WHY IRAQ IS BECOMING VIETNAM

Liberals have long dreamed of turning our occupation of Iraq into another Vietnam, a scar on the face of America that they could revel in. I believe in many ways, they are succeeding.

Their latest victory is their success in turning incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison into an indictment of American foreign policy and the President. Our Defense Secretary was dragged before a motley group of Senatorial inquisitors, many of whom don’t have the moral standing to tie his shoe, much less interrogate him.

The “scandal” is the Mai Lai massacre to this generation of liberals, and it reaches them like manna from heaven. They are hoping it is the turning point that allows them to toss dirt onto our Iraqi operation. It follows close on the heels of the Fallujah debacle, where America flinched instead of laying down the boot on crazy cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of fanatical thugs.

America essentially let human scum get away with murdering our countrymen and desecrating their bodies on worldwide TV. Everyone knew the appropriate response would be to cordon off the city, allow the innocent to escape, and liquidate the terrorists. But we didn’t have the will to follow through, fearing the world would view too many civilian casualties on TV.

The failure cannot be blamed on liberals. After all, they’re not failing—they’re succeeding. It is the decent people of America who are suffering the failure of will. Our president is guilty of the same.

President George W. Bush has proven himself to be a very capable war president, but an uneven president in non-war matters. The reason is that he correctly perceived a need in war to do whatever it took to prevail. But once the hot war was finished in Iraq, he began to filter his decisions through the prism of political consideration. That is a recipe for failure.

When will we learn, I wonder. Vietnam was a humiliating defeat. Not because it was an immoral war, as liberals like to say, but because we failed to let the troops win due to political considerations. Iraq is no different. The Marines could have subdued Fallujah in days, if not hours, if they were given a free hand.

What has all of this political consideration gotten for Mr. Bush and for America? We are so worried about the “Arab street” and what they will think about everything. To hell with the Arab street! The Arab street are the same people who cheered on 9-11.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that America is a decent nation, and that terrorists are evil. When wrongdoing is found on our side, it is an anomaly. With terrorists it is their modus operandi. Yet CNN and their ilk continue to produce pieces spotlighting America’s errors in war, and not the daily routine of our bloodthirsty enemies.

President Bush had it right when he long ago called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil.” We would have done well to quickly move as needed against these enemies. But indecision, weakness, and lack of preparation have caused the Iraq campaign to languish. Its overall slowness is killing whatever support and goodwill the administration may have had for future campaigns.

On September 11th, 2001, fanatical terrorists made clear that they had declared war on us. This would be a war of annihilation—either theirs or ours—there was no third solution.

Currently we have the world’s terrorists right where we want them—coming to us in Iraq. Would we prefer they come back to New York City. Or perhaps Los Angeles, or Chicago?

Are we naïve enough to think that if we walk away from Iraq, we won’t be followed home? That the world’s terrorists won’t correctly gather that we are running away with our tail between our legs? Look what happened when we left Vietnam—mass graves and lost prestige.

Lack of will was our true enemy in Vietnam. We must exorcize this demon, or we will be condemned to repeat history.

Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”

For more information, please visit www.bondinfo.org, call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or write to patrick@bondinfo.org.

Actually, I'll admit I'm getting a bit weary of the argument, it's true, thought it's still interesting to me. I know the thread is pretty much dead, but I'm still fine to continue to use it to debate this, since it seems to have evolved into something else entirely. Believe it or not, I have considered what you've said and considered more deeply the beliefs I hold; I'm not dismissing you by any means (sorry I'm not addressing the argument about taxation and income; I'm trying to keep things down to a (semi) sane length..).

I'm not squeamish; most of the time, I relish my assumptions being challenged, and appreciate your doing so. My apologies for not responding earlier; I was at a conference the last couple of days.

Yes and it begs the question, "is it moral and/or ethical to boycott foreign made products and eliminate the only jobs available to many people in those under developed countries?"

I feel this is a disingenuous question. A better question to me is, "Is it moral and/or ethical for companies to take advantage of a lack of labor laws and dollar-a-day salaries in third world countries?" Workers are often intimidated and brutalized in the corporate-sponsored factories in underdeveloped countries, and the corporations are often complicit in the abuse. Is that ethical?

I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference.

Genetic complexity doesn't count? Life processes of growth don't count? Is a human with an artificial heart not a person? Is a human whose cognitive brain functions have ceased due to disease or accident no longer a person?

No, genetic complexity doesn't count, or rather it is not the only thing that counts. A chimpanzee is comparably complex genetically to a human, yet its life is valued less than a human's (justifiably or not, is another topic). Obviously, you can come up with examples where a human's cognitive functions are profoundly impaired or a heart has been replaced with a machine. That artificial heart still beats; those lungs still draw oxygen, a human being with a machine heart is still exponentially more a person than an three-week-old embryo. That heart still beats in the chest of a cellularly and historically complex person. My point remains: a single-celled organism with the potential to become a human being is not yet a human being.

I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.

Ah, ignorance is bliss? As long as we remain uninformed of millions of Rwandans being massacred and have formed no emotional attachments to them then they effectively don't exist as 'persons.' Is that it? That's the logic.

I feel this sidesteps the point. The emotional impact of an embryo's vs. a fetus' death is highly relevant, and the 'if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody care' argument doesn't address the essential thrust. If a) a zygote dies, and the mother was aware of this, or b) she births a stillborn baby who died at eight months, a child with fingers and eyes and a brain (and yes, a fingerless, eyeless person is still human), and she is aware of this, which loss is felt more keenly? For most people, the grief would be qualitatively (and no doubt quantitatively) different. This is not an argument based on emotional reasoning, in the sense that I am allowing my own emotion to override logic. It is an argument based on observation of emotion. I am arguing that we grieve when persons die; most of us do not grieve when pre- or potential persons die.

No, I'm not getting tired of you. Though no doubt some are tiring of me! Most of the time when people make the arguments you're making to me, they do it by literally or figuratively jabbing their fingers in my chest. So I appreciate the intelligence of your writing and thought.

Good background, I did some work with the RAF and USAF on photo interpretation it was interesting work.

To the Vietnamese the Vietnam was was just a continuation of a war that had been going on for thousands of years, first the Chinese, then the French and so on.

Yes you could bomb them into a submission, not the submission just a submission.

They would retrench pull back and start all over again, and again, and again.

The attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people was never carried out in a whole hearted manner, more a case of paying lip service to the idea. One major problem was you did not have a proper joined up strategy or objective, too may agencies, political, military, intelligence, and rife corruption throughout the South Vietnamese, most more interested in lining there pockets.

If the system is rotten at the core and can it hope to survive and win.

Over whelming force can win you a tactical victory but not a strategic one not in a Counter Insurgency Scenario.The life blood of the insurgents are its new recruits.

PS I hated looking at photos of Marshalling yards counting lines, tracks and trains.

Tony

"Is it moral and/or ethical for companies to take advantage of a lack of labor laws and dollar-a-day salaries in third world countries?" Workers are often intimidated and brutalized in the corporate-sponsored factories in underdeveloped countries, and the corporations are often complicit in the abuse. Is that ethical?

I feel that that is a disingenuous question.

A chimpanzee is comparably complex genetically to a human ...

But not quite.

... yet its life is valued less than a human's (justifiably or not, is another topic).

I guess you would have to specify who values a chimpanzee life less than a human's. According to PETA cats are more valuable than humans. To the Sierra Club Spotted Owls are more important. It's not another topic really. How much one values human life is the question. If a chimp is not as important as a human then is there a difference between a chimp zygote and a human zygote?

(An interesting note: I just learned that the Spotted Owls are being decimated by Barred Owls, nearly wiped out in fact, in spite of eliminating logging on their turf, putting hundreds of people out of work, ruining businesses, killing towns and driving the price of wood products up for all.)

That artificial heart still beats; those lungs still draw oxygen, ... That heart still beats in the chest of a cellularly and historically complex person. My point remains: a single-celled organism with the potential to become a human being is not yet a human being.

I got your point. It was based on whether there was a heart or a brain. An artificial heart is hardly different than a small block fuel pump; metal and plastic that pushes fluids.

... a human being with a machine heart is still exponentially more a person than an three-week-old embryo.

In what way? The 3 wk old embryo will grow a human heart; right down to the unique DNA codes of that once in an eternity being in every cell of that heart. The guy with the transplant will never grow one again. Every material complexity of the fully developed adult is resident in the fertilized ovum the moment those two half DNA strands combine. And not before. You gave the parameters.

That heart still beats in the chest of a cellularly and historically complex person.

No cell in the body of a new born infant or an adult could possibly be as complex as that first cell which carries not only the instructions for the completed physical body and every cell it will ever generate but the capacity to carry them out without assistance other than nourishment. As far as history goes the coming together of two halves of seperate DNA strands links the histories of two bloodlines that go back for more centuries than anyone can count.

I feel this sidesteps the point. The emotional impact of an embryo's vs. a fetus' death is highly relevant, ...

Relevant to what? The question at hand was; "what makes a being human?"; or perhaps it was "what makes a human being worthy of its right to live?"

If a) a zygote dies, and the mother was aware of this, or b) she births a stillborn baby who died at eight months, ... and she is aware of this, which loss is felt more keenly? For most people, the grief would be qualitatively (and no doubt quantitatively) different.

I'm sure it would but what is your point?

This is not an argument based on emotional reasoning, in the sense that I am allowing my own emotion to override logic.

That's true it is an argument devoid of reason and logic and ruled by emotion by the very basis you lay it on. All you have said is 'awareness of the loss provokes emotion; the longer the awareness the greater the emotion.'

The emotional impact of an embryo's vs. a fetus' death is highly relevant, and the 'if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody care' argument doesn't address the essential thrust.

But you have made it the essential thrust of your argument. That was your reasoning whether you see it or not. I am simply responding to that.

I am arguing that we grieve when persons die; most of us do not grieve when pre- or potential persons die.

Firstly you have again asserted the "emotions are determinative" position here, secondly you are resting the validity of that position on the basis of a consensus of opinion rather than a critical analysis of the actual value of the object in question (the baby, human zygote, human embryo, whatever) and thirdly you have taken it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide that the object in question is valueless by classifying it with a negative qualifier "pre- or potential persons" thereby imputing valuelessness to the object rather than leading to that conclusion through reason and logic.

I would call that disingenuous. That is completely outside the realm of ethical debate. If you want to stand on the ground that a zygote or an embryo is not human and not a person (whatever the difference in those two is) then you should be honest enough to stick to terms that indicate your stance rather than using a vague non-term that defines nothing whatsoever. A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. There is no gray area about that. You or I may be unsure of what a thing is but our ignorance does not change what it actually is.

You don't like labels to define particular political/ideological views because someone might assign more value to one or the other or because it creates what to you seems to be an artificial division between fellow human beings that makes you uncomfortable but you have no problem using labels to differentiate between beings who are at different stages of development in order to assign a value scale to them. A scale that you are perfectly comfortable using to weigh life and death decisions. Imagine the percentage of persons who would be emotionally upset at that!

I feel that that is a disingenuous question.

Why?

Many members of PETA may value cats' lives as much or more than human lives. I do not. Many decent people with sincere beliefs feel that the life of each living thing is equally valuable. But even they have to draw distinctions: do they rate a gnat's life as equivalent to a human's? If not, why not and what are the criteria that make one more valuable than the other? To me, there are valid criteria that make a person's life more valuable than a chimp's. The most important is that a person has the power of self-awareness, of consciousness; it is a reflexive and moral creature. A zygote is not, nor is it capable of surviving outside the womb; it has few features of 'personhood.'

The question at hand was; "what makes a being human?"; or perhaps it was "what makes a human being worthy of its right to live?"

Is it me who is confused about terminology? I did not disagree that a human zygote is human; of course it is -- I disagree that it is a person. It is a potential person. There is no vagueness in my terminology, though there is admitted difficulty in asserting just when 'personhood' begins. I would be happy to argue that point with you as well.

The 'value' of a fetus' life increases as it reaches a state of viability. The value of its life is relative, not absolute. We are also making moral judgments here, not just logical ones. If a fetus endangers the mother's life, and the only choices that exist are to: a) abort that fetus, which would definitely save the mother or b) allow the pregnancy to continue, which will probably kill the mother, what is the 'just' choice? If the mother wishes to terminate an early-term pregnancy to save her own life, should we oppose her? Why?

Emotions are partially determinative, and they help us to determine the value assigned to a life (of course, this is a general assertion, and it would be easy to come up with exceptions). The attachment one feels toward a child is, for most people, vastly stronger than the attachment they feel toward an embryo which, even if it were aborted within three weeks of conception, would generally provoke nothing stronger than sadness and disappointment in a fertile couple. The loss of a child, those who have experienced that can tell you, is a world-shattering experience, which often takes years or decades to recover from. That is because the sense of attachment toward a child is naturally much greater. Emotion, or more precisely the magnitude of emotional response, is an important factor in deciding the value of human life. How else would we know to value human life except by our emotional response?

you are resting the validity of that position on the basis of a consensus of opinion rather than a critical analysis of the actual value of the object in question (the baby, human zygote, human embryo, whatever)

Value itself is only determined by a consensus (though not necessarily of opinion). We can only place an accurate value on money or life if we can agree to a particular value. What is the 'actual value' of anything, absent of consensus of understanding, or of God? The 'value' of a human life is a moral decision, reached by people. To use an example, if one believes that the death penalty is a just punishment (and you may not, but many do), one is making a judgment and assigning relative, not absolute, value to human life.

thirdly you have taken it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide that the object in question is valueless by classifying it with a negative qualifier "pre- or potential persons" thereby imputing valuelessness to the object rather than leading to that conclusion through reason and logic

I did not decide that anything is 'valueless'; I did assert that the value of an infant's life was higher than an embryo's, and that conclusion was reached using reason and logic.

TE: I feel that that is a disingenuous question.

ggordon22: Why?

The same reason you called my question disingenuous. It bypasses the need to think out a reply to it.

A zygote is not, nor is it capable of surviving outside the womb; it has few features of 'personhood.'

Many tens of thousands of adult humans are incapable of surviving without assistance. Many have lost or never had the capacity of self awareness and many have no conscience (aka moral or ethical boundaries). By your own criteria none of these humans meet the standards to be accorded 'personhood.' Not logically anyway. Perhaps you just 'feel' that they should.

Is it me who is confused about terminology? I did not disagree that a human zygote is human; of course it is -- I disagree that it is a person.

Then it is clear that it is not human life that is sacrosanct to you but personality. That opens the way for eliminating millions of humans adult and fetus alike.

The 'value' of a fetus' life increases as it reaches a state of viability.

In your opinion, not mine.

The value of its life is relative, not absolute.

Relative to your opinion but not to its existence apparently.

We are also making moral judgments here, not just logical ones.

I have yet to see the morality in your judgment that the value of a life can be made on distinctions of what stage of growth it is in. That seems rather arbitrary and (given your current status as a post-fetal human) self serving.

If a fetus endangers the mother's life, and the only choices that exist are to: a) abort that fetus, which would definitely save the mother or b) allow the pregnancy to continue, which will probably kill the mother, what is the 'just' choice? If the mother wishes to terminate an early-term pregnancy to save her own life, should we oppose her? Why?

Since somewhat less than 3% of the 45 million abortions performed in the U.S. since Roe v Wade were done to save the woman's life that argument isn't really relevant to the subject of the morality of abortion in general. And since it was legal in all 50 states, prior to Roe v Wade, to perform abortion where the woman's life was in danger it isn't relevant to the moral application of the law. It is also not relevant to the discussion of who qualifies as a 'person' for the purpose of defending one's inalienable right to life. You have already conceded that you confer 'personhood' on all post-fetal humans and when the choice must be made to save one life over another due to circumstances beyond our control the decision is made by responsible parties to save the one most likely to survive as it is in a complicated pregnancy. That is how a moral and logical decision is arrived at by a doctor or a firefighter, a policeman or what have you. That is a case of doing all you can to save as many lives as you can and accepting that saving all lives is not always possible. Abortion for any other reason than saving the mother's life does not fit that paradyme.

Emotions are partially determinative, and they help us to determine the value assigned to a life (of course, this is a general assertion, and it would be easy to come up with exceptions).

By your own words in previous posts emotions are primary in determining the value of life. Must I repost your statements to that effect again? Emotions have no meaning other than being an indication of the way certain stimuli effect the mind of the person in whom they arise. Emotions are not universal indicators of the reality of the phenomena that triggers them in any way. A given phenomena will trigger widely varied emotional responses in different people. Some people will drive their car off of the road to avoid hitting a ground squirrel. Does that indicate that ground squirrels are more important than the lives of the people in the car? Even if most people reacted like that does that mean that logically ground squirrels are more important?

The attachment one feels toward a child is, ...

...emotional. Lacking in logic. The loss of an 18 year old child would be more deeply felt in most cases than the loss of a 2 yr. old because of the greater attachment due to the longer association. Does that mean 18 yr olds possess more 'personhood' than 2 yr olds? Based on your assertions that would be the logical assumption. You are the one who keeps asserting the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one knows, who cares" logic. Not me.

How else would we know to value human life except by our emotional response?

By cognizant recognition of simple, logical, unemotional facts. If you value your life then life itself must be valuable to all who possess it whether they know it or not. If you recognize that the unique self-cognizance of human beings is something very special then human lives are all very special and deserve protection proportional to that value. If you see that the life of a human begins when a completely unique bonding of DNA pairs occurs and life processes begin you know that this is something so special that it can't be duplicated by any means. If you consider the life of a ten year old child as sacrosanct as the life of the 35 yr old masters degree holding philanthropist (in spite of the fact that the ten year old is only a potentially fully developed man/woman in body, mind, emotions and character) then you quite rationally conclude that all life, once begun, is in its essence as valuable as any other.

I did assert that the value of an infant's life was higher than an embryo's, and that conclusion was reached using reason and logic.

Your reason being that, through longer association, the attachment was greater and your logic being that the stronger emotion of greater attachment is proof of greater inherent value.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.