Question for Stephanie and other anti-Zionists:

Aaron wrote:You and your sidekick are both wrong. And if you had been reading about this stuff since before I was born, I would think you would know that which begs one question.

That's not the way most Vietnamese viewed the situation at the time.

Was the CSA an independent country? Or was the Civil War really a war between two independent nations?

Had the revolutionary war ended in peace talks and the south been internationally recognized as a separate country, your comparison might make sense.

As the United States of America won independence from England and was recognized as one country and stood that way for ~85 years before the south attempted their secession, it doesn’t.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the role communism played.

Nice try though.

Aaron,

I agree that you are largely correct on this particular issue. However, being asked or invited or even implored by another nation to wage war on or protect it from a neighbor doesn't mean our government should be sending our youth into battle.

We have enough problems of our own.

Aaron wrote:Had the revolutionary war ended in peace talks and the south been internationally recognized as a separate country, your comparison might make sense.

As the United States of America won independence from England and was recognized as one country and stood that way for ~85 years before the south attempted their secession, it doesn’t.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the role communism played.

Nice try though.

And you're not taking the 900 years or so that Vietnam was an independent, and unified, nation, BEFORE France, Japan, and ourselves took such a "healthy" interest in their affairs.

Which came after 1000 years of Chinese rule and was intrupted many times by different countries including France, which made Vietnam a part of French Indochina about the same time we were fighting our own civil war, about 90 years BEFORE Truman sent in advisors.

Yeah, I took that into consideration.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I agree that you are largely correct on this particular issue. However, being asked or invited or even implored by another nation to wage war on or protect it from a neighbor doesn't mean our government should be sending our youth into battle.

We have enough problems of our own.

I agree. But it's not as black and white as Ziggy and his sidekick want to make it out to be.

Face it, Aaron. It was a civil war. The north/south division was primarily an artifact of European colonialism and Japanese imperialism. We had no business perpetuating such a division. In the end, all we accomplished was a longer, larger, and more devastating war that only served to increase the agony of countless Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians for decades.

And the US had interest in the internal conflict in Vietnam in 1950, Truman felt it netted American considerations and that is why he sent in advisors.

Ike agreed as he did not remove the advisors during his 8 years in office and in fact increased the number of troops after France left in 54.

And as Ziggy noted in The Pentagon Papers, Kennedy agreed as he increased American troops and activities during his short term in office..

What the two of you refuse to acknowledge is those considerations. As I said, it's not quite as crystal clear as you and he would like to make it out to be.

They thought it was dominoes...

Aaron wrote:And the US had interest in the internal conflict in Vietnam in 1950, Truman felt it netted American considerations and that is why he sent in advisors.

Ike agreed as he did not remove the advisors during his 8 years in office and in fact increased the number of troops after France left in 54.

And as Ziggy noted in The Pentagon Papers, Kennedy agreed as he increased American troops and activities during his short term in office..

What the two of you refuse to acknowledge is those considerations. As I said, it's not quite as crystal clear as you and he would like to make it out to be.

None of that takes away from the FACT that it was a civil war.

And that doesn't change any of the other facts. Your point changes nothing and it certainly doesn't improve your understanding.

Exactly WHAT don't I understand? (Other than how/why these damned Argentinean ants have invaded my office, AGAIN!)

The communist effect on America's decision making.

You mean the way rabid anti-communism screws up reasoning? Oh, I think I understand that.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Your quoting a medical journal that doesn't give a clear explaination as to why it's estimates are 10 times the governments.

That may work for you.

It doesn't for me.

And "the government" does not give a clear explanation of why its estimates are only one tenth of that of a medical journal.

That may work for you. But it doesn't for me.

The government bases thier data on ACTUAL deaths.

You have more faith in the government than I do.

I have more faith in the government the I do you.

OK. But just yesterday my nephew, with the Navy aboard the USS Cape St. George, wrote:

ET2(SW) (name deleted) (USS CAPE ST GEORGE CG-71) wrote:
being a military man has taught me to trust nothing from government
sources

And this morning his father, retired from the U.S. Army and National Guard, replied:

I can verify that after 33 years in service.

So apparently you have more faith in government than they do, too- and they are career in government.

What do you know that they don't?

ziggy wrote:
OK. But just yesterday my nephew, with the Navy aboard the USS Cape St. George, wrote:

ET2(SW) (name deleted) (USS CAPE ST GEORGE CG-71) wrote:
being a military man has taught me to trust nothing from government
sources

And this morning his father, retired from the U.S. Army and National Guard, replied:

I can verify that after 33 years in service.

So apparently you have more faith in government than they do, too- and they are career in government.

What do you know that they don't?

So you say that’s what they said but given you have no credibility and no one can believe anything you say, we really don't know that's what they said.

Hell, we don't even know if your really have a nephew that is in the Navy with a retired soldier father.

Just so you don't think I'm dodging your question, the answer, besides of course the simple fact that you're a habitual (be nice Aaron) deceiver, is that you're not as smart as you think you are.

Or do they know that as well?

They know me better than you do.

Either way, it's not my fault that your opinion that government information has high credibility is disputed- and including among career military personnel.

It's not that I wouldn't believe career military individuals.

What I question is that they would associate with a habitual distortor of the truth like yourself, what with your political leanings and all.

But as the old saying goes, you can't choose your family so who knows.

At any rate, ask them if they trust their superior officers?

Try as you might to change the focus, again, the discussion was not about anyone's "superior officers". It was about whether the government "information" you cited about war related deaths in Iraq is more or less credible than that cited by a medical journal. But so far all the evidence you have shown about that is your mere opinion that government- which you usually hold in such low esteem- is somehow telling the truth about Iraq war casualties.

And you haven't come close to proving the medical journals estimate isn't overblown and more accurate then what is reported by the government.

Your source list over a million. The web site, Iraq body count is closer in line with what the government puts out and is a little more credible.

Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.

Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents. (more in About IBC)

Yeah, I'd say I've proven your source is, like you, less then credible.

Now you are throwing a 3rd source into it- but without even yet posting a link to your "government" source. Does such a government source even exist?

It's on page 2 or 3 and was actually linked from one of your post I believe and we both agreed it was about 10% of yours.

This third soucre, titled IRAQ BODY COUNT, verifies numbers we agreed the government put out.

I didn't agree with anything like that- because I did not see anything like that. I just took your word for it. Are you saying that I shouldn't have?