Hi char,

Quote:
char: "Since you made just one cogent point, I will respond to that, Iowan."


'One cogent point'. It's nice to know I'm not a total lost cause. :)

Quote:
char: "I did support the US occupation and "invasion" (the Northern Alliance did the work on the ground) of Afghanistan, even though I knew Americans would die in the conflict. This was because the 9/11 attacks were launched from Afghanistan, and they were not turning over the likely culprits. Clearly, they would have continued their attacks."


From what I've seen you post on the topic, the likely culprits are in Pakistan now. Do you favor military intervention into Pakistan to get the likely culprits?

Quote:
char: "This was self-defense, and just about every nation in the world supported us."


If it was self-defense (and I think you're right about that), then it matters not one wit if the world supported us or not.

Quote:
char: "The goal of the military intervention was commensurate with the sacrifice. It is true that Bush botched the followup and both Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden escaped (and presumably still live); but the attempt had to be made."


Well, that's a judgment call, isn't it, char? The goal of the military intervention in Vietnam was to stop the expansion of communism. Apparently, you and other anti-war activists of that day didn't believe the attempt should have been made to stop the expansion of communism. Anti-war sentiment then had little to do with commensurate sacrifice. Anti-war sentiment in general opposed the goal.

Quote:
char: "In Vietnam and Iraq, there was simply no threat to the US commensurate with the sacrifice."


As best as I can understand you and Fonda, there was no threat period. According to that premise, no sacrifice was/is justified in either case. That being the case, commensurate sacrifice is a meaningless phrase if there was no threat at all, whether one is talking about Vietnam or Iraq.

Quote:
char: "The harm done to us by the military interventions exceeded by a huge amount any benefit."


You've said before (in so many words) that we've taken our eye off the ball in the war on terror by not committing enough to Afghanistan and in pursuing bin Laden. Let's say that is the case, for the sake of argument. Despite our taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and not going after bin Laden as we should, there have been no serious terrorist attacks since 9/11. That's a huge benefit in my book.

Quote:
char: "That's it in a nutshell. I am not a pacifist. But if you advocate military action with its attendant casualties, it better be for a worthy purpose, and you damned well better be right about the result. Otherwise, you made an error, no matter how well intentioned you may have been."


I've not argued otherwise. But there's the rub, char. Your opposition to the military intervention in Iraq is based on your belief that the purpose isn't worthy, or at least not worthy enough. If the cause isn't worthy, no amount of attendant casualties changes that. On the flip side of that coin, if the cause is worthy, then failure to bring about a 'right' result doesn't change the worthiness of the cause. For instance, even if we had only fought to a stalemate or even lost the War in the Pacific in WW2, going to war against the empire of Japan was a worthy cause.

And so far, according to you, we haven't been 'right about the result' in Afghanistan. Does that somehow make the attempt unworthy? I don't think so.

Quote:
char: "And to stubbornly compound that error at the cost of continued deaths is reprehensible, particularly after it has become clear that the invasion of Iraq increased terrorism and has not had the results predicted by Bush. Your pride is not worth one more death."


Then you, Fonda, and the Dems in Congress should be demanding an immediate and complete withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and passing legislation to that end. The Dem leadership in Congress should also be clear that the cause for which the US fights isn't, and never was, a 'worthy cause'.

Is their pride, and yours, worth one more death? Apparently, it is.

Quote:
iowan15: "If that minimum wage thingy passes, it will be nice to know you finally got a raise."

char: "Yeah, then we could afford shoes.

I'm glad I didn't tell you what my salary was when you asked. I would never hear the end of it. Isn't envy a sin?"


It was a joke. I don't begrudge you a dime of your salary.

Quote:
char: "I don't give you a hard time about how you make your living, do I?"


No, and neither do I about yours.

later, bud. iowan15