Well there appears to be some indications that the Surge is working

[Achilles]

And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq.

Red herring. The topic is organized native forces and their ability to resist technologically superior invading armies. You offered the Taliban as an example of that not happening and I showed the it doesn't apply.

 

War is hell and Vietnam would be the pit of it. In this instance there's a lot of blame to share around. The intelligence getting it wrong that there wouldn't be civillians there, Medina for what he may or may not say, and the soldiers themselves. I've heard stories of soldiers in Vietnam who shot and kill a little girl armed with an AK before they turned them and the platoon into hamburger. That however is a very weak arguement when faced with soldiers rounding up civillians and executing them.

Red herring. The topic is similarities between vietnam and iraq, specifically the leadership of ho chi minh and usama bin laden. I entertained your previous red herring by showing that terrorism does happen in the west.

 

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up.

Red herring. The topic is similarities between vietnam and iraq, specifically the leadership of ho chi minh and usama bin laden.

 

I will take a moment to point out that by wishing others to be strung up, you display a willingness to harm others, which by your rules means you yourself should be strung up.

[Nancy Allen``]

What do you want to hear then?

[Achilles]

Whatever you have to say that pertains to the topic.

[Nancy Allen``]

Are these things red herrings and do not apply because they are points of view that conflict with yours?

[Achilles]

They are red herrings because they are being presented as arguments related to the topic when they are not. For instance, introducing genocide when the topic is native forces vs occupying forces. If you would like to present an argument related to native forces vs occupying forces, I would very much like to read it, especially if it opposes mine, because it might afford me the opportunity to learn something new or to look at the topic in a way that I have not before. It also prevents me from being able to point out logical fallacies

[Nancy Allen``]

Alright. The Taliban were driven out from Afghanistan, whatever remnents were not able to drive out the liberating forces. Terrorism happens in the West and it's just as wrong as when the perpetrators are Al Qaeda. Who does what doesn't make it any more or less important, or wrong. We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam. The people directly involved should be strung up, and anyone who enjoys doing that is on mentally the same ground as any Vietnamese butcher you care to mention.

[GarfieldJL]

They are red herrings because they are being presented as arguments related to the topic when they are not. For instance, introducing genocide when the topic is native forces vs occupying forces. If you would like to present an argument related to native forces vs occupying forces, I would very much like to read it, especially if it opposes mine, because it might afford me the opportunity to learn something new or to look at the topic in a way that I have not before. It also prevents me from being able to point out logical fallacies

 

 

In other words her argument has no flaws that you can find so you're trying to act like she's trying to change the subject.

[Totenkopf]

Technically, the whole Vietnam/Iraq strain in this thread is a sidebar. Hence the subject matter is NOT as tightly focused as Achilles would wish. However, I tend to agree with some of his conclusions. Specifically, that given sufficient time and other pressing demands, most "conquerors" fail to permanently subdue indigenous populations

if they don't resort to near genocidal tactics. The American Revolution succeeded in no small part to England being unable or unwilling to use enough force to destroy the rebellion. Ditto for most of the other examples. The Taliban example doesn't work as well b/c what you find is that they basically seem to control the rural areas. Yes, they've officially been removed from power, but not conclusively. However, it's erroneous to conclude that "securing" Afghanistan would have meant that UBL would now be in our hands. As no one really knows where he is at any given time, or at least aren't saying, that's highly speculative.

 

Also, the difference between the domino theory proposition and al queda is that the communists weren't openly threatening to blow things up in America as the militants are today. Seems the communists were a little more rational than the islamicists. Also, he's equally correct in pointing out the flaws in an overreliance on technical intelligence. As sophisticated as modern tech has become, it's still no substitute for a good set of eyes and ears on the ground. And while I agree that we should try to seal the borders, it is a herculean task. Both b/c the length of the borders (1000s of miles--Mex/Can/oceans) and manpower issues. Nevermind the lack of political will.

 

Vietnam was also different from Iraq in one important way. The "indigenous" forces in South Vietnam (yes, a seperate country at that point) were defeated by 1969. Had that not been neglected in the media, it's possible that Vietnam would exist much as Korea does today. Furthermore, even if one wants to contend that the seperation was so artificial as to make no real difference, it still stands that the country wasn't "reunited" untill several years AFTER America w/drew it's ground forces. So, if "saigon" falls again, it will be b/c we tucked tail and ran, much as we did 30+ years ago. But it is funny, either way, in this modern age, that the most powerful armies aren't necessarily prepared to go for the kill. That alone should make us wary of getting involved elsewhere. If you're going to "play", do so for keeps. Anything else is just a waste (of time, $$, people, resources, etc...).

[Achilles]

Alright. The Taliban were driven out from Afghanistan, whatever remnents were not able to drive out the liberating forces.

That might be one way of looking at it. Another might be that the Taliban withdrew so that they could adopt a strategy of guerilla-warfare. This 2nd possible explanation might also help to explain the Taliban resurgence that began in 2006 and why they continue to have popular support in the region (kinda hard if they're all gone afterall).

 

For the sake of argument though, I'll concede your point. I will completely ignore the fact that the conflict is on-going and admit that you've been able to provide one relatively weak example of where an organized, native force was not able to repel a technologically superior military force. I think I provided 4 or 5 examples to support my point. Would you care to provide any more in the defense of your's are we going to leave it there?

 

Terrorism happens in the West and it's just as wrong as when the perpetrators are Al Qaeda.

The first part is all that was necessary. The second point is a different conversation altogether (no one was advocating that terrorism is ever right).

 

Who does what doesn't make it any more or less important, or wrong.

So terrorism is terrorism and you support my point that UBL carrying out terrorism in the name of islam and HCM doing it in the name of political reform does not make it a "key difference" between vietnam and iraq. Done and done.

 

We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam. The people directly involved should be strung up, and anyone who enjoys doing that is on mentally the same ground as any Vietnamese butcher you care to mention.

I'm sure these are all great points, but again, they have nothing to do with the conversation (see post #65)

 

In other words her argument has no flaws that you can find so you're trying to act like she's trying to change the subject.

You mean aside from the fact that they are red herrings. If the topic was genocide (or any of the other irrelevant points that she raised) then her arguments would not be red herrings and I would be incorrect to insinuate that they were so. Perhaps you're confused as to what a red herring is? I can help clarify if you think you might be unclear. Here you go:

 

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

 

In the mean time, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts about post #72.

[Jae Onasi]

Moderating note....The staff prefers to keep things in sight distance of the topic, and this is more a general note since the discussion on going off in a new discussion direction came up here. I don't mind splitting threads off if you all want to bifurcate to another topic in any given thread, just let me or one of the other moderators know, or feel free to start a new thread. Also, since this is a discussion forum rather than a pure debate forum, we're not going to hold everyone to any kind of debate technique standards, though we'd like your discussions to a. address the topic and b. make sense. Achilles, I know you want high standards in debate and I do appreciate your efforts in teaching about different fallacies, and a post or two on that in the 'how to structure your arguments and discussions' sticky would be very helpful since even more people would see it.

 

This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament, so we're not holding people to a debate tournament argument standard. While your posts will be taken more seriously by other readers here if you structure them well, we're happy if there's a healthy discussion going on a given topic.

[ET Warrior]

Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit.

Did you just make this up? Admittedly I'm no expert on orbital mechanics, but Iraq is closer to the equator than a great majority of the United States, which would mean the orbital plane would be closer to the equator, creating a more steady geosynch.

 

So why is it difficult?

[Achilles]

Moderating note....The staff prefers to keep things in sight distance of the topic, and this is more a general note since the discussion on going off in a new discussion direction came up here. I don't mind splitting threads off if you all want to bifurcate to another topic in any given thread, just let me or one of the other moderators know, or feel free to start a new thread. Also, since this is a discussion forum rather than a pure debate forum, we're not going to hold everyone to any kind of debate technique standards, though we'd like your discussions to a. address the topic and b. make sense. Achilles, I know you want high standards in debate and I do appreciate your efforts in teaching about different fallacies, and a post or two on that in the 'how to structure your arguments and discussions' sticky would be very helpful since even more people would see it.

 

This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament, so we're not holding people to a debate tournament argument standard. While your posts will be taken more seriously by other readers here if you structure them well, we're happy if there's a healthy discussion going on a given topic.

Logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with "formal debate strategies". They are what they are. Humans don't only require oxygen on Tuesdays, gravity doesn't stop working when the sun goes down, and logical fallacies are not only applicable to formal debates. If you would like further clarification, please feel free to PM me and I can explain further. Thanks.

 

"This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament...."

This is the main point of that paragraph. If there's anything unclear about that, feel free to PM me and I'll clarify. Thanks. --Jae

[Prime]

And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq.

On the contrary, Canadian and other forces are still very much battling taliban on a day to day basis. Almost dayly we hear about our troops getting killed by bombs and taliban soldiers. There are many stuggles in day to day life for the people there. It may not be on the same level as Iraq, but there are a lot of similar issues.

 

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up.

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam.

I remember seeing an interview with Bin Ladin where the reporter asked why he is targeting American civilians. What struck me is that he said that the American people are responsible, because they voted to put that government in place, and they claim that their government is a representative of the people. Therefore, if the government takes preemptive action or otherwise "invades" their country, it is because the American people will it. If they did not, they would surely vote out that government at the next opportunity.

 

I found that to be a very interesting point of view...

[Achilles]

I remember seeing an interview with Bin Ladin where the reporter asked why he is targeting American civilians. What struck me is that he said that the American people are responsible, because they voted to put that government in place, and they claim that their government is a representative of the people. Therefore, if the government takes preemptive action or otherwise "invades" their country, it is because the American people will it. If they did not, they would surely vote out that government at the next opportunity.

 

I found that to be a very interesting point of view...

I recall some commentator pointing out that we lost all hope of rebuilding short term good will by re-electing Bush. "Hey, he was already in office when 9/11 happened, so...". But by giving him a second term, we showed that we agreed with what he was doing.

[Totenkopf]

It also shows, Prime, that OBL has a poor understanding of how "democracies" work. As to the whole bit from the second commentator, sounds like baseless speculation. More importantly, though, it does seem to reflect that OBL/UBL adheres to the concept of total war (where civilians are deemed legitimate intentional targets).

 

Also...

It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

 

 

I think a rather significant oversight here would be the period of "manifest destiny" in US history. The Sioux, Apache, Commanche, etc.. might take issue w/your conclusion. Not really sure about the aborigine response to western "encroachment" in Australia. There's also the case of the PRC and Tibet or the consolidation of the USSR, which lasted some 70+ years. As I'm not really sure just how large a timeline you're playing with, Achilles, re the "eventual" success of indigenous opposition to foreign powers (also think colonial control of places like SA or India), it's not necessarily inevitable that a foreign power will be defeated by home grown opposition, certainly not in the short term.

[mimartin]

I found that to be a very interesting point of view...

 

But by giving him a second term, we showed that we agreed with what he was doing.

 

Dark humor mode first: We only gave Bush one term the Supreme Court gave him the first term. So why did didn’t bin Ladin go after the Justices instead of the innocent victims within the Twin Towers?

 

Serious:

 

It is a very interesting point of view, but we must remember it is only the rational of a mass murder trying to justify his actions. I’d really like bin Ladin to explain his justification for the bombings in Tazania and Nairobi then. Of the 224 people killed and an estimated 4085 injured in the two bombings only 12 were Americans and 40 native US employees were killed. I wonder what bin Ladin’s justification would be for 72% of the kills being innocent East Africans “they allowed the imperialist swine to build an embassy in their land so they deserve to die.”

 

I recall some commentator pointing out that we lost all hope of rebuilding short term good will by re-electing Bush. "Hey, he was already in office when 9/11 happened, so..."

 

I don’t agree with President Bush’s politics and would never (again) vote for him, however I’m not going to vote for or against anyone based on rebuilding relationships with mass murders. The terrorist plan is scare us into succumbing to their will. They are attempting to force us to forgo our freedoms and values in the name of fear.

[Achilles]

It is a very interesting point of view, but we must remember it is only the rational of a mass murder trying to justify his actions. I’d really like bin Ladin to explain his justification for the bombings in Tazania and Nairobi then. Of the 224 people killed and an estimated 4085 injured in the two bombings only 12 were Americans and 40 native US employees were killed. I wonder what bin Ladin’s justification would be for 72% of the kills being innocent East Africans “they allowed the imperialist swine to build an embassy in their land so they deserve to die.”

bid Laden was counting on drawing muslim support by highlighting U.S. presence in muslim countries. The concern was that not enough people were aware of what was going on, therefore he would use terrorism to a) show that the americans could be hurt and b) show the americans were in their back yard and c) remind supporters that al-qaeda was capable of engaging superpowers.

 

Frontline put together a 7-part series on DVD that details all of this. You can pick up the 2-disc set for a decent price in most places.

 

I don’t agree with President Bush’s politics and would never (again) vote for him, however I’m not going to vote for or against anyone based on rebuilding relationships with mass murders. The terrorist plan is scare us into succumbing to their will. They are attempting to force us to forgo our freedoms and values in the name of fear.

Yep.

[Nancy Allen``]

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

The key diffirence being you wanting to do it, whether it's something you'd enjoy. I'm sure police officers hate the part of the job where they have to tell some poor kid's parents their son or daughter was killed on the roads for example but it's a job that needs to be done.

 

More importantly, though, it does seem to reflect that OBL/UBL adheres to the concept of total war (where civilians are deemed legitimate intentional targets).

 

QFT. You NEVER, EVER target civillians. Collateral damage in war is bad enough but to intentionally target non combatents, no punishment imagineable is worthy of such a heinous act.

 

Not really sure about the aborigine response to western "encroachment" in Australia.

 

Members of the Aboriginal community in Australia are outraged over the European settlement, comparisons to Nazis are not uncommon. Acts such as the 'Stolen Generation' (where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents) and the recent laws that take away benefits from those who do not use it on their children have had them renage on the notion of reconciliation, and while I'm not sure how much of the Aboriginal community is represented by the vocal members the push seems to be that black people and white people cannot live together, that white people are to have nothing to do with their affairs. While at the same time there is a call for compensation and to give the country back to the Aboriginies.

[Prime]

The key diffirence being you wanting to do it, whether it's something you'd enjoy.

It might not necessarily be true that they want to do it for enjoyment. In any event, I still find it somewhat hypocritical to say that anyone seeking to harm others should be killed, tied up and put on public display.

[Nancy Allen``]

Figure of speech. They should, and you can take this as you read it, those who want to harm others are to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Totenkopf]

Members of the Aboriginal community in Australia are outraged over the European settlement, comparisons to Nazis are not uncommon. Acts such as the 'Stolen Generation' (where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents) and the recent laws that take away benefits from those who do not use it on their children have had them renage on the notion of reconciliation, and while I'm not sure how much of the Aboriginal community is represented by the vocal members the push seems to be that black people and white people cannot live together, that white people are to have nothing to do with their affairs. While at the same time there is a call for compensation and to give the country back to the Aboriginies.

 

Oh, I was aware of that much, just wasn't sure as to what degree the aborigines tried to engage in violent resistance to Euro encroachment. Using the US example, the "natives" I mentioned previously fought the "white man" and lost in the end. I think the success of an insurgency movement is in direct relation to the amount of force and willpower the other side is willing to exhibit to achieve its goals.

 

Also, the problem with targeting civilians intentionally is that even that is NOT cut and dried. If you work in the munitions plants (or any other war related industry) that supply your forces, are you not then legitimate targets? Afterall, w/o the requisite supplies, no army can fight a war in the first place.

[mimartin]

bid Laden was counting on drawing muslim support by highlighting U.S. presence in muslim countries. The concern was that not enough people were aware of what was going on, therefore he would use terrorism to a) show that the americans could be hurt and b) show the americans were in their back yard and c) remind supporters that al-qaeda was capable of engaging superpowers.

 

Frontline put together a 7-part series on DVD that details all of this. You can pick up the 2-disc set for a decent price in most places.

 

 

Well it worked at least in the terms you described. I guess it is the thought of killing innocents to prove your point is a little foreign to me, but then again so killing anyone over an idea, faith or a point of view. It does not seem logical to me. I know it has been done throughout history for faith and/or ideas, but does not seem to work and usually back fires in the long term.

 

Thanks I will see if I can find the DVD.

[Achilles]

Well it worked at least in the terms you described.

Indeed. From al-qaeda's perspective, this war is a huge success for them. Sadly, we don't seem to understand that and seems that we're more then ready/willing to continue playing into their hands.

 

I guess it is the thought of killing innocents to prove your point is a little foreign to me, but then again so killing anyone over an idea, faith or a point of view. It does not seem logical to me.

If such action is promoted by your religion it makes perfect sense. Killing your children with rocks because they are disobedient doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you are true to the christian bible. The quran makes it very clear that the lives of non-believers are forfeit.

 

I know it has been done throughout history for faith and/or ideas, but does not seem to work and usually back fires in the long term.

I guess I would have to know what you are referring to specifically. And we would have to operationally define "long-term"

[mimartin]

I am going to go backward on my replies as I want to choice my words carefully as to not get into any kind of religious debate with you. I respect your views and know I will never change your minds. My faith is my own and it will not changed (modified perhaps but not changed) however logical your response.

I guess I would have to know what you are referring to specifically. And we would have to operationally define "long-term"

 

I was speaking more general as to not enter a religious debate. So generally I was speaking to things such as the crusades, inquisitions and even Nazi Germany to some degree. I also for some reason was thinking of Salem at the time I wrote that.

 

I was actually speaking to people killing and torturing in the name of Christianity. Men have used their purposely misinterpretation of holy books to kill in the name of their so called God long before bin Ladin. They do this for power, wealth and to force their ideology down the masses throats.

 

Defining “long-term” today is another matter. In the time before copy machines, computers, telephones and a variety of other technology it was easier for those in power to control information. Add to that the masses being uneducated and illiterate and it could take a century or more for the truth to be assimilated by said masses.

 

Unfortunately in the Middle East (and the U.S. to some degree) lack of education and illiteracy is still an issue. Still with telephones, radio and television the information is availably even to the uneducated and illiterate. So in truth I really don’t know how to define “long term” in today’s day and age. On one hand we have the ability to get the truth to the masses quicker, but on the other you still have uneducated suspicious masses believing that their political, religious and spiritual leaders are acting in their best interest.

 

If such action is promoted by your religion it makes perfect sense. Killing your children with rocks because they are disobedient doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you are true to the christian bible. The quran makes it very clear that the lives of non-believers are forfeit.[/Quote]

 

The Quran also makes it very clear that the Muslim people are to protect the Christians and the Jews. Like the Bible the Quran can be interpreted to say whatever the reader would like it to say. I’m not going to argue the meanings I know what both said to me and that is enough for me.

 

I’m not going to condemn either book for the actions of its reader. To me if a Christian stones his child it is not because the Bible told him to do it. It is because he is either ill or just immoral. At the same time I’m not going to condemn every Muslim or the Quran just because a half dozen flew planes into our buildings. I am going to condemn those responsible and not an entire faith.

 

Faith and spirituality does not promote murder. People promote murder and even if you can interrupt some lines taken out of context into promoting the deaths of unbelievers it is still the person reading responsibility to actually think for him self before acting.

[Achilles]

@mimartin: with respect to your wish to avoid going off-topic (i.e. religious debate), I'll post my response to you via PM in the morning. If you would like to copy/post my message in a thread that you find appropriate, feel free to do so and we'll pick it up there. Take care.