If anyone would want to subvert our soldiers’ allegiance to the United States, I’d be against him. If anyone wanted to subvert our soldiers’ faiths, I’d be against him. But opposing George Bush is not subverting allegiance or faith of those individuals.
I don’t think Gillliam is a jingoistic right winger. There are certainly some on these forums who fall into that category, but I do not consider him one of them.
This, on the other hand, is an example of inappropriately appealing to emotion to silence dissent. Questions of war and peace require serious moral consideration. I would think the blessed Mother would be pleased, not sad, that we care enough to be discussing the morality of so grave a subject.
I agree, and apologize to Gilliam if he took my comment as referring to him personally.
And, the lies are all those of the liberals, right?
Enlisting the Blessed Virgin for your cause, are you?
The key point I think needs to be made is that it is OK to oppose, or show dissent to the Bush administration’s policies. That is part of the freedoms that those braver than myself have died for.
Agree with you.
This, I think, is different. It doesn’t matter what world leaders or former American leaders thought or actually believed. It was Mr. Bush who made the decision for war, and while calling him a liar would be inappropriate, holding him liable for his very bad decision (MO) would not be.
Deciding what political dissent actually endangers out troops is the hard part.
And it is up to us to establish and maintain the bounds – that’s what went wrong in Viet Nam. No one was willing to stand up and say, “That’s out of bounds.”
This is the story of “who guards the Guardians?” The bounds that most of us will accept is no bright line except in the most egregious cases.
Part of this post was a little too close to an ad hominem. I retract the first sentence: “This, on the other hand, is an example of inappropriately appealing to emotion to silence dissent.” The rest stands.
Those of us who bear the scars, who zipped up friends in body bags, who are in a position to know from bitter personal experience are best equipped to apply that experience.
Spoken like a gentleman, Phillip. It takes a big man to post a retraction like that.
I doubt that she would encourage the killing of any mother’s sons, regardless of what side they’re on.
Somehow, I think she would see a moral difference between American soldiers on the one hand, and suicide bombers on the other. She might even have something to say about people who hold a captured civilian down and saw off his head in front of the TV camera.
Right, for sure. But, I doubt that she would encourage any killing of anyone, for any reason.
I do not see any way of stopping world terrorism, short of the use of overwhelming force.
Perhaps, but at what cost in lives and destruction of nations??? I should rather have to live with the threat of terrorism than to resort to such draconian measures to eliminate it. A pyrrhic victory is no victory that I’d want to see.
How do you “live with the threat of terrorism?” How many 9/11 attacks can we take?
Like the Brits did with the IRA, maybe.