Hi char,

Quote:
char: "Iowan, when you're coming out on the short end of these things, you generally do just what you're doing now: make a lot of wise-cracking non sequiturs and attempt to change the subject."


I know exactly how you feel, char.

Quote:
char: "First, you are the one making a meal out of the "worthiness" of causes."


You brought it to the table.

Quote:
char: "I'm trying to make the point that however worthy a cause, if a war does not advance it, it was likely an error. This is especially true of optional conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq."


I understand quite well the point you were trying to make. After all, I'm an Ohio State Buckeyes fan. After the college football national championship game, I was the greatest coach you could fine. Me, and about a milion other Buckeye faithful. Your position is little more than warmed over Monday morning quarterbacking. On Sunday, the play caller is a genius when the play works and, on Monday, he's an idiot if it didn't. But you don' suggest a different strategy. You suggest pulling the team off the field.

Quote:
iowan15: "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?"

char: "No US deaths were justified for the lost cause of keeping Vietnam divided."


So the US went to war to 'keep Vietnam divided'. Obviously, this isn't the 'No Spin Zone'.

Quote:
char: "No US deaths were justified for the invasion of Iraq either. We were not threatened and it worsened terrorism."


OK. So no US deaths are justified. So the troops should be out of Iraq tomorrow since any delay will likely mean more unjustified deaths.

Quote:
char: "This is not because Saddam was a good guy or that Communism was great. It is because in neither case were those wars an intelligent way to reach the goals (when the goals were real, unlike the WMD scam)."


And what was the intelligent way to 'keep Vietnam divided'? What was the intelligent way to bring about regime change in Iraq? What was the intelligent way to proceed with the war on terror (I'm making perhaps an unwarranted assumption that you favor a war on terror)?

Quote:
iowan15: "List those other wholly-unrelated-to-Iraq 'factors' for me, if you please.

char: "There has been no repeat of 9/11 because:

1) al-Qaeda threw all their reliable US assets into that attack. We can be reasonably sure of this because we've found no others even after the leads we got from the Afghanistan invasion and by other means. They simply didn't have the capacity. That had nothing to do with Iraq."


You just said in an earlier post: "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."

Well, which is it, char? Did al-Qaeda lack the capacity and assets for further attacks, or is it clear that they would continue their attacks?

Quote:
char: "2) US vigilance increased greatly, both here and abroad."


OK.

Quote:
char: "3) The toppling of the Taliban deprived al-Qaeda of their base and a lot of their personnel."


You just said that they had spent their assets and didn't have the capacity after 9/11.

Quote:
iowan15: "So obvious that pretty much every single inteligence organization in the world thought it WAS true that the Iraqi regime had WMDs."

char: "Not in February of 2003, they didn't. Don't you guys get sick of peddling this lie?"


Don't you get sick of asking if 'you guys get sick of peddling this lie'? Which intelligence organizations, specifically, denied that Iraq had WMDs?

Quote:
iowan15: "What should have been done about Hussein?"

char: "What we were doing before your boy George was hypnotized by the neocons. Contain him and deprive him of the means to threaten anyone outside Iraq."


Contain him militarily?

Quote:
iowan15: "So how many more troop casualties are 'commensurate' with the view you've just expressed?"

char: "None. We should get out as fast as we can consistent with minimizing our losses."


In the meantime, there will be more casualties.

Quote:
char: "The rest of your post was flapdoodle."


Which is shorthand for you saying, "I don't have anything to say in response.'

Quote:
char: "The threadbare prevarications and excuses peddled by Bush and repeated by his dwindling corps of dead-enders have worn thin a long time ago. You guys were just plain wrong about this invasion."


But if we had succeeded, then we would have been just plain right about the invasaion. Yes, I understand your calculus, char. Victory means that the cause was worthy and defeat means the cause wasn't worthy. Got it.

Quote:
char: "It was not necessary; it wasn't even a good idea. You were warned by me and many others that it would worsen our position in the "war on terror" and cost the US in lives and treasure."


Your leadership in Congress can eliminate the cost of both any time it wishes. They won't. Instead, they'll just bark through the fence to the delight of you and Jane Fonda.

Quote:
char: "But you beat the drums and marched off (metaphorically of course; it was never your butts on the line) behind the Dear Leader with an "R" on his chest, because that's what good little Republicans do."


Do you find these sort of childish remarks play well with your neighbors and co-workers? Maybe you need a drink.

Quote:
char: "Well, it didn't work out so well for the country, did it?"


That remains to be seen.

Quote:
char: "(Though it did win you a couple of elections.) And rather than get behind a plan that will prevent more US deaths, you want to back Bush's double-down option because you think there's a tiny chance it might save your egos."


To which 'plan' do you refer, char? The plan for an immediate withdrawal? Hillary's plan to not set a timetable on withdrawal and to also set a timetable of January 2009 upon her inauguration? Or is it Obama's plan, to start withdrawing troops by this May and the withdrawal to be complete by March 2008? Or is it Feingold's plan to defund the whole shebang? Or is it the plan to pass a toothless resolution opposing the surge? Which of those plans will prevent more US deaths and how?

Quote:
char: "That's not particularly admirable."


Neither is defeat. But you don't seem to mind that.

Quote:
char: "If you're going to respond to this post, Iowan, could you confine yourself to Iraq rather than bringing in World War II and anything else you think is a sufficiently gaudy distraction?"


With respect, I'll respond in any fashion I think appropriate, as is your privilege.

Quote:
char: "I'm not going to follow you down any more rabbit-holes."


OK. That's entirely up to you.

later, bud. iowan15