The world is very dangerous. Vote Republican or die.
What a bunch of bed-wetting crybabies. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for decades, and a good portion of the world was bombed to rubble fifty years ago. The US gets one attack on its soil and its politics is driven for years by this kind of hand-wringing and weepy rhetoric.
For God's sake, grow a spine and show the world the USA that we're used to. The world is no more dangerous now than it was six years ago. Stop whimpering about it already.
I'm not sure how wanting to prevent another 9/11 attack is whimpering.
Wanting to prevent another 9/11 isn't whining. The obsessing about safety and security is major level whimpering. Look at this:
I think the coming election is a referendum on these two things: which party has got the plan that will enable our economy continue -- to continue to grow, and which party has a plan to protect the American people. And Iraq is part of the security of the United States. If we succeed -- and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more secure. If we don't succeed in Iraq, the country is less secure.
The security of this country -- and look, I understand here in Washington, some people say we're not at war. I know that. They're just wrong in my opinion.
The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe haven from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have weapons of mass destruction in order to attack us. These are lethal, cold-blooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people, including questioning detainees, or listening to their phone calls from outside the country to inside the country. And there was -- as you know, there was some recent votes on that issue. And the Democrats voted against giving our professionals the skill -- the tools necessary to protect the American people.
I will repeat, like I've said to you often, I do not question their patriotism; I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this world is.
Pathetic. Can you imagine a leader like Churchill spouting this scared drivel?
No, I mean the America that knows how to take a punch without whimpering about its safety for a decade.
Give me some examples. My history books are full of America taking punches and decking the dude who swung first. EXCEPT when the Dems pulled the rug out in Vietnam.
Well, now we're getting somewhere. An admission.
Which recent fabulous "taking of a punch" are you referring to: Hostage rescue in Iran? Mogadishu? USS Cole? Bugout from Beirut? (Yeah, that was Reagan. That doesn't exempt it from the list.) Bosnia? (oh, wait, that had nothing to do with an attack on US interests, but OTH, we're still there)
I guess it all depends on the definition of "necessary," now doesn't it? Apparently it's "necessary" to allow the President to be able to designate anyone - anyone - an enemy combattant, and toss them in prison forever with no access to counsel or trial. What's gonna be "necessary" next, according to this administration?
"Vote Republican or Die" *is* all they've got. Too bad it's plenty.
It wasn't "an admission", it was my central point. Need glasses or something? Should I type slower?
Dude, I gave you too much credit. You're so slow already that you can't read between your own lines. Let's recap:
I said:
My history books are full of America taking punches and decking the dude who swung first.
and you said:
Yeah, that's the way it used to work. Now we have this sad nonsense.
The tacit admission by you is that America's history shows that if you mess with us, you go down. MY point is that the Democrat Party has no will, strength, inclination, or cajones to follow through. Your point is that we should all let some Canadian software developer instruct us on when "taking a punch" means we should just be shaking it off and when it means we should be allowed to break a chair over the asshat's head.
From my first comment. Up there. Keep going up. Right at the top.
"For God's sake, grow a spine and show the world the USA that we're used to."
If it somehow makes you feel superior or smarter or something to say that my statement that the current cowardice being exhibited is NOT the normal state of the US is "an admission," well, go right ahead, fill your boots.
Your point is that we should all let some Canadian software developer instruct us on when "taking a punch" means we should just be shaking it off and when it means we should be allowed to break a chair over the asshat's head.
Actually, my point is that the whimpering about security is getting pitiful.
Up is down, good is bad. Do nothing and pretend it will go away is a better plan than the one we have now. Move to France or, better yet, boot the Republicans and wait for France to come to you.
Be the one trying to do something about it and get called a crybaby. (That really hurts, btw. NOT)
Shipping overseas, are we? Basic training all done?
Near as I can tell, the only person "doing something about it" and putting his ass on the line is Tim. The rest is just talky-talk.
Look, there's nothing wrong with being concerned about security or about the terrorist menace, damn their black hearts. The problem is all the bogeyman talk coming from some parties, and (God help us) quoting it as if were not a national embarrassment.
Shipping overseas, are we? Basic training all done?
Near as I can tell, the only person "doing something about it" and putting his ass on the line is Tim. The rest is just talky-talk.
SCREW YOU ASSHOLE.
I will not sit here and let you impune the esteem in which I hold Tim, my nephews, my brother, father, father-in-law, and every other American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine that ever took the oath to defend our country.
When are you shipping out? Going to Afghanistan with the Canadian NATO troops any time soon? No? Then you shut the hell up too? Deal?
You wanted to provoke a reaction. Good, you got one. You crossed a line, asshole. And then you have the nerve to pretend to sound reasonable at the end. Your world view is so sick and twisted and you have the balls to tell me I should be embarrassed by my President when you don't even live here. Move over the border, become a citzen, and then you get to have a say. You were probably already planning to vote for Cantwell in Washington anyway since the Dems are going to have a harder time getting out the dead vote this time.
Provoke a reaction? First of all, get over yourself. Secondly, what was Now quit whining and go vote for whatever Republican is on your ballot supposed to be? Reasonable?
Then you shut the hell up too? Deal?
Sure, deal. Just as soon as I puff myself up and tell you all that I'm doing something for the security of my country.
And what happened to the no-swearing rule? That sure flounced out the window in a huff.
Move over the border, become a citzen, and then you get to have a say.
I can only imagine your reaction if I suggested that you couldn't have an opinion about any leader anywhere unless they were a citizen of their country.
Kudos, that's some weighty arrogance you're throwing around. Especially as you're a supporter of an invasion of another country because you had opinions about their leader.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
I'm a professional Soldier. I get paid to do what I do, but I do not begrudge anyone who hasn't served. The only issue I have is when overzealous hawks (right or left) appear to use us as pawns to further their vision of the "American agenda." Wolfowitz wrote a piece a few years ago that rather disturbed me. In it, he said that the United States must be prepared to do everything in its power to ensure that we remain the worlds only superpower. That is sheer lunacy. Granted, our society is the shining light on the hill, however, it is OUR shining light. Change must be brought about from within. All our help and military assistance will never liberate the Iraqi people until they want libery as bad as we desire it for ourselves.
Boy, people on the right sure are touchy, aren't they? Dish it out - yes. Take it - no.
I wondered for a long time why people on the right in this country, seemingly granted their every wish politically, in control of everything, were always so *angry.* Finally I realized it's because they know, deep down, that their world is built on shifting sands, not the bedrock they wildly cling to. So they trot out Osama or wolves or whatever they think will best arouse the hindbrain of their comrades, and await the next outrage committed by the powerless.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Mike V(f) (hopefully on a more civil tone) Just a slight clarification on your statement,
"No, the GOP complains that the Dems think Bush is more of an enemy than al Quaeda.
Correctly."
Few if any of us believe Bush is an "enemy" per se. Not any more than his chums view us.
Indeed I would argue less so because I don't see too much rhetoric from the left demanding we fight conservatism to it's destruction. However I do hear such on every conservative radio program every day (except maybe O'Reilly). Hannity, Ingram, Reagan, and especially Limbaugh, all singled out for strategy meets with POTUS this week, (well, Rush get's his talking points direct from Cheney's private line, and Reagan thinks he's channeling Dad) all call for elimination of liberalism every day.
That said, and more to your point. Bush and Co. may not the enemy Al Queada is, or as violent or dangerous to life and property. However, the Bushies do make much more of an effort to scare us, to make us feel insecure, to (if I may) terrorize us on a daily basis than does UBL and his ilk. No doubt, UBL wishes he could hold scary press conferences and take over all our airwaves on a whim, but he can't. Bush does.
Both the GOP and AQ use terror for political purposes. The latter group occasionally blows people up in a cowardly act of barbarism. The former reminds us of the latter's depravity every day, three times on the Sunday talking head shows.
Bush and friends aren't terorists in any shape of the term. Terrorists are the enemy. The GOP just finds is politically expedient to use the fear of that enemy not to rouse a national effort to eliminate it -- but to rouse a national fear to utilize it in order to remain in charge.
It's transparent, crass, and beneath the dignity and heroism that lies just under the surface of all American.
MTR meant to be insulting to democrats, many of whom wear the uniform as a matter of choice and honor. All Americans should be insulted by his juvenile tirade, his mocking denigration of the half of US citizens who no longer support George Bush.
I'm still trying to get a grip on how the Dems lost Vietnam. What is this idiot, twelve?
For the record, 'nam started the day I was born, Nov. 18, 1961. President? JFK (D-Massachusetts)
Johnson (D-Texas) escalated into a full blown quagmire and didn't bother running for reelection in '68.
Nixon (R-California) proclaimed he had a secret plan to end the war, won the White House on that promise, was reelected on a promise of peace with honor and he took us out -- after ten fucking years and 50,000 dead GI's, even more wounded, -- ten fucking years -- and a guy with an "R" after his name ordered the helicopters in to rescue the last embassy employees in Saigon.
MTR, you called us cowards for no longer supporting Bush the way all of us did on 9/12/01, for no longer dancing to his rhetoric left unchanged since that day, for no longer trusting him to keep us safe -- when his policies have resulted in achieving the opposite result.
Let me tell you something MTR, you spineless twit, you little, little man who runs away when you read a naughty word, you insignificant worm unfit to spit-shine the boots of your nephews, brother, father or father-in-law; how dare you suggest that bravery is the exclusive domain of Republicans or that the USA is transformed into a school boy preparing for a spanking if our leaders are not from your political party.
You mean the America that pulls down its pants and grabs its ankles whenever it elects Democrats for President and Democrat majorities in Congress.
Notice that wasn't a question.
If you can manage to get your chickenhawk head out of your ass for a minute, and look out from the rock you hide under whenever the color-code changes, you'll discover that the only member of Bush's inner circle who served was Bush (TANG), Gonzales (AF), Rumsfeld (Navy Airman). The only cabinet member with actual combat experience is head of Vet Affairs. The rest are chickenhawks now that Powell is gone.
You'll further notice there are five sitting Democrat and four Republican Senators in Congress with combat ribbons. There's a total of 30 current Senators who served, 12 of whom have a D after their name, and one independent.
You just called twelve servicemen cowards. You just said five decorated vets were cowards.
You just called the 38 democratic vets in the house cowards.
You should be ashamed. I hope too ashamed to ever post anything again.
As usual, full of nothing that makes sense and much that is not related. I'll just touch on this
Nixon (R-California) proclaimed he had a secret plan to end the war, won the White House on that promise, was reelected on a promise of peace with honor and he took us out -- after ten fucking years and 50,000 dead GI's, even more wounded, -- ten fucking years
Wow, Nixon was president for ten years before he pulled the troops from Vietnam? Ummmm, you realize he didn't even make 8 years as president? Or are you trying to say that 10 years of the Vietnman war was Nixon's fault for some reason? Or are you trying to say that we were in Vietnam for ten years total? You better check your math whichever way you meant that.
It took him 4 years to extract us from the mess the Democrats made of the war. And then the Dems abandoned our allies and that was that.
Hindsight isn't 20/20.
Oh, and MTR, I wouldn't let the chickenhawk slur get you angry, it's really just about all they have. All you do is pat them on the head and tell them to run along and play while the adults talk.
You said this
And then you have the nerve to pretend to sound reasonable at the end. That's why I usually just make fun of ++. He's not really here to say anything, he just likes to spew smug, superior BS about how much better Canada is than the US and also to try to get reactions. It's funny as long as you realize he's just not a serious person.
My understanding is that Vietnam was lost because congress cut off funding for the war. South Vietnam had no backers while North Vietnam had the Soviets and the Chinese supporting them.
North Vietnam simply invaded and overran South Vietnam.
Had we continued to support South Vietnam, we might still have a North and South Vietnam as we have a North and South Korea.
Boy, people on the right sure are touchy, aren't they? Dish it out - yes. Take it - no.
I'm not dishing it out. I'm on the right. My parents aren't dishing it out. They are on the left.
I thought stereotyping was supposed to be wrong. That word is too big for kindergarten. I think we learned about it in fifth grade, but it might have been the eighth.
You and everyone in this thread except Ted and John Irving, and yes that includes Stu, are badly over-generalizing and spouting ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole.
Dad says: Everybody but Ted and John go and wash your keyboards out with soap!
Good for you Ted! You are consistently the best commenter here. Good for you, John! Your conscientious objection to this discussion shows true character!
As for the rest of you riff-raff, I think your arguments would be greatly improved if they were all based around dialog and lyrics from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
I was referring to MtR. But I see the same sort of thing all the time, all over the web. Conservatives control pretty much everything, but they can't stop themselves from getting whipped up into a froth whenever they feel the slightest bit challenged, no matter how powerless and insignificant the challenger. I'm fucking sick of it, frankly.
I happen to think that MtR's original post was ridiculous, insulting and disgusting. As Mark pointed out, those of us on the left have to listen to eliminationist rhetoric every single day. Forgive us for starting to fight back, even if it's too little, too late.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Mike V(f):
Don't be more deliberately obtuse than necessary. My point was not to assign blame for "losing" Vietnam. The battle-lines on that argument are as entrenched as the abortion debate.
My point was that it's ridiculous to blame Democrats as solely responsible any more than it is to make the GOP hoist the entire burden. There's plenty of blame to go around, but MTR blamed only the Democrats in order to "prove" his point that we are all cowards.
You cannot reasonable support his position. Don't engage in your own brand of sophistry by arguing the side point of what measure of blame should be assigned to which party, or exactly how many months we were there. If you can argee there is shared responsibility, we are in accord and can move on.
Ted's point is spot on. But that doesn't invalidate my point that a GOP president had a hand in it too -- and promised to get out from the get go. Besides, when did Congress de-funding a military action stop a president from continuing the fight? (See eg., North, Oliver; and Contra, Iran. under the topic "Scandal")
This comment also badly over-generalizes and spouts ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole.
I invite you to consider flame wars. They often contain two left wing or two right wing people badly over-generalizing and spouting ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole over the relative merits of Apple vs. Microsoft, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python.
I invite you to consider the forum and human nature. It's not a left or right wing thing. It's a human thing. Not a helpful human thing.
Ted,
Exactly.
Mark,
Full disclosure: I most often barely even skim or skip your comments. We've been joking that it's the length. It's not the length.
You and everyone in this thread except Ted and John Irving, and yes that includes Stu, are badly over-generalizing and spouting ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole.
First of all, I know not of this Stu that you speak of.
And secondly, insulting, yes, and purposefully so in this regard. His post was insulting and in my opinion it deserved a kick in the pants.
Besides, while the rest of the world has been keeping quiet about it because the don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, the ongoing obsession about security and safety is getting pretty embarrassing, so I thought I'd mention it. I mean, it's getting so the answer to every political question can be answered by "because of the terrorists."
Otherwise you'll have to kick yourself in the pants. Which is not even remotely anatomically impossible, especially if you aim for the back of your calves.
Justice was not served. No one here has been deterred. And certainly no one has repented.
Deterring and repenting are not my goals, Wince. Reasonable discourse doesn't seem to do that either - it just results in either simple withdrawal from the discussion, childish insults, or some impressive mental gymnastics.
And as far as Michael and this post are concerned, well, read back through some of the earlier posts by him and I think you'll noticed that his nose gets out of joint pretty quickly even if he has to imagine an insult where none was offered. I just decided to save a bit of time on this one.
Lastly, regarding a kick in the pants for my own blog postings - I have a comment section for pant-kicking. The post I made in reference to this thread was definitely a rant, so I probably deserve a kick for that one, and the others are a bit intemperate in tone as well. I have to admit a growing frustration and anger at what's happened to the state of the world in the last six years, but I will try to moderate my tone.
I have to admit a growing frustration and anger at what's happened to the state of the world in the last six years, but I will try to moderate my tone.
Well, I was wrong. Someone repented.
Good for you, ++ungood. I know it's tempting, and, as Mike has pointed out, I clearly succumb to temptation.
Gotta work on that humility and cut it out with that righteous indignation.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Wince, I'm heartbroken. :-P
Mike V.(f) It wasn't my intent to dispute your pedantic point, nor really ignore it.
"after" 10 years means something different than "almost." 10 years. They are both approximations that do not mean exactly 10 years. I chose the more accurate of the three, and could have chosen the word "over" 10 years and the meaning would not have changed. Forgive me if my style choices confuse you.
Regardless, you are the one so intent on a rhetorical victory over me that you have lost sight of the points being made by delving into the minutia. What purpose it serves only you can appreciate to be sure.
Let me ask you, since MTR has thankfully abandoned us, do you believe that leaving Vietnam was solely the fault of Democrats?
My position is that neither party deserves complete blame for "abandoning" Vietnam. Do you disagree with that basic premiss?
If you agree with me, why are you arguing with me? Who do you believe is being more reasonable, MTR who blames leaving on Democrats only, or my objection to that absolutist statement?
"I have to admit a growing frustration and anger at what's happened to the state of the world in the last six years, but I will try to moderate my tone."
Actually, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention. Save the civility for people who deserve it.
Nixon shares a significant portion of the blame, for covering up Watergate. The scandal so hobbled the Republicans that they could not effectively counter the Democrats. Ford shares another portion, by pardoning Nixon. This may have been an absolutely necessary expenditure of Presidential political capital, but it hobbled the Republicans even further. And the Republicans were divided.
Generally, I believe that Nixon's biggest error in Vietnam was that when the North sent tanks south in 1972, and the South beat them, he should have sent tanks north.
I found few American correspondents to be as tough-minded as one Briton I knew who was very close to the action for many years in the employ of an American wire-news service. "I'm ashamed of most of what I wrote in Viet Nam," he told me recently. "But I was a new boy, and I took my lead from the Americans, who were afire with the crusading spirit of '60s journalism—the involvement, man, in the good fight. When I look at what's happened now, I'm ashamed of my ignorance—and what I helped to do to the Vietnamese...."
You go to war with the people, the media, the Congress, the President, and the military you have.
Just an aside. I think the pardon was the right thing and the right time. Jerry Ford is one of the good guys.
Yes, which puts it back on Nixon.
Jerry Pournelle says that Nixon was acting like a war-time President, and that there was two much concern over Watergate. I'd be interested in reading his defense of that thesis, if it has ever been written.
Okay Mark, but which 10 years? Your sentence implied that it took Nixon 10 years while he was Pres for less than 10. Alternatively, it could mean that we were in Vietnam for 10 years.
Which did you mean? C'mon, you can't sit there and not explain your incorrect numbers by saying I'm too stupid to understand.
Oh right, sophistry.
As for this from ++,
Almost makes me regret the script I wrote that filters out Mike's comments from my reader.
I thought about it and decided that just because he is hiding from me is no reason for me to ignore him. I like making fun of him too much.
But I think that line explains quite a bit. ++ hides from stuff that he finds unpleasant or doesn't like, his exact plan for the War on (Some) Terror. Exactly like his plan for Iraq.
Very telling.
If that's for real, and anybody thinks I'm being unfair to say something he can't respond to, cut and paste it if you want. I don't think that I have any obligation to allow him to say stupid and/or ignorant things without replying just because he stuck his head in a hole.
As for this
and co-authorship with Pournelle was mostly crap.
I personally think that they are some of the best books in my sci-fi collection.
Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot are all very good books. Very good.
But then, I also like Pournelle's books too. They're very good if you like military sci-fi. Very good.
Aside from what I thought was Pournelle's malevolent effect on Niven's work, I really started to dislike him for his Chaos Manor column in Byte Magazine. But to each his own.
It's a stop action scene from the second (or fifth, depending on which order you watched them or if you care) Star Wars where Darth Vader fights Luke and chops off his hand. In this scene, Vader gives spoilers to Luke about what's coming.
Darth Vader: "Ewoks will defeat the Empire"
Luke:Luke:"Listen, if you're not going to take this seriously, I'm outta here"
"You go to war with the people, the media, the Congress, the President, and the military you have."
Yeah, if only they’d had the stones to kill say, another million, noncombatants. Then we would have “won”.
You know, I’ve been a little skeptical about the theory that all this neoconservative warmongering is about recapturing the sense of exceptionalism they lost with Vietnam but keep talking, I’m coming around. It was more thirty f*cking years ago - let. it. go.
Yeah, if only they’d had the stones to kill say, another million, noncombatants.
The North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge did have the stones to kill, say, another two and a half million noncombatants after the Americans went home.
Vietnam was a just war, shep. Our enemies in that war were much worse than the British in the Revolutionary War, the British in the War of 1812, Santa Anna in Mexico, the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, and the Germans in World War I. They were even worse than the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, although debatably not for lack of trying on the Serbs part. Nobody slaughtered noncombatants like the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge.
You can't win this one, bud. Too many very inconvenient skeletons in the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge closets.
Plus, you can't even impugn our local allies. In the Good War we had Stalin and Mao on our side, the number one and number two killers in all of world history. Sure, we were fighting number three, and I think Tojo is in the top ten, but then so was Chiang. Our local allies were benign compared to the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge, and positive saints compared to Stalin and Mao.
"Our enemies in that war were much worse than the British in the Revolutionary War, the British in the War of 1812, Santa Anna in Mexico, the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, and the Germans in World War I."
Tragically, so were we. And our enemies crimes can never be used to excuse our own.
"Face it, the left was dead wrong on Vietnam."
Looks to me like everyone was "dead wrong" on Vietnam, it is only "the right" who can't come to terms with it.
Not true. We were at considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants. This falsehood is an insult to the American men and women who fought in Vietnam.
Ooooh, now you've gone and done it Wince. You have actually defended our troops in Vietnam!!!
Don't you understand? They acted in a manner reminiscent of Jenjis Khan!!! Why, I know of someone who personally saw them cut off ears!!!!
It was in all the papers, I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Oh, and Mai Lai.
There, I've thrown down the trump card to which you can't reply. That trump card is even more powerful than the chickenhawk trump card but less powerful than the "absolute moral authority" trump card.
"We were at considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants. This falsehood is an insult to the American men and women who fought in Vietnam."
I’ve got 6.3 million tons of unguided bombs and more than a million dead civilians that say you’re deluding yourself. Let’s be glad that we never got to see what Ghengis Khan would do with a few squadrons of B-52s, not least because of the resulting, rather unflattering, comparisons.
I gotta tell you, lefties look pretty weak and wimpy to me with absolutely no courage of your convictions.
If I really thought we were living under a brutal, repressive administration that's more evil than Jenjis Khan, as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, who lies us into war, is stealing our civil liberties and locks up citizens without recourse and without charges, fixes elections and is planning on martial law in two years, I would already be on the barricades.
If you think that sending other people to bomb women and children from 15,000 feet make you strong, you're just as sick as the jihadists. Though even compared to the jihadists, "with absolutely no courage of your convictions".
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Gotta break that near, and now shattered rare unanimity.
Since we can't control the actions of our enemies, I think it's fallacious to compare the "justness" of a war based on the horribleness of our enemy (or allies).
Our goals, thier obtainability and comparative benefit to our national interests, as well as the means with which we attempt to gain them are by measure of a "just" war.
That approach can explain convenient alliances with Stalin while fighting Hitler, both sociopathic mass murderers.
It allows me to be comfortable in my support of the limited, honest goals and execution of Gulf War I and opposition to the current Iraq War while supporting Afghanistan.
It has nothing to do with the acts of individual combatants, but the leadership. Those lines may get blurred with things like Mai Lai, but ultimately it still is not about Calley, but how his superiors -- especially political leadership -- handled such cases. When there's a perception that political considerations entered into the adminstration of justice in such a case, the appearance of impropiety impunes our ability to handle such incidents honorably. Ultimately, our actions must not only be internally honorable, but seen that way too by those who form opinions later.
Objectively, Saddam was responsible for a lot more death and suffering than UBL and the Taliban, and Saddam's motivation being strictly megalomaniacal powerlust is qualitatively worse than the Afghan leaders obstensively acting on religious conviction. Yet I don't question complete, total war in Afghanistan, but am uncomfortable with Iraq which possessed an arguably more despicable and dangerous adversary.
Clairity of purpose, objective obtainability of realistic goals, and acting consistent with our own moral code regardless of an enemy's lack of honor makes all the difference to me. Our purpose and methodology in Vietnam, the "mission creep," the indescriminate collateral damage from free-fire zones and saturation bombings, the vagueness and changing goals, and the expansion into Laos and Cambodia all combine into an overall feeling that honor was not served and undermines the justification of our involvement in SE Asia.
Of course, the outcome of the conflict also colors the verdict. And Vietnam was far less satisfying than WWII, where there was saturation bombing just like Vietnam -- but our goals remained steadfast and victory unquestioned.
A "just" war is synonymous with honorable -- and we can only control our own actions and definition of honor. Our enemy's honor, or lack thereof figures into the equasion somewhat, but is much less dispositive.
In the Vietnam war democide by American forces was between 10,000 and 213,000 people killed. In Vietnam, "American forces murdered by shell and bomb some 400 to 5,000 Vietnamese, most likely some 800." Most of those deaths were in Cambodia.
We did worse in the Phillipines, where our forces killed 25,000 to 487,000 Filipinos.
I am against Gulf War I as fought. It was a miserable excuse for a war. Our coalition was too large and contained too many dubious allies with dubious preconditions for their support, we didn't take out Saddam and we didn't protect the Shia when they rebelled, which was shameful.
It was a war begging for a follow up, and we got it. It was not as bad as World War I, the worst war we ever fought, with by far teh worst follow up. Some say James Buchanan was our worst President ever. Some pick Franklin Pierce. Some, with altogether too short a historical horizon, pick Dubya, Clinton or Carter. I pick Wilson.
Based on Gulf War I, I'd say that large coalitions are seldom worth the trouble.
I'd rather keep James Baker away from foreign policy.
"The worst democide by American forces was during WWII, when they killed "246,000 to 978,000 non-Americans, most likely 378,000."
In the Vietnam war democide by American forces was between 10,000 and 213,000 people killed. In Vietnam, "American forces murdered by shell and bomb some 400 to 5,000 Vietnamese, most likely some 800." Most of those deaths were in Cambodia."
You have an unsubstantiated assertion based on disputed data.
Oh, and there isn't a damned thing that's disputed or unsubstantiated about 6.3 million tons of bombs dropped on Vietnem and Cambodia, Mr. Millblogger. You can look it up. "[C]onsiderable pains to avoid killing non-combatants," my f*cking ass.
I can drop 6.3 million tons of bombs on the Gobi desert and never kill a soul, shep. And I can drop 6.3 million tons of bombs on a military base and kill only combatants. You are making poor arguments, shep.
I'll acknowledge only your expertise on that matter. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the United States Air Force, Navy and Marines would drop over 6 million tons of bombs to not hit anything.
P.S. Oh, and due to intelligence errors about the actual path of the Ho Chi Mihn trial, we know that a lot of bombs were also dropped on combatant and non-combatant free jungle. Not good for the jungle, but not a war crime, either.
"And I can drop 6.3 million tons of bombs on a military base and kill only combatants."
"I know you can do both things, so you must be skimming and failing to think ahead."
Not at all, I was referring to that statement as well. I thought it was so obviously stupid, it didn't deserve a special takedown. But, if you insist, we couldn't do it now even with precision-guided munitions. Carpet bombing is, shall we say, somewhat less precise.
It seems clear that your considerable investment in all matters military has bought you nothing but a distorted world view.
I'm sorry Wince. But you really seem to be arguing nonsense, just for the sake of it. And you know better than what you are arguing. On these issues, that makes me peevish.
No, I'm not arguing nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable to use a lot of ammunition against, for example, a hardened target. And both the Viet Cong and the North were very, very well dug in.
In World War II, America bombed the civilian population to break the will of both Germany and Japan. In Vietnam, we did not. In Vietnam we tried to destroy military tunnel complexes, the Ho Chi Minh trail and other military targets via aerial bombing. This included plenty of close air support against small and large scale attacks. The North actually sent hugh tank armies south three times - each time the numbers were conmparable to in the largest tank battles in WWII on the Eastern front. We tried really hard to win via aerial bombing. According to the North Vietnamese High Command, we almost succeeded.
And you know better than what you are arguing.
I am absolutely serious in this argument, shep. From my perspective you look clueless. It is extraordinarily difficult to destroy well dug in tunnel and bunker complexes via aerial bombing. It takes incredible amounts of bombs to do it and you will often fail. Why do you think Saddam spent so much money on bunkers?
Why did we do this? We thought if we went North, China would come South, just like Korea, and we believed that bombing would work. We did not want to provoke a nuclear confrontation with either China or Russia. Had we invaded the North, we could have destroyed the dug in complexes the hard way. But we believed invading the North was too risky.
On these issues, that makes me peevish.
I have just as much reason to be peevish as you are. You are unjustifiably accusing our military of war crimes. That normally makes me quite peevish, but for some reason I feel weirdly patient.
BTW, this was similar to the problem Israel just had with Hezbollah. They were unable to destroy the Hezbollah bunkers with aerial bombing (even with precision bombs) and had to send in ground troops.
The reason you are speaking a lot of nonsense (beside the utter ridiculousness of sub-arguments about bombing the Gobi Dessert or precision carpet bombing) is simply because none of it really addresses your primary argument. “It is extraordinarily difficult to destroy well dug in tunnel and bunker complexes via aerial bombing,” is completely unrelated to: "We were at considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants”.
Understand? They are completetly unrelated statements. We either were careful are we were not, regardless of the difficulty of fighting the enemy.
Your vision of military necessity is classic militaristic rationalization. Firebombing or even nuclear annialation of entire civilian populations simply must be done out of this mighty necessity to defeat an enemy. From your religious persuasion, that sort of moral rationalization is a bullet train to hell.
Don’t bother to reply (I won't), just please reflect on why every moral precept you should hold dear, especially the sanctity of innocent life, is irrelevant in the face of your vision of military necessity
We were careful in Vietnam. We did not firebomb civilian populations. We bombed military targets, and we took considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants. We used a lot of bombs to do so, but by taking considerable pains, we were able to avoid killing non-combatants.
What a bunch of bed-wetting crybabies. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for decades, and a good portion of the world was bombed to rubble fifty years ago. The US gets one attack on its soil and its politics is driven for years by this kind of hand-wringing and weepy rhetoric.
For God's sake, grow a spine and show the world the USA that we're used to. The world is no more dangerous now than it was six years ago. Stop whimpering about it already.
We should grow a spine and not fight back? We can show how brave we are by just hoping nobody comes along and kills us?
You mean the America that pulls down its pants and grabs its ankles whenever it elects Democrats for President and Democrat majorities in Congress.
Notice that wasn't a question.
No, I mean the America that knows how to take a punch without whimpering about its safety for a decade.
Wanting to prevent another 9/11 isn't whining. The obsessing about safety and security is major level whimpering. Look at this:Pathetic. Can you imagine a leader like Churchill spouting this scared drivel?
Give me some examples. My history books are full of America taking punches and decking the dude who swung first. EXCEPT when the Dems pulled the rug out in Vietnam.
Yeah, that's the way it used to work. Now we have this sad nonsense. Vote for me so the bogey men won't getcha.
We should stop now. You are reading in what you want to see. We're never going to agree. Your model is working out SO well for France right now.
Well, now we're getting somewhere. An admission.
Which recent fabulous "taking of a punch" are you referring to: Hostage rescue in Iran? Mogadishu? USS Cole? Bugout from Beirut? (Yeah, that was Reagan. That doesn't exempt it from the list.) Bosnia? (oh, wait, that had nothing to do with an attack on US interests, but OTH, we're still there)
"Vote Republican or Die" *is* all they've got. Too bad it's plenty.
It wasn't "an admission", it was my central point. Need glasses or something? Should I type slower?
Dude, I gave you too much credit. You're so slow already that you can't read between your own lines. Let's recap:
I said:
and you said:
The tacit admission by you is that America's history shows that if you mess with us, you go down. MY point is that the Democrat Party has no will, strength, inclination, or cajones to follow through. Your point is that we should all let some Canadian software developer instruct us on when "taking a punch" means we should just be shaking it off and when it means we should be allowed to break a chair over the asshat's head.
"For God's sake, grow a spine and show the world the USA that we're used to."
If it somehow makes you feel superior or smarter or something to say that my statement that the current cowardice being exhibited is NOT the normal state of the US is "an admission," well, go right ahead, fill your boots.
Actually, my point is that the whimpering about security is getting pitiful.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
The Democrats complain about the worst economy in the last 50 years and the Republicans complain that the Democrats will sell us down the river.
Incorrectly.
the Republicans complain that the Democrats will sell us down the river.
No, the GOP complains that the Dems think Bush is more of an enemy than al Quaeda.
Correctly.
Be the one trying to do something about it and get called a crybaby. (That really hurts, btw. NOT)
Shipping overseas, are we? Basic training all done?
Near as I can tell, the only person "doing something about it" and putting his ass on the line is Tim. The rest is just talky-talk.
Look, there's nothing wrong with being concerned about security or about the terrorist menace, damn their black hearts. The problem is all the bogeyman talk coming from some parties, and (God help us) quoting it as if were not a national embarrassment.
SCREW YOU ASSHOLE.
I will not sit here and let you impune the esteem in which I hold Tim, my nephews, my brother, father, father-in-law, and every other American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine that ever took the oath to defend our country.
When are you shipping out? Going to Afghanistan with the Canadian NATO troops any time soon? No? Then you shut the hell up too? Deal?
You wanted to provoke a reaction. Good, you got one. You crossed a line, asshole. And then you have the nerve to pretend to sound reasonable at the end. Your world view is so sick and twisted and you have the balls to tell me I should be embarrassed by my President when you don't even live here. Move over the border, become a citzen, and then you get to have a say. You were probably already planning to vote for Cantwell in Washington anyway since the Dems are going to have a harder time getting out the dead vote this time.
I'm out.
Then you shut the hell up too? Deal?
Sure, deal. Just as soon as I puff myself up and tell you all that I'm doing something for the security of my country.
And what happened to the no-swearing rule? That sure flounced out the window in a huff.
I can only imagine your reaction if I suggested that you couldn't have an opinion about any leader anywhere unless they were a citizen of their country.
Kudos, that's some weighty arrogance you're throwing around. Especially as you're a supporter of an invasion of another country because you had opinions about their leader.
I wondered for a long time why people on the right in this country, seemingly granted their every wish politically, in control of everything, were always so *angry.* Finally I realized it's because they know, deep down, that their world is built on shifting sands, not the bedrock they wildly cling to. So they trot out Osama or wolves or whatever they think will best arouse the hindbrain of their comrades, and await the next outrage committed by the powerless.
Talk about sick and twisted.
Indeed I would argue less so because I don't see too much rhetoric from the left demanding we fight conservatism to it's destruction. However I do hear such on every conservative radio program every day (except maybe O'Reilly). Hannity, Ingram, Reagan, and especially Limbaugh, all singled out for strategy meets with POTUS this week, (well, Rush get's his talking points direct from Cheney's private line, and Reagan thinks he's channeling Dad) all call for elimination of liberalism every day.
That said, and more to your point. Bush and Co. may not the enemy Al Queada is, or as violent or dangerous to life and property. However, the Bushies do make much more of an effort to scare us, to make us feel insecure, to (if I may) terrorize us on a daily basis than does UBL and his ilk. No doubt, UBL wishes he could hold scary press conferences and take over all our airwaves on a whim, but he can't. Bush does.
Both the GOP and AQ use terror for political purposes. The latter group occasionally blows people up in a cowardly act of barbarism. The former reminds us of the latter's depravity every day, three times on the Sunday talking head shows.
Bush and friends aren't terorists in any shape of the term. Terrorists are the enemy. The GOP just finds is politically expedient to use the fear of that enemy not to rouse a national effort to eliminate it -- but to rouse a national fear to utilize it in order to remain in charge.
It's transparent, crass, and beneath the dignity and heroism that lies just under the surface of all American.
MTR meant to be insulting to democrats, many of whom wear the uniform as a matter of choice and honor. All Americans should be insulted by his juvenile tirade, his mocking denigration of the half of US citizens who no longer support George Bush.
I'm still trying to get a grip on how the Dems lost Vietnam. What is this idiot, twelve?
For the record, 'nam started the day I was born, Nov. 18, 1961. President? JFK (D-Massachusetts)
Johnson (D-Texas) escalated into a full blown quagmire and didn't bother running for reelection in '68.
Nixon (R-California) proclaimed he had a secret plan to end the war, won the White House on that promise, was reelected on a promise of peace with honor and he took us out -- after ten fucking years and 50,000 dead GI's, even more wounded, -- ten fucking years -- and a guy with an "R" after his name ordered the helicopters in to rescue the last embassy employees in Saigon.
What planet are you on MTR?
Please Michael, stay "out." Deal? Pussy. Whiny crybaby.
MTR, you called us cowards for no longer supporting Bush the way all of us did on 9/12/01, for no longer dancing to his rhetoric left unchanged since that day, for no longer trusting him to keep us safe -- when his policies have resulted in achieving the opposite result.
Let me tell you something MTR, you spineless twit, you little, little man who runs away when you read a naughty word, you insignificant worm unfit to spit-shine the boots of your nephews, brother, father or father-in-law; how dare you suggest that bravery is the exclusive domain of Republicans or that the USA is transformed into a school boy preparing for a spanking if our leaders are not from your political party.If you can manage to get your chickenhawk head out of your ass for a minute, and look out from the rock you hide under whenever the color-code changes, you'll discover that the only member of Bush's inner circle who served was Bush (TANG), Gonzales (AF), Rumsfeld (Navy Airman). The only cabinet member with actual combat experience is head of Vet Affairs. The rest are chickenhawks now that Powell is gone.
You'll further notice there are five sitting Democrat and four Republican Senators in Congress with combat ribbons. There's a total of 30 current Senators who served, 12 of whom have a D after their name, and one independent.
You just called twelve servicemen cowards. You just said five decorated vets were cowards.
You just called the 38 democratic vets in the house cowards.
You should be ashamed. I hope too ashamed to ever post anything again.
Nixon (R-California) proclaimed he had a secret plan to end the war, won the White House on that promise, was reelected on a promise of peace with honor and he took us out -- after ten fucking years and 50,000 dead GI's, even more wounded, -- ten fucking years
Wow, Nixon was president for ten years before he pulled the troops from Vietnam? Ummmm, you realize he didn't even make 8 years as president? Or are you trying to say that 10 years of the Vietnman war was Nixon's fault for some reason? Or are you trying to say that we were in Vietnam for ten years total? You better check your math whichever way you meant that.
It took him 4 years to extract us from the mess the Democrats made of the war. And then the Dems abandoned our allies and that was that.
Hindsight isn't 20/20.
Oh, and MTR, I wouldn't let the chickenhawk slur get you angry, it's really just about all they have. All you do is pat them on the head and tell them to run along and play while the adults talk.
You said this
And then you have the nerve to pretend to sound reasonable at the end.
That's why I usually just make fun of ++. He's not really here to say anything, he just likes to spew smug, superior BS about how much better Canada is than the US and also to try to get reactions. It's funny as long as you realize he's just not a serious person.
North Vietnam simply invaded and overran South Vietnam.
Had we continued to support South Vietnam, we might still have a North and South Vietnam as we have a North and South Korea.
I'm not dishing it out. I'm on the right. My parents aren't dishing it out. They are on the left.
I thought stereotyping was supposed to be wrong. That word is too big for kindergarten. I think we learned about it in fifth grade, but it might have been the eighth.
You and everyone in this thread except Ted and John Irving, and yes that includes Stu, are badly over-generalizing and spouting ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole.
Dad says: Everybody but Ted and John go and wash your keyboards out with soap!
Good for you Ted! You are consistently the best commenter here. Good for you, John! Your conscientious objection to this discussion shows true character!
As for the rest of you riff-raff, I think your arguments would be greatly improved if they were all based around dialog and lyrics from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Let's do the Time Warp again!
Yours,
Wince
I was referring to MtR. But I see the same sort of thing all the time, all over the web. Conservatives control pretty much everything, but they can't stop themselves from getting whipped up into a froth whenever they feel the slightest bit challenged, no matter how powerless and insignificant the challenger. I'm fucking sick of it, frankly.
I happen to think that MtR's original post was ridiculous, insulting and disgusting. As Mark pointed out, those of us on the left have to listen to eliminationist rhetoric every single day. Forgive us for starting to fight back, even if it's too little, too late.
My experience is, both liberals AND conservatives sometimes abandon logic and resort to name-calling.
Sometimes when I look at the comments I think to myself, "The children are at it again."
Don't be more deliberately obtuse than necessary. My point was not to assign blame for "losing" Vietnam. The battle-lines on that argument are as entrenched as the abortion debate.
My point was that it's ridiculous to blame Democrats as solely responsible any more than it is to make the GOP hoist the entire burden. There's plenty of blame to go around, but MTR blamed only the Democrats in order to "prove" his point that we are all cowards.
You cannot reasonable support his position. Don't engage in your own brand of sophistry by arguing the side point of what measure of blame should be assigned to which party, or exactly how many months we were there. If you can argee there is shared responsibility, we are in accord and can move on.
Ted's point is spot on. But that doesn't invalidate my point that a GOP president had a hand in it too -- and promised to get out from the get go. Besides, when did Congress de-funding a military action stop a president from continuing the fight? (See eg., North, Oliver; and Contra, Iran. under the topic "Scandal")
This comment also badly over-generalizes and spouts ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole.
I invite you to consider flame wars. They often contain two left wing or two right wing people badly over-generalizing and spouting ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting hyperbole over the relative merits of Apple vs. Microsoft, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python.
I invite you to consider the forum and human nature. It's not a left or right wing thing. It's a human thing. Not a helpful human thing.
Ted,
Exactly.
Mark,
Full disclosure: I most often barely even skim or skip your comments. We've been joking that it's the length. It's not the length.
Yours,
Wince
My point was that your 10 years was wrong but I notice that you ignore that.
You ignored my central point. and went off into irrelevancies for what? 200 word?
Look up sophistry some time.
First of all, I know not of this Stu that you speak of.
And secondly, insulting, yes, and purposefully so in this regard. His post was insulting and in my opinion it deserved a kick in the pants.
Besides, while the rest of the world has been keeping quiet about it because the don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, the ongoing obsession about security and safety is getting pretty embarrassing, so I thought I'd mention it. I mean, it's getting so the answer to every political question can be answered by "because of the terrorists."
Ahh, not Judge Dredd, but Judge ++ungood.
So it isn't revenge or deterrence, it's justice.
And so, by upping the ante, you initiate a free fire zone in the comments.
What do flame wars do?
They drive away many rational, normal people.
They cause otherwise rational, normal people to display ridiculous, insulting and often disgusting behavior.
Justice was not served. No one here has been deterred. And certainly no one has repented.
May I suggest that you ask for posting privledges here? Just refer to posts on your site so the time comitment is minimal.
Just not the insulting ones.
Like this post.
Or this post.
Or this post.
Otherwise you'll have to kick yourself in the pants. Which is not even remotely anatomically impossible, especially if you aim for the back of your calves.
Yours,
Wince
Deterring and repenting are not my goals, Wince. Reasonable discourse doesn't seem to do that either - it just results in either simple withdrawal from the discussion, childish insults, or some impressive mental gymnastics.
And as far as Michael and this post are concerned, well, read back through some of the earlier posts by him and I think you'll noticed that his nose gets out of joint pretty quickly even if he has to imagine an insult where none was offered. I just decided to save a bit of time on this one.
Lastly, regarding a kick in the pants for my own blog postings - I have a comment section for pant-kicking. The post I made in reference to this thread was definitely a rant, so I probably deserve a kick for that one, and the others are a bit intemperate in tone as well. I have to admit a growing frustration and anger at what's happened to the state of the world in the last six years, but I will try to moderate my tone.
I'll jump in because this one made me laugh.
Ahh, not Judge Dredd, but Judge ++ungood.
The only judge allowed around here is Judge Wince.
LOL!
Yours,
Wince
Well, I was wrong. Someone repented.
Good for you, ++ungood. I know it's tempting, and, as Mike has pointed out, I clearly succumb to temptation.
Gotta work on that humility and cut it out with that righteous indignation.
Wow. That makes two people who repented.
Yours,
Wince
Almost makes me regret the script I wrote that filters out Mike's comments from my reader.
And for the record, I ain't repentin'.
Mike V.(f) It wasn't my intent to dispute your pedantic point, nor really ignore it.
"after" 10 years means something different than "almost." 10 years. They are both approximations that do not mean exactly 10 years. I chose the more accurate of the three, and could have chosen the word "over" 10 years and the meaning would not have changed. Forgive me if my style choices confuse you.
Regardless, you are the one so intent on a rhetorical victory over me that you have lost sight of the points being made by delving into the minutia. What purpose it serves only you can appreciate to be sure.
Let me ask you, since MTR has thankfully abandoned us, do you believe that leaving Vietnam was solely the fault of Democrats?
My position is that neither party deserves complete blame for "abandoning" Vietnam. Do you disagree with that basic premiss?
If you agree with me, why are you arguing with me? Who do you believe is being more reasonable, MTR who blames leaving on Democrats only, or my objection to that absolutist statement?
Actually, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention. Save the civility for people who deserve it.
That's nobody.
Yours,
Wince
Nixon shares a significant portion of the blame, for covering up Watergate. The scandal so hobbled the Republicans that they could not effectively counter the Democrats. Ford shares another portion, by pardoning Nixon. This may have been an absolutely necessary expenditure of Presidential political capital, but it hobbled the Republicans even further. And the Republicans were divided.
Generally, I believe that Nixon's biggest error in Vietnam was that when the North sent tanks south in 1972, and the South beat them, he should have sent tanks north.
And the media truly shares the blame. You go to war with the people, the media, the Congress, the President, and the military you have.
Yours,
Wince
Just an aside. I think the pardon was the right thing and the right time. Jerry Ford is one of the good guys.
Yes, which puts it back on Nixon.
Jerry Pournelle says that Nixon was acting like a war-time President, and that there was two much concern over Watergate. I'd be interested in reading his defense of that thesis, if it has ever been written.
Yours,
Wince
Jerry turned Niven from an excellent SciFi writer to an annoying and sad poltical hack.
Sorry, just a personal annoyance. Loved the Known Space series, and co-authorship with Pournelle was mostly crap.
Personal bias, sorry.
Which did you mean? C'mon, you can't sit there and not explain your incorrect numbers by saying I'm too stupid to understand.
Oh right, sophistry.
As for this from ++,
Almost makes me regret the script I wrote that filters out Mike's comments from my reader.
I thought about it and decided that just because he is hiding from me is no reason for me to ignore him. I like making fun of him too much.
But I think that line explains quite a bit. ++ hides from stuff that he finds unpleasant or doesn't like, his exact plan for the War on (Some) Terror. Exactly like his plan for Iraq.
Very telling.
If that's for real, and anybody thinks I'm being unfair to say something he can't respond to, cut and paste it if you want. I don't think that I have any obligation to allow him to say stupid and/or ignorant things without replying just because he stuck his head in a hole.
and co-authorship with Pournelle was mostly crap.
I personally think that they are some of the best books in my sci-fi collection.
Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot are all very good books. Very good.
But then, I also like Pournelle's books too. They're very good if you like military sci-fi. Very good.
The Mote In God's Eye -- classic.
Footfall -- hacknied tripe.
The Known Space stuff rivals Azimov's Foundation series, Herbert's Dune series and Heinlein. The Man-Knin Wars was fun too.
But Footfall? Only an elephant loving Republithug would list that as a favorite.
Someone using my handle?
Yours,
Wince
Where did I list them as favorites? I said there were very good and some of the best, but I never said they were my favorites.
I would explain the difference but you're too stupid to understand so I won't.
Reviews of various PC clones are only so interesting.
Yours,
Wince
This is hysterical
It's a stop action scene from the second (or fifth, depending on which order you watched them or if you care) Star Wars where Darth Vader fights Luke and chops off his hand. In this scene, Vader gives spoilers to Luke about what's coming.
Darth Vader: "Ewoks will defeat the Empire"
Luke:Luke:"Listen, if you're not going to take this seriously, I'm outta here"
It's very farging funny.
Yeah, if only they’d had the stones to kill say, another million, noncombatants. Then we would have “won”.
You know, I’ve been a little skeptical about the theory that all this neoconservative warmongering is about recapturing the sense of exceptionalism they lost with Vietnam but keep talking, I’m coming around. It was more thirty f*cking years ago - let. it. go.
The North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge did have the stones to kill, say, another two and a half million noncombatants after the Americans went home.
Vietnam was a just war, shep. Our enemies in that war were much worse than the British in the Revolutionary War, the British in the War of 1812, Santa Anna in Mexico, the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, and the Germans in World War I. They were even worse than the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, although debatably not for lack of trying on the Serbs part. Nobody slaughtered noncombatants like the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge.
You can't win this one, bud. Too many very inconvenient skeletons in the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge closets.
Plus, you can't even impugn our local allies. In the Good War we had Stalin and Mao on our side, the number one and number two killers in all of world history. Sure, we were fighting number three, and I think Tojo is in the top ten, but then so was Chiang. Our local allies were benign compared to the Viet Cong, NVA and Khmer Rouge, and positive saints compared to Stalin and Mao.
Face it, the left was dead wrong on Vietnam.
Yours,
Wince
Tragically, so were we. And our enemies crimes can never be used to excuse our own.
"Face it, the left was dead wrong on Vietnam."
Looks to me like everyone was "dead wrong" on Vietnam, it is only "the right" who can't come to terms with it.
Exactly.
Yours,
Wince
Not true. We were at considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants. This falsehood is an insult to the American men and women who fought in Vietnam.
Yours,
Wince
Don't you understand? They acted in a manner reminiscent of Jenjis Khan!!! Why, I know of someone who personally saw them cut off ears!!!!
It was in all the papers, I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Oh, and Mai Lai.
There, I've thrown down the trump card to which you can't reply. That trump card is even more powerful than the chickenhawk trump card but less powerful than the "absolute moral authority" trump card.
We need a political version of bridge or spades.
Don't forget these cards:
- It's for the children.
- He voted to raise his own salary X times.
- They are tampering with Social Security!
- He voted to raise taxes X times.
- The race card.
And for low ranking cards:
- He partied with Playboy bunnies.
- He wrote steamy novels.
Sure, I'd like those accusations to carry some weight, but they don't.
Yours,
Wince
I’ve got 6.3 million tons of unguided bombs and more than a million dead civilians that say you’re deluding yourself. Let’s be glad that we never got to see what Ghengis Khan would do with a few squadrons of B-52s, not least because of the resulting, rather unflattering, comparisons.
And I thought they were only "reminiscent of Jenjis Khan", now they're even worse? Wow, pretty soon they'll be Hitler.
Oops, too late.
I gotta tell you, lefties look pretty weak and wimpy to me with absolutely no courage of your convictions.
If I really thought we were living under a brutal, repressive administration that's more evil than Jenjis Khan, as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, who lies us into war, is stealing our civil liberties and locks up citizens without recourse and without charges, fixes elections and is planning on martial law in two years, I would already be on the barricades.
Wimps.
If you think that sending other people to bomb women and children from 15,000 feet make you strong, you're just as sick as the jihadists. Though even compared to the jihadists, "with absolutely no courage of your convictions".
Since we can't control the actions of our enemies, I think it's fallacious to compare the "justness" of a war based on the horribleness of our enemy (or allies).
Our goals, thier obtainability and comparative benefit to our national interests, as well as the means with which we attempt to gain them are by measure of a "just" war.
That approach can explain convenient alliances with Stalin while fighting Hitler, both sociopathic mass murderers.
It allows me to be comfortable in my support of the limited, honest goals and execution of Gulf War I and opposition to the current Iraq War while supporting Afghanistan.
It has nothing to do with the acts of individual combatants, but the leadership. Those lines may get blurred with things like Mai Lai, but ultimately it still is not about Calley, but how his superiors -- especially political leadership -- handled such cases. When there's a perception that political considerations entered into the adminstration of justice in such a case, the appearance of impropiety impunes our ability to handle such incidents honorably. Ultimately, our actions must not only be internally honorable, but seen that way too by those who form opinions later.
Objectively, Saddam was responsible for a lot more death and suffering than UBL and the Taliban, and Saddam's motivation being strictly megalomaniacal powerlust is qualitatively worse than the Afghan leaders obstensively acting on religious conviction. Yet I don't question complete, total war in Afghanistan, but am uncomfortable with Iraq which possessed an arguably more despicable and dangerous adversary.
Clairity of purpose, objective obtainability of realistic goals, and acting consistent with our own moral code regardless of an enemy's lack of honor makes all the difference to me. Our purpose and methodology in Vietnam, the "mission creep," the indescriminate collateral damage from free-fire zones and saturation bombings, the vagueness and changing goals, and the expansion into Laos and Cambodia all combine into an overall feeling that honor was not served and undermines the justification of our involvement in SE Asia.
Of course, the outcome of the conflict also colors the verdict. And Vietnam was far less satisfying than WWII, where there was saturation bombing just like Vietnam -- but our goals remained steadfast and victory unquestioned.
A "just" war is synonymous with honorable -- and we can only control our own actions and definition of honor. Our enemy's honor, or lack thereof figures into the equasion somewhat, but is much less dispositive.
No, you don't.
You have an unsubstantiated assertion based on disputed data.
The worst democide by American forces was during WWII, when they killed "246,000 to 978,000 non-Americans, most likely 378,000."
In the Vietnam war democide by American forces was between 10,000 and 213,000 people killed. In Vietnam, "American forces murdered by shell and bomb some 400 to 5,000 Vietnamese, most likely some 800." Most of those deaths were in Cambodia.
We did worse in the Phillipines, where our forces killed 25,000 to 487,000 Filipinos.
Yours,
Wince
I am against Gulf War I as fought. It was a miserable excuse for a war. Our coalition was too large and contained too many dubious allies with dubious preconditions for their support, we didn't take out Saddam and we didn't protect the Shia when they rebelled, which was shameful.
It was a war begging for a follow up, and we got it. It was not as bad as World War I, the worst war we ever fought, with by far teh worst follow up. Some say James Buchanan was our worst President ever. Some pick Franklin Pierce. Some, with altogether too short a historical horizon, pick Dubya, Clinton or Carter. I pick Wilson.
Based on Gulf War I, I'd say that large coalitions are seldom worth the trouble.
I'd rather keep James Baker away from foreign policy.
Yours,
Wince
In the Vietnam war democide by American forces was between 10,000 and 213,000 people killed. In Vietnam, "American forces murdered by shell and bomb some 400 to 5,000 Vietnamese, most likely some 800." Most of those deaths were in Cambodia."
You have an unsubstantiated assertion based on disputed data.
Yours,
Wince
I'll acknowledge only your expertise on that matter. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the United States Air Force, Navy and Marines would drop over 6 million tons of bombs to not hit anything.
I'm sorry, Wince but you sound like a fool.
Reading comprehension and logic, shep. I know you can do both things, so you must be skimming and failing to think ahead.
We know where a lot of those bombs were dropped.
On the Ho Chi Minh trial. Which wasn't particularly precise, but generally didn't kill non-combatants, either.
Yours,
Wince
"I know you can do both things, so you must be skimming and failing to think ahead."
Not at all, I was referring to that statement as well. I thought it was so obviously stupid, it didn't deserve a special takedown. But, if you insist, we couldn't do it now even with precision-guided munitions. Carpet bombing is, shall we say, somewhat less precise.
It seems clear that your considerable investment in all matters military has bought you nothing but a distorted world view.
But the cursing and the insults are a tip off, too.
I think you've given up on the discussion.
That's fine. Don't discuss. Just cuss.
Yours,
Wince
In World War II, America bombed the civilian population to break the will of both Germany and Japan. In Vietnam, we did not. In Vietnam we tried to destroy military tunnel complexes, the Ho Chi Minh trail and other military targets via aerial bombing. This included plenty of close air support against small and large scale attacks. The North actually sent hugh tank armies south three times - each time the numbers were conmparable to in the largest tank battles in WWII on the Eastern front. We tried really hard to win via aerial bombing. According to the North Vietnamese High Command, we almost succeeded.
And you know better than what you are arguing.
I am absolutely serious in this argument, shep. From my perspective you look clueless. It is extraordinarily difficult to destroy well dug in tunnel and bunker complexes via aerial bombing. It takes incredible amounts of bombs to do it and you will often fail. Why do you think Saddam spent so much money on bunkers?
Why did we do this? We thought if we went North, China would come South, just like Korea, and we believed that bombing would work. We did not want to provoke a nuclear confrontation with either China or Russia. Had we invaded the North, we could have destroyed the dug in complexes the hard way. But we believed invading the North was too risky.
On these issues, that makes me peevish.
I have just as much reason to be peevish as you are. You are unjustifiably accusing our military of war crimes. That normally makes me quite peevish, but for some reason I feel weirdly patient.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
The reason you are speaking a lot of nonsense (beside the utter ridiculousness of sub-arguments about bombing the Gobi Dessert or precision carpet bombing) is simply because none of it really addresses your primary argument. “It is extraordinarily difficult to destroy well dug in tunnel and bunker complexes via aerial bombing,” is completely unrelated to: "We were at considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants”.
Understand? They are completetly unrelated statements. We either were careful are we were not, regardless of the difficulty of fighting the enemy.
Your vision of military necessity is classic militaristic rationalization. Firebombing or even nuclear annialation of entire civilian populations simply must be done out of this mighty necessity to defeat an enemy. From your religious persuasion, that sort of moral rationalization is a bullet train to hell.
Don’t bother to reply (I won't), just please reflect on why every moral precept you should hold dear, especially the sanctity of innocent life, is irrelevant in the face of your vision of military necessity
Duh, and so what.
We were careful in Vietnam. We did not firebomb civilian populations. We bombed military targets, and we took considerable pains to avoid killing non-combatants. We used a lot of bombs to do so, but by taking considerable pains, we were able to avoid killing non-combatants.
Yours,
Wince