A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I, like David Letterman, think Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouth and a moron, a pompous jackass who ought not be taken seriously. Refusing to answer his questions is like refusing to respond when someone asks you -- non-ironically -- "when did you stop beating your wife?" If the basis for your views is this montage of responses to O'Reilly's questions, then you need say no more. If you think that's good evidence of anything -- which is to say, if you think David Letterman wants the US to fail in Iraq -- then we can agree to disagree.

You are the King of the "fallacy" arguments. Did you ever take a class in philosophy or logic? You can't discount someone's argument just because of "who they are". Who cares what you think of him? Who cares if he was a communist or Nazi? In this case he has done a very simple thing. He, like me, has been told that everyone puts a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. He has just asked all these people a very simple question to test if this is the case. .

Even if one feels he is a jerk, or whatever, they could still just answer, “yes I would like to see the US succeed in Iraq.” If you watch the Letterman clip it is clear he does not put a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. I think David Letterman doesn't think our goals in the Iraq war are that important and sees the troops dying for no reason. I can’t be sure, but he sure didn’t want to come out and say it is important for the US to succeed in Iraq.

This whole discussion started because you were incredulous to the fact that there was a large swath of people, pundits and politicians, who don't think winning in Iraq is that important. There are a lot of people that fall into that category. They just don't see any reason for us to be over there. Or the justification is so minor, that it isn't worth much blood and treasure at all.

So most of the people that are calling for a pullout are not people that think it is important to succeed and think pulling out will improve our changes of success, they are arguing for a pull out because they don't think America can accomplish anything of value over there. They just don’t see there is much value in establishing a stable democracy there.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Remember that prior to the mid 50s, Vietnam was not divided, and the Viet Minh had established a network throughout the entire country while fighting the French. That network did not go away when the country was divided on the 17th parallel and the French left.

The US, despite hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of tons of bombs dropped on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, was never able to prevent the VC from receiving support from the North. And since large areas of the food growing countryside of the South was under the effective control of the VC, they were more than self-sufficient in nearly everything.

My point was that the presence of US troops could maintain the South's control of the cities (mostly -- see Tet) from the VC and could prevent a conventional takeover of the South by the NVA.

Korea is different because there had not been an established nationwide (and allegedly nationalistic) insurgency flourishing before the division of the country. It is not merely the corruption of the government that was SVN's problem. It was that combined with a decades old movement that did have popular support in large parts of the country.

Of course there were many millions of people in SVN opposed to the communists. But that is not enough to stop a takeover. There needs to be a government with at least enough popular support that its armed forces will fight for it. The numerically stronger, supposedly better trained and certainly better equipped ARVN would not and did not. That is the bottom line, and our army was crippled and nearly destroyed trying to make it work.

OK. That seems reasonable.

I think what Haig and Kissinger were saying that after the Christmas bombing the North reduced support of the South to a signficant degree, and during this time the ARVN was able to hold its own. Much to the surprise of the NV, after the treaty the ARVN was able to resist the Vietcong. They were able to do this because of US military aid and the North being hampered by the treaty. The ARVN (and South Vietnamese government's) holding on was not what the NVA counted on, and so they broke the treaty and invaded. If the NVA were not needed to topple the South Vietnamese government, then why did they break the treaty, risk further bombing, and invade?

I think the theory is that f we had started bombing Hanoi again the NVA would have pulled back, and then the ARVN would have only had to deal with the Vietcong insurgents, and that was something they were capable of doing (especially with military aid from the US).

But the new post Watergate Congress was not willing to allow bombing (the implication is that without Congress's approval at this point we couldn't bomb - I am not sure why that was the case - was this because of the new "War Powers Act"?) , and in fact cut of all military aid to South Vietnam to assist the North Vietnamese.

So the argument is that the ARVN and the south Vietnamese government was not defeated by the VC, they were defeated because the North Vietnamese broke the treaty (which we could have stopped through bombing) and because Congress cut off military aid. With bombing and military aid they could have prevailed.

Why is that not accurate?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are the King of the "fallacy" arguments. Did you ever take a class in philosophy or logic? You can't discount someone's argument just because of "who they are". Who cares what you think of him? Who cares if he was a communist or Nazi? In this case he has done a very simple thing. He, like me, has been told that everyone puts a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. He has just asked all these people a very simple question to test if this is the case. .

Even if one feels he is a jerk, or whatever, they could still just answer, “yes I would like to see the US succeed in Iraq.” If you watch the Letterman clip it is clear he does not put a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. I think David Letterman doesn't think our goals in the Iraq war are that important and sees the troops dying for no reason. I can’t be sure, but he sure didn’t want to come out and say it is important for the US to succeed in Iraq.

This whole discussion started because you were incredulous to the fact that there was a large swath of people, pundits and politicians, who don't think winning in Iraq is that important. There are a lot of people that fall into that category. They just don't see any reason for us to be over there. Or the justification is so minor, that it isn't worth much blood and treasure at all.

So most of the people that are calling for a pullout are not people that think it is important to succeed and think pulling out will improve our changes of success, they are arguing for a pull out because they don't think America can accomplish anything of value over there. They just don’t see there is much value in establishing a stable democracy there.

It's true, Ty. When O'Reilly asked people that question, he didn't have the big blue vein pulsing in his forehead like he does when he screams, or nothin'. Or, even if he did, it shouldn't matter. People should answer the fuckin' question.

Whether it's "do you want to see America succeed in Iraq," or its equivalent, "are you now, or have you ever been, an America-hater who wants us to see painful, humiliating failure," the insulting nature of the question has nothing to do with it. Because people refused to answer it? Well, it's just crystal clear. Most people against the war, they just want to see us lose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are the King of the "fallacy" arguments. Did you ever take a class in philosophy or logic? You can't discount someone's argument just because of "who they are". Who cares what you think of him? Who cares if he was a communist or Nazi? In this case he has done a very simple thing. He, like me, has been told that everyone puts a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. He has just asked all these people a very simple question to test if this is the case. .

Even if one feels he is a jerk, or whatever, they could still just answer, “yes I would like to see the US succeed in Iraq.” If you watch the Letterman clip it is clear he does not put a high priority on the US succeeding in Iraq. I think David Letterman doesn't think our goals in the Iraq war are that important and sees the troops dying for no reason. I can’t be sure, but he sure didn’t want to come out and say it is important for the US to succeed in Iraq.

This whole discussion started because you were incredulous to the fact that there was a large swath of people, pundits and politicians, who don't think winning in Iraq is that important. There are a lot of people that fall into that category. They just don't see any reason for us to be over there. Or the justification is so minor, that it isn't worth much blood and treasure at all.

So most of the people that are calling for a pullout are not people that think it is important to succeed and think pulling out will improve our changes of success, they are arguing for a pull out because they don't think America can accomplish anything of value over there. They just don’t see there is much value in establishing a stable democracy there.

On this particular point, we will just have to agree that each of us thinks the other is a moron. Hank has my proxy.

eta:

• Bill O’Reilly: “I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it’s a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it’s absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?”
  
  David Letterman: “Yes, absolutely.”
  
  * * * * *
  
  O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”
  
  Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”
  
  O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”
  
  Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”
  
  O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”
  
  Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

link

Clearly, O'Reilly's show was doing its level best to fairly depict Letterman's views.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On this particular point, we will just have to agree that each of us thinks the other is a moron. Hank has my proxy.

eta:

• Bill O’Reilly: “I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it’s a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it’s absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?”
  
  David Letterman: “Yes, absolutely.”
  
  * * * * *
  
  O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”
  
  Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”
  
  O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”
  
  Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”
  
  O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”
  
  Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

link

Clearly, O'Reilly's show was doing its level best to fairly depict Letterman's views.

I just don't understand why you find it so incredible for me to accuse people of being blinded by their hatred of Bush, and that they are putting partisanship above national interest.

I wrote an article that I submitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that makes this same argument about people that were against Clinton bombing Serbia. Back then the same B.S. was going on.

The only argument I respected from people criticizing the war against Serbia is that we should have backed up the bombing campaign with more troops on the ground.

However, the calls from the left saying "war is always bad" from Jesse Jackson etc. were just stupid and serving dictators and ethnic cleansing. Those same idiots have stayed true to their stupidity in both these confrontations. During the Serbian war the complaints coming from the Republicans were Republicans putting partisanship above the interest of the nation or their hatred of Clinton blinding them to the interests of our nation.

There were reports about how much it was costing us (oh no) and the fact that we lost a stealth fighter and was to large a price to pay. There were the calls we could never win, and we could never bomb Serbia into submission. Every day of the bombing there were calls to stop it, that the bombing was immoral, and that it would never work. There were calls that it was an internal Serbian matter. What about the innocent civilians, US military could get killed, etc., etc., etc.

The ethnic cleansing of Kosovo was outrageous and it was not in our national interest, nor in the interest of the world for it to continue. The Europeans, like with Iraq, completely failed to step up to the plate, so we had to take matters into our own hands.

Clinton was a hundred percent right. It was a huge risk that could have gone really bad and cost him his presidency, but he did the right thing. He got lucky, W didn’t. George Will, a guy I often respect, came out against the bombing. I think he did so mainly because he hated Clinton so much. His thinking was anything Clinton does is bad, so the bombing must be bad. He put his personal hatred of Clinton above the national interest.

All the people that supported the bombing of Serbia should be supporting this war, and all the Republicans that are supporting this war should have supported the war against Serbia. Those that didn't or are not are putting partisan politics before national interest, or their blind hatred of the Commander and Chief is skewing their judgment (like it did with George Will).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just don't understand why you find it so incredible for me to accuse people of being blinded by their hatred of Bush, and that they are putting partisanship above national interest.

Maybe there are a few out there, but you've accused people in a cavalier way, apparently without having anything to back it up. (Oh, yes, sorry -- the O'Reilly clip. Right.)

Later in this post, you mentioned Jesse Jackson. I'm no fan, but Jackson is so far to the left that he probably has been consistent in opposing what he now opposes. (I don't know -- I'm guessing.) Like Noam Chomsky. I don't agree with them, but their opposition is principled, not craven, right?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you ever take a class in philosophy or logic? You can't discount someone's argument just because of "who they are". Who cares what you think of him? Who cares if he was a communist or Nazi?

You better clue in Hank and Bilmore . . .

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is awesome:

• Let’s say you’ve caught a suspect and you’re sure he’s a terrorist, and you’re sure there’s a nuclear bomb somewhere in Manhattan, and you’re sure he knows where it is, and you’re sure this particular terrorist has been trained to resist torture just long enough that you could never get the true location of the bomb out of him in time. But you’re also sure this particular terrorist is a pervert! And he tells you that if you’ll rape your own child in front of him, he’ll tell you exactly where the bomb is and how to disarm it. And you’re sure that he will, because your intelligence is that good in exactly that way.
  
  Wow! Fascinating hypothetical, huh? And it’s only slightly more far-fetched than the more familiar ticking time bomb scenario, in which you must torture the suspect to save all those innocent people. Both versions have to be laid out awfully precisely. In my scenario, I even assume the nuclear terrorist has been trained to resist torture for a time. Improbably, Alan Dershowitz—the torture enthusiast and original time bomb booster—does not.
  
  So how come we hear so much about the torture quandary and nothing about mine? Why, according to Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay in a November 2005 Knight-Ridder report, has Dick Cheney adverted to the Alan Dershowitz version “several times” and mine never? Why does Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) tell the New York Daily News editorial board that various torture techniques “are very rare, but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that,” at least in “those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent,” but never says anything about creating “some lawful authority” for emergency incest?
  
  The answer is simple: State agents don’t have any ambition to rape their own children.
  
  This is a clue to the real misdirection of the ticking bomb scenario. It’s always presented as a “What would you do?” dilemma, but in truth it has nothing to do with you. The proper question is: “What should we allow officials embedded in the security bureaucracy to do with impunity? What shall we let their bosses order without legal repercussion?”

more, from Jim Henley in Reason

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Later in this post, you mentioned Jesse Jackson. I'm no fan, but Jackson is so far to the left that he probably has been consistent in opposing what he now opposes. (I don't know -- I'm guessing.) Like Noam Chomsky. I don't agree with them, but their opposition is principled, not craven, right?

Yes as I said, the people that opposed the Serbian war and the war on Iraq are consistent. They are also people I don't take seriously.

The people I think who are letting partisan or personal political goals above the national interest, or who are letting their hatred of the sitting commander in chief cloud their minds, are the peopel that have taken two different positions on the Serbian War and the War in Iraq.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think without a foreign support, and support from the North, a VC takeover in South Vietnam was inevitable? Do you really thing the VC had captured the hearts and minds of the majority of the South Vietnamese people?

I don't know what the situation was like by 1975, but it is important to remember that there were divisions even on the communist side of the war, including divisions along the same geographic, cultural and sub-ethnic lines that divided North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

For centuries prior to the French colonial period there had been three Kingdoms in Vietnam, I believe. I don't recall precisely, but I think North Vietnam was essentially the territory which had belonged to the Northern Kingdom.

The point of this is that, while the North encouraged and armed the VC as a tool in their battle, they didn't like the VC much, because that was in many respects an indigenous South Vietnamese peasant movement distinct from the communists of North Vietnam.

Thus, the Tet offensive in 1968, which was planned and directed by the North and had the twin benefits to the North Vietnamese communists of: (a) serving as a tremendous propoganda victory for the commies and propoganda defeat for the US; and (b) absolutely devastating the military might of the indigenous VC movement. After all, when all was said and done, the US slaughtered the outmanned VC in suppressing the Tet offensive -- which was a significant victory for the US in conventional military terms.

There is evidence that this was precisely what the North intended.
From that point on, Northern cadres and agents dominated and led the resistance in the South.

So, I think the rebellion in South Vietnam certainly required support from and involvement of the North from at least 1968 on.

I don't know how we could have won, though, as Haig suggests -- unless he was talking about our unquestioned ability to kill a vast majority of the people of North Vietnam. That was theoretically possible, and might have "won the war" for us -- but was not politically realistic. Nor, I think, would it have been the right thing to do.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes as I said, the people that opposed the Serbian war and the war on Iraq are consistent. They are also people I don't take seriously.

Hey, you were the one who brought up Jesse Jackson.

The people I think who are letting partisan or personal political goals above the national interest, or who are letting their hatred of the sitting commander in chief cloud their minds, are the peopel that have taken two different positions on the Serbian War and the War in Iraq.

Because there's nothing about the two situationst that could cause someone to approach them differently? Please.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is awesome:

• Let’s say you’ve caught a suspect and you’re sure he’s a terrorist, and you’re sure there’s a nuclear bomb somewhere in Manhattan, and you’re sure he knows where it is, and you’re sure this particular terrorist has been trained to resist torture just long enough that you could never get the true location of the bomb out of him in time. But you’re also sure this particular terrorist is a pervert! And he tells you that if you’ll rape your own child in front of him, he’ll tell you exactly where the bomb is and how to disarm it. And you’re sure that he will, because your intelligence is that good in exactly that way.
  
  Wow! Fascinating hypothetical, huh? And it’s only slightly more far-fetched than the more familiar ticking time bomb scenario, in which you must torture the suspect to save all those innocent people. Both versions have to be laid out awfully precisely. In my scenario, I even assume the nuclear terrorist has been trained to resist torture for a time. Improbably, Alan Dershowitz—the torture enthusiast and original time bomb booster—does not.
  
  So how come we hear so much about the torture quandary and nothing about mine? Why, according to Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay in a November 2005 Knight-Ridder report, has Dick Cheney adverted to the Alan Dershowitz version “several times” and mine never? Why does Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) tell the New York Daily News editorial board that various torture techniques “are very rare, but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that,” at least in “those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent,” but never says anything about creating “some lawful authority” for emergency incest?
  
  The answer is simple: State agents don’t have any ambition to rape their own children.
  
  This is a clue to the real misdirection of the ticking bomb scenario. It’s always presented as a “What would you do?” dilemma, but in truth it has nothing to do with you. The proper question is: “What should we allow officials embedded in the security bureaucracy to do with impunity? What shall we let their bosses order without legal repercussion?”

more, from Jim Henley in Reason

Brilliant

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Brilliant

it's sophistry, not brillance, but most dimmer people find sophistry brillant. so, carry on.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Because there's nothing about the two situationst that could cause someone to approach them differently? Please.

Well. the Serbians never tried to assassinate our President, no one ever even suspected they had WMDs, they are not sitting in an area that has 70 percent of the worlds known oil reserves, and they had not violated a treaty we had with them. So yes there were some differences but they were involved in ethnic cleansing and so was Saddam, that is all I need to know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well. the Serbians never tried to assassinate our President, no one ever even suspected they had WMDs, they are not sitting in an area that has 70 percent of the worlds known oil reserves, and they had not violated a treaty we had with them. So yes there were some differences but they were involved in ethnic cleansing and so was Saddam, that is all I need to know.

Occupying Serbia and attempting to impose a new, democratic form of government was one of Bill's bolder moves.