Hi char,

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "I brought up world opinion to bolster the conclusion, and to contrast that situation with Iraq."


And I made my comment to point out that world opinion is irrelevant if the cause is worthy.

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "Let me clear up some confusion you seem to have, Iowan."


No confusion here.

Quote:
char: "First, the Vietnam war did not stop the expansion of Communism, so obviously it was a poor choice of methods if that was the goal."


So the cause of stopping expansion of communism is a worthy goal if it succeeds and an unworthy cause if it fails. Got it.

Quote:
char: "Second, many of the war's opponents were anticommunist and correctly perceived that the war was a very stupid and self-destructive way to go about opposing Communism."


And their alternatives (withdrawal or failure to intervene militarily at all) stopped or would have stopped the exapnsion of communism how?

Quote:
char: "The conclusions you reached do not follow from being against the US military intervention in Vietnam at all. You basically just made it up for convenience sake."


:lol

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "Whether the threat was nonexistent or small, my logic still holds. Your line here is nonsensical."


Unable to respond meaningfully, you just call my point nonsensical. Since you believe that the sacrifice of US troops casualties should be 'commensurate' with the worthiness of the cause, how many US troop deaths were 'commensurate' in Vietnam then and how many are 'commensurate' in Iraq today, char?

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "That there have been no attacks on the US is due to a number of factors that have no positive correlation with the invasion of Iraq."


List those other wholly-unrelated-to-Iraq 'factors' for me, if you please.

Quote:
char: "(If you disagree, then please identify why invading and occupying a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 would have prevented a recurrence.)"


There is nothing to disagree with yet. Just vagaries like 'a number of [unspecified] factors'.

Quote:
char: "Bush's failure to commit enough attention and resources to Afghanistan not only let OBL off the hook, it has allowed a resurgence of the Taliban. This is not good. We're losing a golden opportunity, largely because of Iraq."


To paraphrase something I read just recently: the invasion of Afghanistan did not squash the Taliban once and for all, so obviously it was a poor choice of methods if that was the goal.

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "Well, that takes in a lot of territory. This war was sold on the WMD threat, with a side order of Saddam's collusion with al-Qaeda."


Among other 'factors', such as Iraq failing to comply with a long list of UN resolutions, such as regime change in Iraq being official US policy.

Quote:
char: "Both charges proved completely illusory."


Completely?

Quote:
char: "Obviously, those purposes were not even true, much less worthy."


So obvious that pretty much every single inteligence organization in the world thought it WAS true that the Iraqi regime had WMDs.

Quote:
char: "Ending Saddam's reign of terror was a worthy goal, but not one that I believe merited the violation of international law, the destruction of a state, and the deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis."


OK. So what do you believe would have been merited? What should have been done about Hussein?

Quote:
char: "(Bush must not have thought so either or he'd have sold the war on that basis.)"


It was one factor among many.

Quote:
char: "Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror before we invaded, so clearly that was not a genuine goal either. It seems I was right."


Nothing?

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "We already established that this was not self-defense in Iraq, so the Japan example is irrelevant."


It is wholly relevant. If the cause is worthy, then the outcome, no matter if it is success or if it is failure, does not change the worthiness of the cause. Do you disagree with that?

Quote:
char: "You keep trying to evade the issue of whether this invasion was justified by its result. It was optional all the way."


I've all but stated that the worthiness of a cause is NOT justified by the success or failure of those who fight for it. You, it appears, disagree with that.

Quote:
char: "There would have been no penalty to the US for forgoing this intervention."


How do you know that?

Quote:
char: "Therefore, entering upon it is a move that has to be judged by how it's turned out."


Not remotely.

Quote:
char: "So far, that is pretty horrendous. By any rational measure, it was a grievous error to have invaded Iraq. By any rational measure, there was no compelling reason to have invaded. Bush blew it, and now he wants to double down to recoup losses. This is dumb."


So how many more troop casualties are 'commensurate' with the view you've just expressed?

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "You have misrepresented what I wrote. We did evict the Taliban and OBL from the levers of state power in Afghanistan, and this was a good thing. It would have been better to have caught them, but that would have required a better C-in-C than we are cursed with."


So we failed. According to your 'commensurate' calculus, based on the failure of the US to achieve its goal in Afghanistan, the cause was not worthy. That you are getting uncomfortable with where that argument leads you hardly means I've misrepresented what you wrote.

Quote:
iowan15: "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."

char: "I just read an op-ed that explains this line from war supporters. I was wondering why you guys were all singing this tune."

The War To Save The Surge

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A17"

"When political opponents blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . ."


I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that E.J. Dionne, Jr. takes a liberal position. I'll modify my comment in light of this fascinating op-ed: "Then you, Fonda, Dionne, Jr., 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."

Quote:
char: "You don't mean what you say either."


So you concede that you don't mean what you say. Good. I didn't think you really meant it. However, I DO mean what I say. It is much more honorable to argue vigorously and substantively for one's position if one thinks it is worthy. But neither you nor any of them Dems have the will to do that. This non-binding resolution that is being batted about is toothless, all form, no substance, all bark, no bite.

Quote:
char: "You're desperate to avoid what constitutes a vote of no confidence in Kerry's old strategy which Bush has dusted off two years later."


I say put defunding the troops to a vote! You know as well as I do that it would never pass. That's why the Dems will never put such a proposal to a vote. They want to have the benefit of sounding tough without the toil of actually voting tough.

Quote:
char: "I think every vote in Congress means something."


I think so to. Voting for a non-binding resolution to oppose the surge but which doesn't take any action to defund the surge says that those who propose it and support it aren't really serious about their opposition. I think it will be meaningful to our enemies, too.

Quote:
char: "I would prefer to see a stronger stand taken, but if the minority would allow an anti-surge vote (they won't) that doesn't include a funds cutoff, that's better than saying nothing."


Only weeks into their triumphal return to power, the Dems are reduced to 'If it wasn't for those meanie Republicans'.

I don't doubt for a minute that you think offering toothless resolutions is preferable than saying nothing. It's part of what it means to be a liberal. :)

later. iowan15