Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[Az]

The "I was just following orders" comment, is the hill from which you can clearly see the Godwin river, so I wouldn't go there.

Refusing orders and the law is a very complicated dilemma. Anyone claiming that it's as easy as pie, is probably a fanatic of some sort .

It's a personal judgement a person should make on an ad hoc basis: What are the implications of his act on the overall scheme of things, and what are the implications of his refusal on society. It's the cases in which the act he's personally doing, i.e. not the occupation in Iraq, generally, but his role in it, is weighed against the damage done by him refusing to serve in it.

I see his role in the occupation of Iraq to be marginal enough, and pretty much harmless, in the worst case, and beneficial in the best case. The only serious harm is the threat of him getting killed, (as happened, very sadly but didn't happen to many others) . Meanwhile, I see little to nothing beneficial in him refusing to serve, and some seriously bad sides, too, like the certainty of him getting some jail term.

[Mr. Harley]

Refusing orders and the law is a very complicated dilemma.

The man can be taught!


However, you are coming at this from a different moral paradigm - you are asking the right questions, and kudoes. Now look at how some of us come up with substantially different answers.

Some disagreements - the first is that the decision should not be made on an ad hoc basis, or - in case you meant it this way - all orders and laws should be followed on an ad hoc basis, but measured against a very clear and consistant set of principles/moral laws/maxims - whatever you wish to call them and that you choose to follow.

What are the implications of his act on the overall scheme of things? He has permitted the leader of a country, in this case the US - to engage in an AGRESSIVE ACT OF WAR. That is something neither Berz nor I see as harmless. If all or even most of the memebers of the armed forces had refused to do this - see my point?

What is the implication of his refusal on society? A bright light will be shown on the false and agressive nature of this war. It's happened here when a trooper refused his second deployment - which I why I brought up the West Bank comparison, and why it came to mind.

What is the damage done by him refusing to serve in it? None.

Now the consequences of him going to jail are not moral in nature, but coercive - if he backs away from his moral judgement due to the threat of going to jail, his actions are anything but moral.

Please note that modern military discipline does not serve to increase the fighting efficiency of an army. What it does is create an instrument that the leadership of a country can count on to implement whatever policies it desires. Look at the Boers - against a much more disciplined British military, they almost defeated it. They would have except for the blockade and the issue of heavy artillery, and they bloodied the Brits so effectively that the Brits had to totally reorganize their army - thus saving the BEF during WW1. But they were fighting for their homes, they were totally committed to their cause (which was flawed, IMHO), and they had virtually no "modern military training." Just a thought.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Az

What made Afghanistan just? It certainly had little to do with the purity of US intentions, because there was no such purity.

Lies, or unpure causes. Afghanistan was just the same. If you're telling me that Afghanistan was invaded and siezed just because of 9/11, you're deluding yourself. There certainly were much bigger concerns.

Such as?

Are you referring t the actual consequences of US actions? this is almost completely irrelevant in our current discussion. I was referring to whether a recruit in to the US military has the perception that they're only going to fight to defend the US from invasion, or protect US nationals abroad. This is obviously false, as evidenced by almost every war the US had since, well, ever, and especially in the last 100 years. A person signing to service in the US military, thinking his job will be limited to these roles is delusional and shouldn't be enlisted, anyway.

It's totally relevent, especially when those noble traditions are referenced to sell the thing to 17 year old kids.

Well, when the President is saying every day that you're out there, "defending America," I'd say that alters that a bit, don't you think? And on top of that, alot of the recruiting pitches throw this entire idea on the table.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dis

we really didn't need to invade and bring down the entire goverment to get 1 or 2 guys (which we didn't even do). We killed everyone except who we orginally set out to kill. Not that most of of the guys we killed were saints or anything.

The U.S. lacks tact if you ask me. If we actually had an intelligence agency worth a damn, we could find out where OBL and his cronies are. Bomb them to kingdom come and be done with it.

Going into a country to round up a couple of guys would be just the same thing as if we had invaded the place.

We demanded from the Taliban that they turn over Bin Laden, but they refused. SEVERAL TIMES. On top of that, he was the Taliban's equivalent of Rumsfeld.

On top of that, this is one case where the country will actually be better because we took action.

No need to demolish the entire country.

The country was already demolished when we got to it.

But sadly our spy network is substandard. We need to have hot babes who can speak foreign languages with no accent like the russians had. . Yeah you say those muslim guys don't like women (who aren't helpless teenage virgins). We know they are full of ****. They'd hit it.

No disagreement here.

[Az]

The man can be taught!

This is pretty cheeky, considering this was my state of opinion on this for the last 4 years, at the very least.

Some disagreements - the first is that the decision should not be made on an ad hoc basis, or - in case you meant it this way - all orders and laws should be followed on an ad hoc basis, but measured against a very clear and consistant set of principles/moral laws/maxims - whatever you wish to call them and that you choose to follow.

We are in agreement. My opinion is that these maxims should be agreed upon in an open debate in a free society, and then followed by all.

What are the implications of his act on the overall scheme of things? He has permitted the leader of a country, in this case the US - to engage in an AGRESSIVE ACT OF WAR.
That is something neither Berz nor I see as harmless.

Ahh, of course it's not harmless. The question is whether it's more "benefit-ful" than harmful. This is where we diverge. It's not just an "agressive act of war", it's also a "war to remove an evil dictator", "an attempt to fix stuff". Don't take it in the postmodernist "different narratives" bull**** - but as an attempt to sum up all the possible consequences and their probabilities, to achieve the full ethical value of the action.

If all or even most of the memebers of the armed forces had refused to do this - see my point?

Then you:

-wouldn't have gone to war, which would keep thousands of people alive
-prevented a breach of intl. law.
-weakened the structure of your government and society.
-kept saddam in power which would result in thousands of lives lost.

You see, it's a very complex equation, and the ethical thing to do is:
a) to deliberate it in an effective, efficient matter.
b) to try to reach maximize ethical positives, and minimize ethical negatives, in planning before each action is taken, and in reality after a course of action is decided upon.

What is the implication of his refusal on society? A bright light will be shown on the false and agressive nature of this war.

Sez you. One could also say that it would harm the effort to achieve harmony and peace in the middle east. As you see, this discussion is made much easier if we agree upon maxims and priniciples. This would be much more difficult if one would have this argument with Berzerker, for example.

Now the consequences of him going to jail are not moral in nature, but coercive - if he backs away from his moral judgement due to the threat of going to jail, his actions are anything but moral.

All consequences are to be judged equally on all accounts, except on the account of the ethical maxim. Just because it's not a "natural consequence" but a coersive "morality enforcing" one, doesn't mean you can't ignore it in the consequence equation. Sometimes, not going to jail is the ethical thing to do.

[Velociryx]

I started off as an ardent supporter of this war. If you don't believe that, have a look at some of the archived threads.

At this point, my position has almost completely reversed itself. The sooner we get OUT of that $hithole, the better for everyone, including the Iraqi people.

The sooner BUSH is out of office, the better for the entire world.

Cindy.

-=Vel=-
(my opinion changed when I realized that the whole reason for the war was trumped up by Bush and Company....built on a pack of lies sold to the public. I don't like being lied to, and I don't like it when those lies lead to needless deaths, cos Shrub had a hard on for finishing daddy's unfinished business, and was willing to do ANYTHING to make that happen).

[Mr. Harley]

Az - of course it was pretty cheeky.

My opinion is that these maxims should be agreed upon in an open debate in a free society, and then followed by all.

As I noted before, you are much more of a Nation-alist, while Berz and I are Individual-ists. This is one critical area we disagree. If your society "agrees" on a maxim, then one should follow it? Then in the US the treatment of blacks prior to WW2, the treatment of Arab-Muslims in Israel, or the treatment of Gypsies in much of Europe fits your maxim, and therefore should be/have been followed by all - and I even avoided the Godwin river - which would not have applied here anyway, you did specify "free".

Unless none of those societies are free? They are all to varying degrees free, and all are to varying degrees a form of Democracy. It is why I respect BK while considering him dangerous, related to your comments on fanatics which are largely correct IMHO - BK is consistant, though more along my lines than yours. If he opposed abortion while supporting freedom of choice, he would actually have my backing.

I suspect part of the difference is that you live in a society that largely has a common moral/religious background. Yes, yes I know that the Ultra-Orthodox and you probably don't see eye-to-eye (I am extrapolating, feel free to correct me if I am wrong). But even with the disagreements within Zionism and Judaism, you all agree on the baseline books/beliefs and THEN you argue.

In the US it is quite different. If Catholics and Southern Baptists can get together, they can and have passed highly restrictive laws on gay people. Look at Texas, for example. It was "freely debated" in an "open and free society". I should abide by those laws?

I've mentioned this before, but in case you missed it. One of my prouder moments was one I was ran into a bisexual young lady whom I knew, who was terribly upset. I was living in the Bible Belt at the time, she went to college, and one of our local Christian fundamentalists had informed her that people like her should all be put in camps.

We talked a little. She knew I was quite straight - had even tried to convince my fiancee, now wife, and me to have a threesome - I had found it very flattering, my wife did not - and I asked her what she thought I would do.

She said I would get my guns and try to get them out. I explained that she was largely correct, if it had turned into a WW2 Japanese-American type camp, I would instead have just started trying to smuggle gays up to Canada, but if it had turned into something more brutal yes I would have used my guns - and I got a liberal to start supporting gun rights, as an added bonus.

That is why I hold individual action and morality as superceding the state. We can agree to disagree - but look at the consequences of your choices, and when you start making exceptions to which societies count as free, etc. - remember, I don't need to. My standards are very clear, and straight-foward. As one who attempts to practice ethics, versus morality, that clarity becomes necessary.

[DRoseDARs]

Seeing the light

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Az
Off-topic: I've wasted two hours of my life yesterday.

My god, who's the director of that "Stealth" POS?!

You may feel a tiny bit of vindication by knowing that it is already being cited as one of the top ten movie money losers of all time.

[Drake Tungsten]

The sooner we get OUT of that $hithole, the better for everyone, including the Iraqi people.

Jesus, how can anyone think this? The disconnect from reality is staggering...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Exactly

More Swiftboating

This whole pattern of just "making things up" is making me really angry.

You woke up angry, but can't use that energy to add anything of value. Focus!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
They can blank out some of that info.

We could at least hear news to verify whether the email is real or not.

You aren't a real poster, but a retarded spam bot from moveon.org!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Look, it doesn't even matter if Cindy's entire family stands with her, against her, or indifferent. It's completely irrelevant and just an attempt by the wingnuts to distract from the real issue at hand.

And that real issue is what?

[Az]

As I noted before, you are much more of a Nation-alist, while Berz and I are Individual-ists. This is one critical area we disagree. If your society "agrees" on a maxim, then one should follow it? Then in the US the treatment of blacks prior to WW2, the treatment of Arab-Muslims in Israel, or the treatment of Gypsies in much of Europe fits your maxim, and therefore should be/have been followed by all - and I even avoided the Godwin river - which would not have applied here anyway, you did specify "free".

Ahh, but this wasn't an open-minded debate in a free society - any society which includes brainwashing of certain ideas is per definition isn't free.

Unless none of those societies are free? They are all to varying degrees free, and all are to varying degrees a form of Democracy.

Jim Crow america wasn't democratic or free. It had institutional brainwashing, and denied that all humans are born with equal rights. This isn't the case with Israel, btw.

You can't have a free debate without freedom of ideas in the very beginning. You can't have a free debate when money can buy exposure to your opinion. All of these make our societies unfree to very strong degrees.

I suspect part of the difference is that you live in a society that largely has a common moral/religious background. Yes, yes I know that the Ultra-Orthodox and you probably don't see eye-to-eye (I am extrapolating, feel free to correct me if I am wrong). But even with the disagreements within Zionism and Judaism, you all agree on the baseline books/beliefs and THEN you argue.

Oh hardly. for example, I am an atheist. I am egalitarian. I am an ardent supporter of individual freedoms. Religionists, jewish and muslim aren't neither, in regards to women, and sexual minorities.

In the US it is quite different. If Catholics and Southern Baptists can get together, they can and have passed highly restrictive laws on gay people. Look at Texas, for example. It was "freely debated" in an "open and free society". I should abide by those laws?

But it's not freely debated in an open and free society, as I've explained above - In the market of ideas, parental and organizational indoctrination of the young are illegal cartels.

[Patroklos]

Whether the tactics are offensive or defensive is irrelevant, it is the strategy. The strategy is to defend America.

That is the worst butchering of the Oath I have ever seen. But I guess according to you its okay if I don't go to work today.