or C. you don’t like the current regime, but dont’ think it’s in your province to demand a regime change.
Well, we could sit around and make up D,E,F, etc…, but let’s not, OK? 
In any event, C feeds right back into my original point, with C you’re supporting the regime. NOT, as I said before, supporting their actions, but dealing with them as equals is tacit support.
Quick question Weirddave, could you propose another P1, or some series of P1, P2, conclusion, conclusion as a new P1, a P2, and another conclusion, etc. leading up to the conclusion that “the Pope wants the regime to continue.”? When we’ve got a disagreement over what is “reasonable” I think resorting to the basic structure of a logical arguement is a good least common denominator for us to start from.
The Vatican has called for reform and change in the regime, but not necessarially for a change OF regime. New behavior, not necessarially new players. It may be as simple as the Vatican deciding that the devil they know is better than the devil they don’t. Thus, calls for a reform and compliance with international law instead of calls for war and a regime change(possibly at gunpoint).
Enjoy,
Steven
which is decembers claim and I (and others) do not accept it as a truth.
I don’t like my exhusband. Don’t agree w/him on very many things. yet, I have had to deal w/him over the years. Let me assure you that the fact that I’ve ‘dealt with him’ does not equal tacit or any other kind of support or approval for his actions.
Do you see?
No, I think it is you that dosen’t see. First of all, interpersonal relationships are completely different from interaction between nations. What I’m saying, plane and simple, is that The Vatican supports SH’s regime. Mtgman goes and proves my point in the previous post:
If you can’t diferentiate between supporting a regime and agreeing with it’s actions, you have no concept of reality as it applies to international relations. The Vatican supports SH’s regime, that is an indesputable fact, we already went through this. THAT IS NOT THE SAME as saying that The Vatican supports the actions of Iraq, by calling for reform and change they clearly do not. These are basic concepts covered in 100 level Poli Sci classes, whay is this so difficult to understand?
“supports” is not the same as “failing to attempt to topple”
why is that so difficult for you to see?
supporting would suggest some positive action. We met with Krushchev. Did that mean we ‘supported’ his regime?
december (remember him, where the hell is he anyway), suggests that by meeting w/ Palestinian leaders and representatives of SH, that entities which do so (including the Pope) ‘support’ those regimes, legitimizing their endeavors, ergo, supporting the attrocities therin.
and I am resisting attempts to suggest that ‘support’ = anything other than active, proactive and decisive actions attempting to topple said leaders.
Let’s try and not use the word ‘support’ perhaps. I believe that by meeting with leaders of Palestine and Iraq, the Pope is attempting to find a peaceful solution to bad situations, attempting to save lives by avoiding wars. I do not see any evidence that by meeting w/these leaders, that he’s doing anything other than the stated goal - ‘save lives, peaceful solution’. He’s not providing financial support for their regimes, he is attempting to provide spiritual support for the Iraqi and Palestinian people who are suffering. He is attempting to convince these leaders to try and reach peaceful solutions.
Please tell me specifically what you are claiming that the Pope is doing **other ** than these?
are you suggesting that he’s providing ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of the world to their leadership (this is a guess on my part)? If so, I don’t think it qualifies, since there is no other apparent leader available (even if we don’t believe that SH really is a representative of the people of Iraq). and, point of fact, he is the de facto leader of that group, like it or not.
I think we’re finally getting on the same page here. I am claiming that support and recognition are the same thing. By meeting with representatives of a certain government, you are recognizing that government as legitimate, and thus support that government, i.e you are recognizing it’s legitimacy. Thus, the U.S. did support the government of the old Soviet Union in just that manner.
What support does NOT mean is “condone the actions of”. If you read back through this thread you will see that that is december’s claim, not mine. I have been very careful to draw the destinction between the two in all of my posts. The U.S. supports the government of France, even though it does not agree with the stance it’s taking, nobody is calling for the overthrow of the French Government. The U.S. does not support Iraq, it has plainly said that that regime needs to change and is prepaired to go to war to change it. The Vatican, by advocating working with the government of Iraq to help it comply with U.N. mandates and rejoin the family of nations is supporting the regime of SH. There is no dicotomy with it doing just that while calling for that regime to change it’s actions, presumably it believes that SH can change enough to justify continuing as the leader of Iraq. I do not share that view, and neither does the U.S. at the moment.
BTW, as the Pope is probably (correctly, in my not so humble opinion) responsible, for the fall of the Soviet Union (second only to Gorbachev), I don’t think we should dismiss him merely because he’s not salivating for war.
Besides, you know, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard the Pope ever call for ousting anyone in office. At least not directly.
Debating Weirddave style.
And after all that, what was Weirddave’s secret weapon?
“Fighting ignorance” by redefining common English words.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Nah, I’d rather not. Bullshit is still bullshit.
What in the bleeding fuck are you talking about? Selectively pulling quotes from several different posts and trying to sew them together proves nothing except that you don’t have the slightest notion of what you’re talking about.
“Redifining common English words”??
Huh?
well, dave there you have it - your claim is that “meeting w/” = recognizing the government = supporting the regime.
And, given the Pope’s goal of attempting to negotiate peace, how on earth can that be done without the actual meeting with the people who are in charge of half of the issue?
So, I disagree w/your fundemental assessment/claim that recognizing the government = supporting the regime. Certainly in any substantive way, certainly not to the extent that december makes the claim.
First of all, I am not december, and have said several times that his claims are not mine. Second, your last two paragraphs contradict themselves. If the Pope did not support SH as the legitimate government of Iraq, he would not be negotiating peace with him. He does and he is, which, again, is completely different from supporting the actions of that regime. Ask yourself, how could he negotiate with a regime he didn’t support? What would be the point? Think about that for a minute. “I’m asking you to make these cocessions and changes, yet at the same time I’m calling for you to be overthrown.” Does that make any sense?
Weirddave, the piece which most posters are, rightly IMO, irked about is the word “support”. In december’s original claim “The Pope supports a regime which murders Jews” it is quite clear the intent was to link the Pope with the vile action of ethnic/religious killings. The word “support” has a common meaning, verified through dictionaries and thesauri, and common usage, verified through dictionaries of English usage, as an affirmation. When you “support” something, you are directly responsible for that thing. If you take out the supports of a bridge it will collapse.
This is simply the wrong word to use for the political action of recognizing a regime because they do, in fact, hold power regardless of claims of “legitimacy”. If a person puts a gun to my head I can whine all I want about his claims to the right to order me around being illegitimate, but that won’t change reality. The Vatican is being realistic. They have to deal with him because he IS in power. Argue all you want about how they should lock themselves in their Ivory Tower and refuse to meet with Hussein until he says forty “Hail Marys” if they don’t acknowledge his claim as legitimate. That won’t stop his laws from being the laws of the land in Iraq. Your standards of who the Vatican should and shouldn’t meet with based upon your perceptions of each regime’s legitimacy or how the Pope should view them in light of the atrocities they have committed simply aren’t binding on the Vatican. If they cross one of your lines that doesn’t put them in the camp of people who “support” Hussein.
I’ve acknowledged that using uncommon definitions and linguistic weaseling allows the statement to stand, but to claim it is reasonable is simply incorrect. The original statement was made as an attack and has been correctly identified for the jerkish remark it was. Now you seem to have inherited, out of some sort of bull-headedness or misplaced sense of justice, the responsibility to defend it. You’ve lost the substantitive battle. The phrase, as originally posed, was a lie and character defamation. If you want to continue to assert that “support and recognition are the same thing” I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ve had my fill of torturing the English language for a bit.
Enjoy,
Steven
I understand what you are saying, and actually agree with most of it, but I have pointed out repeatedly exactly what I was defending and that it was not what december was trying to prove, and have also labled my opinions on what The Vatican ought to be doing as opinions. I basically agree, and have simply been protesting people classifying my statements as one thing when they are another. I think we’re done here.