i2p6 west wrote:

Del wrote:

i2p6 west wrote:

atheist@home wrote:

"Del" wrote:

atheist@home wrote:

I don't know.

No kidding. Try reading something about the subject:

You don't have a clue what I have read on the subject, what I do or do

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Son, you have been handed your ***** royally on a silver platter, and
the fun is that you don't realize it.

As for his BS about Giap being ready to pack it in:

"'How long would you have gone on fighting against the
United States?' I asked. He replied instantly, 'Another
twenty years, maybe a hundred years, as long as it took to
win, regardless of the cost.'" -- Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam
A History. Second Revised ed., New York: Viking Press,
1997. p. 20

Nice.

Then on p.21 Karnow writes:
Giap admitted during our talk that the Communists were bedeviled by
"difficult" periods. "But," he thundered, "we were never pessimistic.
Never! Never!"

Even more telling is what American interrogators said of the captured
Vietnamese, that they were steadfastly defiant against 500,000 foreign
troops in
th eir land. They never showed signs of giving up. (i'm too lazy right
now to find the Karnow page #)

I went and looked it up; that came from Spector, not Karnow.

(from "After Tet",Spector,1993,p90):

A DoD study of almost 1000 Vietnames e POWs in 1968 and 1969 suggested
that despite the heavy casualties of Tet the morale of the Vietnamese
soldier had not been seriously shaken. "The final and most important
factor reinforcing the determination of Communist fighters was the
mixture of xenophobia and patriotic wrath they directed at the American
"invaders" of Vietnam. ...They saw the war as an entirely defensive one
against foreign invaders who, like the French, were attempting to impose
their rule upon them through a puppet regime. ...and the continued
presence of 550,000 American soldiers in South Vietnam continued to
provide the Communist soldier with his strongest incentive to keep
fighting."

atheist@home wrote:

On 8 Sep 2005 17:54:18 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:

Contd

Since Google will not let me respond to this post directly,
due to its length, and since it will allow me to open it
under "show Original" I am pasting that here withOUT
new attributions (">"). My responses will be
circumscribed by:

" ------------------------------------------------------ "

On 6 Sep 2005 19:49:10 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:

ath eist@home wrote:

On 4 Sep 2005 20:17:27 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:

atheist@home wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:40:04 -0400, Eris <vith...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:20:50 GMT, "atheis t@home" <athe...@home.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:53:49 -0400, Eris <vith...@nospamgmail.co m>
wrote:

<snip>

And this silliness says the same thing:

"So when he says "It's silly to assume that unselfish opposition
to the war itself was the single issue with everybody involved
in the prot ests" what he means is that "It's silly to assume that
unselfish opposition to the war itself was an issue at all."

Actually it goes right along with your own damning
words, previous post.

You are still clutching at straws.

------------------------------------------------------
Yes, we already established tha t when _you_ can't offer evidence
for your claims it means that _I_ am clutching at straws.
------------------------------------------------------

You are clutching at straws in your argument.
Splitting hairs, twisting words, assuming certain things that are
totally unconnected to what is being said.
You also accuse me of being a political partisan and then post this
irrelevency telling me what I think about people I haven't so much as
mentioned:

That's why your outrage is selective. That's why it
is ok with you if Bush avoids duty in Nam by
pulling some strings while being a hawk on the
war. That's why neo-con chicken hawks like *****
Armey, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft,
***** Cheney, Jack Kemp, Rush Limbaugh, Phil
Gramm, Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, Kenneth
Starr, and on and on and don't bother you."

And you call me partisan.

But they don't bother you, do they? You still try to excuse
them by citing those bad old democrats:

Are there no Democrats who avoided service or got choice and safe
assignments who support the war with Iraq?

Oh so what the chicken hawks did was ok then.
Good thinkin.'

Are they also "chickenhawks" or is "your outrage selective?"

You don't know what a chicken hawk is? It is
someone who supports war but found a way not
to fight in one himself.

Are there no Democrats who are less than shinning examples of
morality?

You, perhaps? Since you asked, I'll bet you're one of
those Boll weevil, Dixicrat Democrats, liberal when it
comes to handouts for yourself and reactionary when
it comes to pseudo-macho societal icons. I don't
expect you to admit it however.

You also complain loudly about ad hominem attacks

No. Actually you commit the ad hominem fallacy multiple
times and then complain about me bringing it to your
attention most of those times. Oh boo hoo.

and then refer to
those above as "chickenhawks"

That is not ad hominem, dummy. And neither is calling
you a dummy, dummy. "You are stupid therefore you are
wrong" is ad hominem. "You are wrong, therefore you are
stupid," is not.

because you do not agree with them.

I call them chicken hawks because they fit the definition. Duh.
You _are_ always this stupid, aren't you? It doesn't get any better
than this, does it?

(Mr. At Home Atheist would benefit from a search on "critical thinking".)

Then you offer up another ad hominem

That's not ad hominem. Rent a clue, please:

The fallacy of ad hominem argument, sometimes called
the genetic fallacy, consists of an irrelevant attack on the
person argued against, rather than his argument. --Kahane,
Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. New York:
Wadsworth, 1974. p. 25
The Latin term ad hominem means "against the man" and
refers to an attack on the person rather than on the argument
or the issue. --Rottenberg, Annette T. The Structure of
Argument. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press,
1994. p. 225

This fallacy always involves two arguers.

One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument,
and the other then responds by directing his or her
attention not to the first persons argument but to the first
person himself. When this occurs, the second person is
said to commit an argument against the person. --Hurley,
Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Third ed.,
Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1988. p.111

See a unifying theme here, Einstein? Ad hominem fallacy is
when you attack someone, as you do, because he has said
something you don't like. You attack him instead of his
claim with the intent of discounting that claim, based
on your character assassination of him.

The REASON ad hominem is a fallacy is because a claim
is true or false, or an argument is persuasive or not, withOUT
regard to the character of the person who happens to bring
it to your attention. Unless the messenger is expecting you
to accept a claim based on his say-so (which, ironically,
is something you chronically do), then the character of the
messenger is *entirely irrelevant* to the truth or falsity
of the message. It doesn't matter if the accusation is true or false.

You can understand that, can't you? It would be like a fundy using
your ethical shortcomings to claim a god exists. You see,
your lack of morals has no impact on the existence or
non existence of a god.

"Mr. At Home Atheist likes to speculate venal motives for all
those he disagrees with."

Ad hominem seems to be a favored tactic with you.
And I said:

"True but they were admitedly pleased that wa r protestors in America
were harassing the government as well."

And you came back with:

"So what? Ho Chi Min, who had worked closely with the
OSS during the war, rescuing downed American pilots, was
snubbed by Truman when he said he wanted inde pendence
of Nam in 10 years, land reform, a democracy based on
universal sufferage and a national purchace of French
holdings...."

"So what?"

That's not exactly addressing my claim in a logical effort to refute
it.

So what?

A thing you say you do not approve of
and as a matter of fact
ridicule.

I never said that claims--especially not the hot-air claims
such as you spew--require refuting, you dishonest *****.
No offense of course.

(Mr. At Home Atheist would benefit from a search on "critical thinking".)

Many, if not most young men who went to college at the time did so to
avoid the draft and having their lives disrupted and not because of
some moral objection to a war they didn't care about.

Assertion.

Based on study and personal experience.

So is belief in the Bible.

Yes, and because of my study of religion and the Bible I am an
atheist.

------------------------------------------------------
So you would accept someones belief in the (truth of) Bible
as valid simply because the believer claims it was based on
study? If not, then why do you expect readers to accept your
claims on that basis?
------------------------------------------------------

Watch this dodge:

Take it or leave it.

Gee. You can't answer the question. What a surprise.

See, that's how we learn things.
We study.

------------------------------------------------------
Some of us do, anyway. And then we cite our sources so
that others can independently verify what we are saying.

No, you do not always cite your sources.

You mean "yes you do not always cite your sources."

I never said otherwise. I blame failed child-rearing techniques for your
belief that it is ok to add context--"always"-- to someones words
for the purpose of lying about him. We can see vividly how
such techniques have a way of coming back to haunt a society.

"So what? Ho Chi Min, who had worked closely with the
OSS during the war, rescuing downed American pilots, was
snubbed by Truman when he said he wanted independ ence
of Nam in 10 years, land reform, a democracy based on
universal sufferage and a national purchace of French
holdings....."

And what you are saying in the post is terribly misleading.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge. You are living proof of that.

But that's so typical of radical leftists.

That's pretty funny coming from a moral cypher who
thinks "because I say so" is a devastating rebuttal!

America was the bad guy and dear, sweet, gentle Uncle Ho was a saint.

I'm afraid you have an arm's length relationship with the
truth, my morally challenged friend. But like they say:
debate doesn't build character - it reveals it.

Sheesh.
Dispicible.

Says the hippie to the vet! I see that, predictibly, you've taken
the last refuge of the scoundrel. People call it the last refuge
but I'd be willing to bet you could find something lower.

We do this because we reject the appeal to authority and
received wisdom that is common to religious beliefs.
Expecting people to just take our word for claims because
we claim them or believe them should not be encouraged.
Rather skepticism should be encouraged in ALL claims.
You would seem to agree with this except when it comes
to your claims.
------------------------------------------------------

I agree with it at all times.

There goes the old irony meter!

Where did I suggest that I consider myself exempt?

It is fascinating to watch the extremes to which you will go
to avoid even acknowledging your inability to back up what
you spew as true, let alone defend it.

But it _is_ unethical.

It is unethical because any jerk can toss out more slanderous
accusations than any 10 honest men could refute, if the jerk
isn't restrained by facts or evidence. In public, the fear of
getting his ***** kicked would serve to restrain someone like
you, but that consequence is missing here.

Thus you feel very brave in your low rent tactics.

But your reckless disregard for the truth destroys the
only thing you potentially have going for you: credibility.
You obviously expect people to take your word for things
since you don't offer evidence or argument for them. But
then you show your word can't be trusted.

I've learned a lot in newsgroups and disecting and exposing
tactics like yours is just one way for me to give a little back.

But I've done that.

It is obvious you have no intention of changing;

indeed you become even more dishonest. It seems
at one time you were more open minded. I don't know
what happened . Maybe hanging out too long in this ng.
Regardless, at the moment you are just another *****
who doesn't mind if he gives atheism a bad name by
wearing his atheism on his sleeve.

I see there is not much left of your spew but I really can't
justify spending any more time on you.

Who cares ?

This is not some weirdo NG.

Go play with a gun.

Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1126048702.626856.185270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

This thread begins with Eris quoting someone from
another thread. This is the original claim:

If you think its non nonsense I suggest you watch the 1000 day war and see
what Gen Geip stated in his own words That if the US would of continued
bombing another 2 weeks they would of signed the peace treaty but he know
that the protesters are getting stronger, that the protesters will win the
war for us.Thats not my statement its Gen Geip.
Vietnam Vet

-= End Quote =-

Eris then asks "what are the facts?" To which Mr. At
Home Atheist says:

I purchased the interview article from the Wall Street Journal
<You owe me a six pack:-)

The Wall Street Journal, 1419 words
Aug 3, 1995

-= End Quote =-

In fact the article, a confessional by a former communist
colonel in the North Vietnamese army, doesn't verify
the original claims.

He then quotes Geip, out of context, intending to imply
that the Vietcong were about to yield somehow. (What Mr.
At Home Atheist fails to note is that the Vietnamese were
willing to fight for however long it took and have a
long history of doing just that). In any event, he does not
quote Geip saying the words attrib uted to him in the
original claim.

I would have to say that Mr. At Home Atheist has tried
and failed to confirm those words allegedly by Geip that
if it wasn't for the persistance of all those insincere
protestors, Nixon would h ave kicked commie *****.

The red herring of whether Mr. At Home Atheist's quotes
are authentic or not has, unfortunately, given Mr. At
Home Atheist something to focus on besides the fact
that he failed to confirm the original claim.

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:40:04 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:20:50 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:53:49 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Giap: Your objective in war can either be to wipe out the enemy
altogether or to leave their forces partly intact but their will to
fight destroyed. It was the American policy to try and escalate the
war. Our goal in the '68 offensive was to force them to de-escalate,
to break the American will to remain in the war....

We did this by confronting them with repeated military, as well as
political and diplomatic victories. By bringing the war to practically
all the occupied towns, we aimed to show the Americans and the
American people that it would be impossible for them to continue with
the war. Essentially, that's how we did it.

atheist@home#1554

Thanks. Good article.

Welcome :-)

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so public
opinion would have an effect, but not to the extent that the
chickenhawks would have us believe.

I'm afraid the effect was much greater than many, especially those on the
left want people to believe.
Except for the ones who are proud of what they did and who insist that
their actions shortened the war which is the opposite of what really
happened.
As you know that dreaded draft notice was a very big deal for young
American males at the time.
It wasn't just the idea that we would be forced to kill people we felt
had done us no harm, or die in a war we didn't understand, there was also
the fear of what would happen to us in boot camp.
DIs were allowed to do things to recruits back then that are
"technically" forbidden now.
Many of the male protestors, had they not been threatened with the draft
would quite possibly have been uninvolved in the protests. I can honestly
say that most of the men I knew who worked to avoid the draft did so for
personal reasons and weren't the least bit concerned about what was going
on in SEA as long as it didn't affect them. Many, if not most young men
who went to college at the time did so to avoid the draft and having
their lives disrupted and not because of some moral objection to a war
they didn't care about.
I took the physical three or four times and the conversation among the
draftees wasn't about the "immorality" of the war, it was invariably
about how to get out of having to serve in the military. The point I'm
trying to make is that while there were protestors who were sincere in
their belief that the war was immoral, there were uncounted numbers who
were insincere and were just trying to avoid being drafted for selfish
reasons.
The prostests also very often had the character of nothing more than
tribal gatherings for many and I believe those types were also insincere
in their expressions of moral outrage.
The sad fact is that whatever the reason for the protests they shored up
the enemy, gave gave him hope that America's will to fight would
evaporate as a result of public displays against the war and caused a
great deal of unnecessary death and destruction, not only in Vietnam but
also in Cambodia.
Bin Laden is also very much aware of the effect, as are the insurgents in
Iraq, and that has been the case in many other actions America has been
involved in since Vietnam.
One question of course is why so many young men today have protested the
war in Iraq when they are not in danger of being drafted. Many of them
are undoubtly sincere in their opposition, some are just along for the
ride and for some it's just party time.
And they are not protesting at the rate of the protestors during Vietnam.
The effect however is the same as far as the enemy is concerned. Consider
for a moment the effect on the enemy when even members of the U.S.
Congress loudly proclaim that we are in the same situation we were in in
Vietnam <We are not> and demand a pullout of troops. Only the naive would
believe that doesn't have a positive effect on the enemy.
They all did this sort of thing to the men who were fighting in Vietnam
and they are doing it to the troops in Iraq.
It gets American troops as well as non combatants killed and that's
inexcusable imo.

The Ho Chi Min trail was more significant, plus all they wanted to do
was harass us until we gave up.

True but they were admitedly pleased that war protestors in America were
harassing the government as well.

It's not something to be as easily dismissed as so many are willing to
do.
atheist@home#1554

I'm afraid the effect was much greater than many, especially those on

atheist@home#1554

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:40:04 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:20:50 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:53:49 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.co m>
wrote:

<snip>

I'm afraid the effect was much greater than many, especially those on
the left want people to believe.

Except for the ones who are proud of what they did and who insist that
their actions shortened the war which is the opposite of what really
happened.

As you know that dreaded draft notice was a very big deal for young
American males at the time.
It wasn't just the idea that we would be forced to kill people we felt
had done us no harm, or die in a war we didn't understand, there was
also the fear of what would happen to us in boot camp.

DIs were allowed to do things to recruits back then that are
"technically" forbidden now.
Many of the male protestors, had they not been threatened with the
draft would quite possibly have been uninvolved in the protests.
I can honestly say t hat most of the men I knew who worked to avoid the
draft did so for personal reasons and weren't the least bit concerned
about what was going on in SEA as long as it didn't affect them.

Many, if not most young men who went to college at the time did so to
avoid the draft and having their lives disrupted and not because of
some moral objection to a war they didn't care about.

I took the physical three or four times and the conversation among the
draftees wasn't about the "immorality" of the war, it was invariably
about how to get out of having to serve in the military.

The point I'm trying to make is that while there were protestors who
were sincere in their belief that the war was immoral, there were
uncounted numbers who were insincere and were just trying to avoid
being drafted for selfish reasons.

The prostests also very often had the character of nothing more than
tribal gatherings for many and I believe those types were also
insincere in their expressions of moral outrage.

The sad fact is that whatever the reason for the protests they shored
up the enemy, gave gave him hope that America's will to fight would
evaporate as a result of public displays against the war and caused a
great deal of unnecessary death and destruction, not only in Vietnam
but also in Cambodia.

Bin Laden is also very much aware of the effect, as are the insurgents
in Iraq,

and that has been the case in many other actions America has
been involv