First, there was guest poster and military authority Matt Bin, waxing philosophical on the subject of war resisters, a post which has, at this point, collected some 23 comments. Not surprisingly, this was followed in short order by an opposing screed from Axis of Douchebaggery's Patsy Ross, who hilariously -- from the depths of ignorance almost beyond description -- wrote:
The truth is that if Matt Bin was really such an expert on the military, he would understand a few things about the military.
Hmmmmm ... so, on the one hand, we have Matthew Bin who, according to his bio, "served as a Bombardier in the 11th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, from 1991 to 1994," and is the author of a book on Canada's peacekeeping forces, "On Guard for Thee."
And on the other hand, we have Twatrick Ross, whose expertise at things military apparently extends as far as ... well ... this.
I think we're done here. Degree of difficulty: -2,000,000.
Now CC ... I'm sure Teh Pantload has all kinds of G.I. Joe combat action figures still in their original packaging !!111!!!!!!1
And if that doesn't make him a military scholar and/or expert, then I just don't know what's wrong with you.
It only counts if those G.I. Joes have "kung-fu grip".
Although 'kung fu grip' might have a completely different purpose in this context.
I think I'm gonna turn SheenaVision into a military blog. With my complexion I look fucking fantastic in khaki.
Mr. Ross' stupidity and cluelessness never cease to amaze ...
Frankly, Patrick's posts is one of his best ever (though that's not saying much). His argument is clear, at least; if conscription is your litmus test for whether someone deserves to stay in Canada as a resister, well, so be it.
Personally, I find the individual person in question more important in the debate; Patrick finds the piece of paper he or she signed more sympathetic. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that the progressive view is about the people, and the conservative view is about the business. The implications are, as usual, depressing.
I think you left a few 0s out of your degree of difficulty there, CC.
m@: the point is that Patrick frames his argument by saying that Matt doesn't know anything about the military and then goes on to express his opinion.
Thus who is making the argument becomes virtually all there is to talk about.
And somehow I'm not surprised that you can't grasp the subtle nuance of the Iraq war resisters you would have us shelter voluntarily enlisting in the military -- in some cases after the war started -- while the war resisters Canada sheltered during Vietnam being conscripts.
Matt Bin (aka "mr expert") sure doesn't seem to understand that distinction, which really just goes to show you that experience does not necessarily translate into expertise.
"I find the individual person in question more important in the debate; Patrick finds the piece of paper he or she signed more sympathetic. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that the progressive view is about the people, and the conservative view is about the business. The implications are, as usual, depressing."
The point is, Matt, that people make commitments.
If the progressive view is really about people and really about -- as so many individual progressives insist -- about autonomy, then it also becomes necessary to hold people responsible for those commitments.
You cannot claim autonomy over anything you aren't responsible for. That's a very simple concept. I know some people (hi, Frank!) aren't smart enough to grasp that, but it is so whether they agree or not.
Now, seeing as I've noticed that Mr Bin actually possesses a good deal more intellectual courage than the standard commenter around these parts, I'm going to float out a test balloon here, and see how he responds:
It's actually my opinion that Canada should give long and hard consideration to allowing Iraq war resisters who have completed the tour of duty they commit to upon enlisting in the army and have been stop-lossed into another tour, to stay.
If they refuse to report for a second tour that they did not agree to, they face prosecution and jail time. In my personal opinion, that makes these particular resisters eligible refugees.
I think Canadian courts should treat a stop-loss in the same vein as conscription, and the precedent set a long time ago -- which was and remains the right decision -- is that unwilling conscripts may stay.
What say you, mr Bin? Do you view a stop-loss as akin to conscription?
I know some people (hi, Frank!) aren't smart enough to grasp that
Always nice to know I'm inside your head. ;-)
And that, interestingly, even if you were, you still would have nothing intelligent to say.
Post a Comment