma, though the word would be "taste" or "propriety": It's my right to call someone a C or an MF (except in private areas where it is not allowed); it's my right to take a photo of my private parts and post it on my front door; it's my right to repaint my aging car with clear depictions of the US military killing innocent civilians in a variety of ghastly ways and drive down the public way. All of these are in one way or another deeply offensive to certain people and perhaps even the majority of people. It's the price we pay for making sure our own freedoms aren't infringed. Every time that horribly painted car passes your house, you should express your indignation forcefully while thanking your personal Divinity that such a thing is freely done.

Yup, Tartarin, that's pretty much the crux of the matter. And I'm willing to undertake whatever effort may be required to ensure your right to decorate your car how you please and to operate it, in compliance with pertinent traffic laws, wherever you please. I don't really see it as a dilema; I see it as a validation of the principles for which I stand.

timber

By 'justified', I mean 'democratically justified', not necessarily morally or strategically.

If your position is that war might be justified without reference to the will of the people, then we surely disagree. Re Spain...note that I did not make the claim that war is 'democratically necessary' merely where the citizenry think it to be so. My claim relates to a leadership's decision to start or engage a war, not stay out.

You allude also to WW 2 as examples of 'legitimized' war where the population (regarding European engagement) weren't enthusiastic. In such a situation, two options present themselves: ignore the will of the folks and engage, or educate them until they are in accord.

The first option leaves open the door to militarist adventures driven by whatever set of values the present rulers hold. Experience ought to tell us that rulers ought not to be allowed such free reign, for they are too often driven by the wrong motives and forces. All wars are begun by rulers.

The second option is the only one which is worth considering, for it is the only one which protects the principle of 'representative' democracy, and the only one which guards against corrupted or delusional motivations of those in power. Importantly, citizen demands for both transparency of government and adherence to the principle of transmission of honest and complete information by one's government is a necessary compliment to this option.

Your final caveat re the responsibilites accompanying the rights of free speech are the door through which oppressions of speech are most commonly justified. But I think this not too difficult a dilemma to resolve - secrecy is one thing, demands for unanimity are quite another.

Tartarin

The Death DeSoto! That's a very astute and clear-headed post.

O Ancient Sage! You remember the DeSoto!

Personal note to Blatham and Timber: This is the kind of discussion which I think really shines in A2K. It makes some very uneasy, but it's important to dissect these issues. I find that as we do -- forcing ourselves to articulate quietly what we find -- my mind certainly is opened. When the hollerin' starts, minds close. I hope very much we can find a way to curb the pounce-grab-yell tendencies...

Back to what Blatham just wrote: I wonder whether -- well, to tell the truth I believe that -- there would be much less protest if, rather than "the ruler" starting it, the invasion had been the result of a much more open debate in Congress and in the country. "The ruler" and gang would not have wanted to lay their cards on the table, show and defend the information they had to justify invasion, but they would have had the choice of either justifying aggression or forgetting it. The unilateralism which has been decried has not just been that of the nation but of the Executive. Checks and balances of all kinds, domestically and internationally, were bypassed...

Like it or not, we have to take into account that half of this country believes Bush's accession to office to have been illegitimate. Such a president -- above all such a president -- should not act preemptively and without the clear mandate of the people. To have done so is to confirm the worst fears of those who thought he managed the election. An honest winner, one could say, would be more sensitive to the absence of mandate.