Hi char,

Quote:
iowan15: "Well, no doubt there were lots of Vietnamese were dying while the fighting was going on. That's sorta the point of fighting, isn't it?"

char: "Just to kill people?"


No, to kill certain people, namely, the enemy.

Quote:
char: "I'm beginning to understand your position on Iraq better."


Not likely.

Quote:
char: "At the time, there were other reasons advanced for the war, but if people dying is what you were after, then I guess it was Mission Accomplished all the way."


No, I wasn't simply after 'people dying', only the enemy.

Quote:
iowan15: "Since the North Vietnamese were the enemy, I'm less concerned about the number of casualties they incurred than I am concerned about the losses of our allies."

char: "You might forgive the Vietnamese for considering themselves human."


Since I never suggested anything to the contrary, this is simply another pointless point.

Quote:
iowan15: "I don't know the ration of South Vietnamese who lost their lives in combat versus those who lost their lives in the purges that followed our withdrawal."

char: "I just tried to look it up, and it's a mess. Everyone has different estimates. The war dead seem to be from two to four times the postwar dead for the South, but it's hard to know which figures to put credence into. The main point is that however many postwar deaths there were, they were going to happen no matter when we left."


I don't think that's a sustainable point. If we had been victorious, I don't think the postwar dead for the South would have been as great as it was.

Quote:
char: "If anything, dragging the war out hardened the attitudes of the eventual victors and contributed to more deaths. In any scenario other than some of the more fanciful that include the fantasy of South Vietnamese victory, it is obvious that the earlier we'd left, the fewer of every nationality would have died."


Yes, it is painfully obvious that if no one killed anyone esle, there would be far fewer who would have died.

Quote:
iowan15: "And her 'advice' should be listened to why?"

char: "It would have saved American lives."


Not invading Afghanistan would have saved American lives, too. If saving American lives is paramount, why did you support the invasion of Afghanistan, char? I think going after Osama bin Laden would very likely result in American deaths. As I recall, you've advocated going after bin Laden?

Quote:
iowan15: "...all those retruning veterans who claimed that these 'convenient myths' actually occurred are liars and that all the reports of such occurrences are in error, but I don't see any reason to suppose that."

char: "Educate yourself

char cited an article: "Debunking a spitting image
By Jerry Lembcke | April 30, 2005"


The article is based on one returning Vietnam vet named Smith who apparently lied or exaggerated about being spat at upon his return. The conclusion you draw is that spitting on returning Vietnam veterans didn't, or very likely didn't, occur.

Even if we take the article at face value, 10% of returning veterans were NOT treated well upon their return. I don't know how many that percentage works out to in raw numbers, but 10% is not insignificant.

Quote:
iowan15: "Most people want to avoid senseless deaths. But, of course, in the minds of most of the anti-war crowd, nothing says 'I support the troops' better than proclaiming that the deaths of their comrades in arms and the cause for which they fight are 'senseless'."

char: "Perpetuating the fantasy that it makes sense to kill more Americans in Iraq is far worse."


But it apparently does make sense to you to of 'kill more Americans' in Afghanistan and to 'kill more Americans' in hunting down bin Laden.

Quote:
iowan15: "And since when did you become concerned about taking 'right' steps in Iraq? I thought you were of the opinion that there is no such thing as a 'right step' in Iraq since the whole thing is a necon boondoggle."

char: "The right step now is to withdraw our military."


Yeah, you've said that before.

Quote:
iowan15: "If the North Vietnamese had been defeated, I think that the deaths of South Vietnamese at the hands of the North Vietnamese after the war would have been less."

char: "Well, that wasn't ever going to happen. The strongest nation in the world threw a half-million men at them, and bombed the hell out of them, and they still were not beaten. The ARVN was sure not going to do it."


Of course it wasn't going to happen. Politically, you and your comrades made sure that victory wasn't going to happen. Just as you work to make sure victory isn't going to happen in Iraq.

Quote:
iowan15: "You doubt that. I'm not sure why that's important, but I'll grant that you doubt that."

char: "You were trying to make a moral argument, and now you've backed off from it. Fine."


I made a factual statement. I have no idea what sort of treatment NV POWs received at the hands of American captors. In light of your comment, neither do you. But even if NV POWs were mistreated, that hardly justifies the treatment that McCain and many other US POWs endured at the hands of the NV.

Quote:
iowan15: "So her complaints, and that of the anti-war movement of the day, had more to do with 'strategy'? How does linking arms with the enemy and simultaneuosly denouncing one's own country bring about military victories, strategically-speaking?"

char: "I'm asking you to think, Iowan. Is that too much?"


I'll have to get back to you on that after I call Cheney to find out what I'm supposed to think. :)

Quote:
char: "The point is that the war served NO PURPOSE. It would have been better to withdraw."


We went to war to try to stem the expansion of communism. Of course, I'm certain that stemming the expansion of communism does seem purposeless to many leftists (not you), but it was the purpose nonetheless.

Quote:
iowan15: "Since we don't know whether or not we and they'd have been better off (whatever that vague phrase means), what is there to learn?"

char: "I'm making the noncontroversial statement that the US would have been better off to have lost fewer troops in Vietnam, and you can't even agree with that. You are unreachable."


Since you didn't explain what you meant by 'better off', there was nothing of any substance to agree or disagree with, char. If 'better off' means 'fewer troops killed', we'd have been 'better off' to have never ever having gone to war with anyone for any reason, including in Afghanistan.

Quote:
iowan15: "The only sort of 'poll' I'm interested in is a vote. If things were determined by 'polls', then John Kerry would be president today. He's not."

char: "And what are the chances of such a vote? You're just wilfully ignorant on this point."


Then educate me, char. Please tell me what the chances are of such a vote and what sources you iqnuired of to arrive at your odds.

Quote:
iowan15: "That's the purpose of a refendum, to find that out."

char: "The referendum you don't seem to want enough to demand it?"


I want a referendum. There. Happy now? :)

Quote:
iowan15: "The Iraqi government doesn't appear to think a precipitous withdrawal would make us and them better off."

char: "They don't want a surge either. They want a gradual withdrawal starting now. But neither you nor Bush cares what the Iraqis want."


Since I just said that I'd favor a referendum on the issue, plainly I DO care what the Iraqis want.

Quote:
char: "Is it any wonder the Iraqis are thoroughly sick of this occupation and what it's brought?"


Ah, the 'polls', again, right?

Quote:
iowan15: "Which means that today Congress is not serious about their opposition to the surge."

char: "Not serious enough for me, no. They sure don't support it, though."


Then they should put their votes where their mouths are. The Democrats won't do that. They will content themselves with toothless resolutions. If the American people are so opposed to the surge, why don't they defund it?

Quote:
iowan15: "Atta boy! Maybe you can hire Fonda as a consultant."

char: "Unlike your side, we don't require payment. Trying to do the right thing is enough."


Then I'm left to wonder why you attend so many fundraisers for your favorite Dems. Apparently, THEY require payment.

Quote:
iowan15: "I don't think the American people want the war defunded. In that respect, I think I'm right in line with what the American people want."

char: "Wow, that was evasive enough for anyone. Americans want a reduction of troop levels, not an increase. The rate at which we withdraw is up for discussion, but Bush is going the wrong way. Are you with Bush or the American people on this?"


Are the Dems in Congress with Bush or with the American people? If they were with the American people, then they'd defund the increase of troop levels. They won't defund the increase of troop levels. Therefore, they are not with the American people.

The Dems in Congress have painted themselves into a corner On the one hand, they want to be seen as supporting the troops and so they won't defund the surge. On the other hand, they want to be seen by the char-Fonda coalition as opposing Bush so they offer toothless resolutions. They're in a tough spot politically, to be sure, but it's one of their own making.

Quote:
iowan15: "Splendid! My government tax dollars at work?"

char: "Not the postage, of course; I'm paying that. But since we're govt employees and sending you stuff you asked for (and some you didn't) at no charge, I suppose you could say it is your tax dollars at work. In Washington, we live to serve the public. (Or is that service the public?)"


Thank you so much for your selfless service. If that minimum wage thingy passes, it will be nice to know you finally got a raise.

later, bud. iowan15