I Support the Troops

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

My wife was with her parents in Philadelphia, and there was a group that looked for pregnant wives. Regardless how any of them replied, it was something that should never have happened.

Nah. As****es have their right to say what they want, and wives have a right to respond any way they want.

Now, let us carry out our responsibility to see to it that it doesn’t happen to the wives of this generation of American soldiers.

They can stick up for their husbands without our help. Besides, such things are rare. The general public doesn’t even know any soldier who’s been deployed to Iraq, so don’t really care. It isn’t like the late 60s when everyone knew a boy being sent over to Vietnam and had emotional stakes in the war one way or the other.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Fine. But I’m not trying to tell you what you can and can’t say, whereas you’re trying to tell me that there are things I can’t say. Who is respecting freedom of speech here?

When you pull the old “freedom of speech” ploy on me, you are attempting to restrict MY freedom of speech.

Some soldiers are protecting my freedom of speech, yes, and people have suffered immensely to preserve it. But the ones in Iraq don’t seem to be doing much for me - indeed, apparently, while they are in Iraq, my freedom of speech is limited. I’m not even allowed to talk about my Pope’s opinion, it seems.

Mike

So you think it a responsible and moral act to increase the dangers they face?

 

[Richardols]

Ani Ibi:

What I did say was that, if the Pope did not speak infallibly, then please set out the Pope’s points and discuss them.

Discuss? You certainly leave the implication that if the Pope’s position is presented, you will contradict it, as it’s not infallible.

Who said that? Looks to me like you are saying that. Forever is a bit overdone, it seems to me. A bit of an unwarranted generalism. And flag before cross is a false dilemma.

Has there been a war the Christian right-wing hasn’t liked?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Nah. As****es have their right to say what they want, and wives have a right to respond any way they want.

So you won’t condemn this kind of thing? It’s okay with you to make war on women?

They can stick up for their husbands without our help. Besides, such things are rare. The general public doesn’t even know any soldier who’s been deployed to Iraq, so don’t really care.

Which is why this kind of talk is so irresponsible – treating soldiers who are in harm’s way as ciphers makes their jobs harder and more dangerous.

It isn’t like the late 60s when everyone knew a boy being sent over to Vietnam and had emotional stakes in the war one way or the other.

Which shows just how irresponsible this kind of carping is.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

Fine. But I’m not trying to tell you what you can and can’t say, whereas you’re trying to tell me that there are things I can’t say. Who is respecting freedom of speech here?

Some soldiers are protecting my freedom of speech, yes, and people have suffered immensely to preserve it. But the ones in Iraq don’t seem to be doing much for me - indeed, apparently, while they are in Iraq, my freedom of speech is limited. I’m not even allowed to talk about my Pope’s opinion, it seems.

Mike

This is inflammatory. Who said not to discuss the Pope’s opinion? Certainly not me. This is the fourth time now that I am asserting that, if you are going to reference the Pope, then state the following:

1. Is the Pope speaking infallibly? Yes or no?
2. If no, then set out what the points which the Pope has made.
3. Then set out (your) argumentation which supports the Pope’s points.

If you are unwilling to do this, then your appeal to the authority of the Pope is fallacious.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

So you won’t condemn this kind of thing? It’s okay with you to make war on women?

No one was making war on women. Some total jerk said something he hoped would be offensive (he would have said it to me, too) and he was taken aback that a woman would respond so aggressively. You just don’t screw around with a tough Sicilian granddaughter of a former Mafioso. That SOB was lucky she didn’t deck him.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

They can stick up for their husbands without our help.

The question is not abuot ‘can’; it is about ‘should’. Should the families of men and women who have deployed to Iraq be made to stick up for them in the face of expressions of hate, sometimes reinforced by assault?

Richardols:

Besides, such things are rare.

Evidence?

Relevance? Does being rare make it OK?

Richardols:

The general public doesn’t even know any soldier who’s been deployed to Iraq, so don’t really care.

So if the general public doesn’t know anyone who has been deployed, then expressions of hate, sometimes reinforced by assault, are OK?

Richardols:

It isn’t like the late 60s when everyone knew a boy being sent over to Vietnam

I agree. It is not like the late 60s.

Richardols:

and had emotional stakes in the war one way or the other.

Everyone is a lot of people. Are you suggesting that no one has emotional stakes in the war one way or the other? It seems to me from your sentence structure that you are.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

So you think it a responsible and moral act to increase the dangers they face?

You keep presuming that criticizing the war and its conduct increases the dangers faced by soldiers deployed to Iraq. Fair enough as your opinion, and thus to believe that. I don’t believe that.

I think that talk like yours is intended (intentionally or not) to stifle legitimate criticism of the Administration’s conduct of the war, but I certainly think that you should be able to say what you do.

You are as free to accept what the Administration is doing as others are to reject it. I want no one’s speech to be suppressed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

Discuss? You certainly leave the implication that if the Pope’s position is presented, you will contradict it, as it’s not infallible.

What’s wrong with that? This is a discussion is it not? Are you suggesting that my freedom of speech be crimped. If so, on what basis?

Richardols:

Has there been a war the Christian right-wing hasn’t liked?

Rwanda.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Discuss? You certainly leave the implication that if the Pope’s position is presented, you will contradict it, as it’s not infallible.

Has there been a war the Christian right-wing hasn’t liked?

This is beneath you, Richard.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

This is beneath you, Richard.

I must bid you all adieu my merry gentlemen. Home Depot awaits me. Please carry on without me. If I come across any protesters shouting profanities at the folks at Moss Park Armoury, rest assured that I will let loose with a few well conceived %&###* 's!

 

[Richardols]

Ani Ibi:

Should the families of men and women who have deployed to Iraq be made to stick up for them in the face of expressions of hate, sometimes reinforced by assault?

You take the good with the bad. Or do you want legislation to outlaw it? Assault is another matter and is already a felony.

Evidence?

Negative evidence, perhaps. One hardly ever hears about it, which may mean that it is a rare occurence.

Does being rare make it OK?

No, but it makes it a minor issue.

So if the general public doesn’t know anyone who has been deployed, then expressions of hate, sometimes reinforced by assault, are OK?

Assault is always a crime. As for expressions of hatred, we have more respect for freedom of speech than you Canadians do, which is not to mean that I’m attacking you personally. A New Yorker can say things that would land a Montrealer in prison, that’s all. So, I see “where you’re coming from,” but it doesn’t mean as much this side of the snow line.

Are you suggesting that no one has emotional stakes in the war one way or the other?

Not at all. The families of the soldiers do. But, for most others, I’d think that, as we agreed, 2005 isn’t 1968.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

This is beneath you, Richard.

All right. I retract my statement. There has to have been a war that the Christian right opposed.

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

This is inflammatory. Who said not to discuss the Pope’s opinion? Certainly not me.

Did I say you did?

If we are not to criticise the war in any way though, that implies to me I can’t make a statement like ‘The Pope disagreed with the War in Iraq, and I agree with him.’, and apparently you can’t criticise the war while it is going on.

Well, if I want to say that, I can, and I will. That is one of our freedoms (that we are supposedly fighting for!)

This is the fourth time now that I am asserting that, if you are going to reference the Pope, then state the following:

1. Is the Pope speaking infallibly? Yes or no?

Obviously not, which I already made clear.

1. If no, then set out what the points which the Pope has made.
2. Then set out (your) argumentation which supports the Pope’s points.

If you are unwilling to do this, then your appeal to the authority of the Pope is fallacious.

Actually. any ‘proof by authority’ is pretty fallacious, but I wasn’t trying to offer proof, or appeal to the authority of the Pope. I merely said his views should be taken into account.

Are you seriously saying you don’t understand why the Pope was opposed to the invasion of Iraq? Haven’t you considered it in the last 3 years? Why should I do your homework for you?

All I have done so far is say that the opinion of the Pope should matter to a Catholic, even if not speaking infallibly. I’d have thought that it was self-evident that we should listen and consider when the Holy Father speaks, even if we are not forced to agree with his conclusions.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

When you pull the old “freedom of speech” ploy on me, you are attempting to restrict MY freedom of speech.

Not at all. You say what you want, even if that includes saying I can’t say the things I want. Meanwhile I’ll continue to say what I want nevertheless. That is freedom of speech - for both of us

So you think it a responsible and moral act to increase the dangers they face?

As it is very unclear this is what I am doing, and the alternative is to lose my freedom to criticise government actions, then I retain my right to say that certain military actions are wrong, yes.

Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

You take the good with the bad. Or do you want legislation to outlaw it?

Not necessarily. This sort of thing seems to merit fine tuning. I think that attacks against the troops and their families, friends, and neighbours take different forms and therefore merit different remedies.

Richardols:

Assault is another matter and is already a felony.

I hope that people who are arrested for spitting, then, understand that there are consequences for choosing criminal action. And I hope that enforcement is even handed, swift, and vigorous.

Richardols:

Negative evidence, perhaps. One hardly ever hears about it, which may mean that it is a rare occurence. No, but it makes it a minor issue.

It is only a minor issue if the evidence supports the claim that it is rare.

Richardols:

Assault is always a crime.

It is selectively prosecuted.

Richardols:

As for expressions of hatred, we have more respect for freedom of speech than you Canadians do

Agreed.

Richardols:

which is not to mean that I’m attacking you personally.

No attack imputed.

Richardols:

A New York[er] can say things that would land a Montrealer in prison, that’s all.

Well, maybe not a Montrealer. A Torontonian maybe. And even then Torontonians have said some pretty disgusting things against not only American troops but their own troops. And not only against American troops but all Americans. As for Ottawa, one of our members of parliament called Bush a moron.

There certainly is a problem with freedom of speech in Canada, but it is mostly about crimping the freedom of Catholics. That’s another thread.

Richardols:

Not at all. The families of the soldiers do. But, for most others, I’d think that, as we agreed, 2005 isn’t 1968.

I am just questioning the rarity of affiliation. Even I (living in Canada) know someone (also living in Canada) who at one point was posted to the States for purposes of (joint) security leading up to the Iraq War. Enough said.

Freedom of speech (or expression as we call it in Canada) is not absolute. It has limits imposed upon it. Since this is a constitutional matter, the rule of proportionality applies where two freedoms (or rights) conflict. A person, therefore, has the freedom to express his or her disagreement with the War in Iraq. The soldiers themselves understand that they are fighting (in part) to protect this freedom. However, logically, this freedom to express disagreement with the War is not unlimited. Where it undermines morale, it is unacceptable. Why? Because then it abridges the rights of those involved in prosecuting the War.

Much of the opposition (in Canada) to the War has been strident, hateful, and verging on violent. How useful is that?

So the method and extent of the disagreement is (and should be) under scrutiny.

Example. On the Canadian DoD website there is (or used to be) a section to write letters to soldiers deployed. Every letter is censored. Why? While some things which people write may be true and legitimate, they undermine morale. We are bracing for a hullaboo up here. Another bunch got sent off to Afghanistan. The government has warned us to expect military casualties.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

Are you seriously saying you don’t understand why the Pope was opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

No.

MikeWM:

Why should I do your homework for you?

You shouldn’t. But you should support your own references.

MikeWM:

All I have done so far is say that the opinion of the Pope should matter to a Catholic, even if not speaking infallibly. I’d have thought that it was self-evident that we should listen and consider when the Holy Father speaks, even if we are not forced to agree with his conclusions.Mike

So? I’m listening. You referred to the Pope’s writing in the matter. The onus is on you to set out the Pope’s points and your support for his points.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

You take the good with the bad.

That doesn’t make it morally right to enourage those who would do bad.

Not at all. The families of the soldiers do. But, for most others, I’d think that, as we agreed, 2005 isn’t 1968.

There are those working very hard to MAKE 2005 like 1968. It is up to us to call upon them to use the rights others earned for them in a responsible fashion.

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

So? I’m listening. You referred to the Pope’s writing in the matter. The onus is on you to set out the Pope’s points and your support for his points.

For starters, from the Vatican website, from the Pope himself

“NO TO WAR”! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations. (13 January 2003)

There’s lot more like that here

vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/peace/prayer-peace_index.html

Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

As it is very unclear this is what I am doing, and the alternative is to lose my freedom to criticise government actions, then I retain my right to say that certain military actions are wrong, yes.Mike

As I have pointed out in I think the previous post, freedom of speech (or expression) is not absolute. There are limits to this freedom.

Expressing disagreement with the War in a calm, reasonable or even robust manner is one thing. Expressing disagreement in strident, hateful, ways verging on or even crossing the lines into violence is another thing. A Bad thing. Most particularly when a biassed press exploits such expression. Endless photo ops of the one-finger salute, crowds bellowing and waving disrespectful and false signs with one hand while balancing their lattes with the other hand is a bad thing. Hanoi Jane on her new bus tour is a bad thing. Why? Because these actions are misunderstood by the enemy. And they give comfort to the enemy.

As for people breaking the law. The law must not only be just, but it must be seen to be just. Does the enemy see that justice is being done? Does the enemy see that one cannot spit, utter threats, utter hate, incite to violence, defame, push and shove without incurring the notice of the justice system? No. Either enforcement is not happening with enough predictability to deduce cause and effect or it is but it is not making it into the 6:00 news.

Let’s take Hanoi Jane as a metaphor for what I see happening. As we examined the Nam era, it came to light that the actions of many in the anti-war movement caused harm to soldiers deployed and to prisoners of war and to veterans and to the families involved. Hanoi Jane apologized for her role in that harm. Is her apology believable? No. She has turned around and undertaken to do exactly the same thing. To me, this is duplicitous. Much of the rhetoric of the anti-Iraqwar movement is similarly duplicitous.