ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 2397
Feb 6 07 3:55 PM
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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.)"
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."
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."
Quote:char: "Both charges proved completely illusory."
Quote:char: "Obviously, those purposes were not even true, much less worthy."
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."
Quote:char: "(Bush must not have thought so either or he'd have sold the war on that basis.)"
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."
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."
Quote:char: "You keep trying to evade the issue of whether this invasion was justified by its result. It was optional all the way."
Quote:char: "There would have been no penalty to the US for forgoing this intervention."
Quote:char: "Therefore, entering upon it is a move that has to be judged by how it's turned out."
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."
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."
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 SurgeBy E. J. Dionne Jr.Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A17""When political opponents blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . ."
Quote:char: "You don't mean what you say either."
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."
Quote:char: "I think every vote in Congress means something."
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."
Interact
Share This