John Edwards is ready to sacrifice how many lives to say the previous ones didn't die in vain?

[Boojatta]

What counts as success? After 75% of US soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq and the regime in Iraq is reasonably stable, what kind of regime in Iraq will have been worth the lives of the US soldiers who died serving in Iraq? What kind of regime will be worth the lives of US soldiers who will continue to die in Iraq?

We already know that, in the opinion of John Edwards, vast numbers of boat people fleeing the regime in a united Vietnam under the leadership that spread from North Vietnam to all of Vietnam was not a symptom of any serious problem. Somehow John Edwards knows that the American soldiers who died in Vietnam did not die in vain.

So what is John Edwards expecting? Without further military involvement in Iraq, there would have been nine million refugees fleeing from Iraq during the years 2003 to 2012? Does that mean that a slight drop in the rate at which Iraqis are forced to flee and a total of anything under nine million refugees will have been worth the sacrifice of the lives of all US soldiers who served in Iraq?

What is John Edwards' standard for success in Iraq?

[DutchLiberal]

1. He can't say they 'died in vain'. It would be political suicide.

The voters, no matter how much anti-war they are, don't want to face the reality that their (grand)children, mothers, fathers, friends etc. in the military died in vain. Politicians have to comfort them to make them feel a little better about the loss of their loved ones. That's why the politicians make up excuses for them, like their loved ones died 'for a good cause', 'for our country', 'defending freedom' etc. The truth would be to hard to face.

That's why no candidate running for president would say they died in vain, except Mike Gravel, but I think he knows himself he will never get elected anyway.

[Boojatta]

4. Do you prefer to buy from a rude salesperson or a dishonest salesperson?

His job is to find a way to express the truth so that people can understand and appreciate it. If he can't do that, then he should get out of the kitchen.

Controversy is not automatic political suicide. On the contrary, it can be free publicity.

John Edwards can explain what he really thinks and I bet he could do it without being rude. However, if it comes down to a choice between rudeness and truth, I'll take truth.

How will a salesperson's politeness help you when you find out that the product doesn't work, the product spontaneously catches on fire, and the product warranty includes fine print that says you are entitled to a maximum refund of one penny?

[DutchLiberal]

6. But the problem is he doesn't express the truth. Nobody does. *Because* it's political suicide.

[Boojatta]

11. If no politician expresses the truth, then there's at least one

segment of the voting public that is receiving no option acceptable to them. Perhaps many people who are eligible to vote but who have not been recently voting would vote for a politician who tells the truth.

Perhaps politicians would rather think "I must have let one bit of truth slip out. That's why I got so little support" than "I'm not really much of a leader. People saw through my act and recognized that I'm not a good leader."

[DutchLiberal]

49. You hit the nail right on the head.

That's why I think people who dismiss Kucinich because they want to appeal to 'moderate voters' or 'Republican voters' are wrong. The Democrats should try to appeal to the millions of Americans who don't vote. If they have the choice to vote for a candidate who tells the truth, they will win against any Republican candidate.

[GOTV]

15. Even here on DU. I was berated for pointing out the fact that their deaths are in vain....

... I had several "Support the Troops" posters on my but in no time.

[Boojatta]

19. If their posts broke the rules, then you should have alerted

on those posts. I trust that your posts on that topic were not deleted. I trust that your threads on that topic were not locked.

Surely you don't expect 100% of DUers to agree with you. If people don't remain silent in their disagreement, then you have an opportunity to confront the issue, explain your thinking, ask questions, and try to understand others.

[GOTV]

31. I don't know whether they broke the rules, but it didn't bother me enough to alert....

It was a lot of freeperish "How dare you diss the troops" stuff. I've yet to appeal to the mods to shut someone down. I can't hardly think of a situation where I would try to stop someone else from posting. Maybe if they were insisting on posting someone's personal info or something.

Where did the suspicion that I have a general problem with disagreement though? No one expects 100% agreement.

[Boojatta]

35. My bad.

However, it sounded as though you had a problem with the way the disagreement was expressed. This forum has rules designed to keep the disputes respectful. You are entitled to alert so that the rules can be enforced. Of course, it's always your choice of whether or not to alert.

[GOTV]

54. No problem, no offense

:hi:

[MADem]

40. Here's where the parsing comes in.

Serving one's country, putting one's self on the line to defend one's fellow citizens, one's country, one's way of life is not an exercise in vain. Now, if a dumb President misuses those personnel, that's on the dumb President, not on the volunteer. But the act of serving, and dying in service, is not "dying in vain."

If no one in this country cared to take on that risk, we'd all be laboring unwillingly under a system of government other than the one we have, that assumed power by force, and we'd likely be forced to serve, like it or not.

It's hairsplitting, but there it is.

[Boojatta]

41. Can't we distinguish between particular people dying in vain and the idea of defense?

If no one in this country cared to take on that risk, we'd all be laboring unwillingly under a system of government other than the one we have, that assumed power by force, and we'd likely be forced to serve, like it or not.

It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't settled by the allies during and after the Second World War.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Source:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It doesn't actually specify that there are any circumstances when military conscription is prohibited. A country can have military conscription as part of its plan for a future aggression against other countries. It is only the actual aggression that is prohibited by the UN.

[MADem]

42. We can try, but then, what do you say to the families of those who fall into the

died in vain category?

That's why I prefer to put all the fault, all the blame, all the "in vain" aspect, on the Commander in Chief. And to apply the 'vain' word in a different way, too, as in VANITY. The Vanity and Hubris of the Monkey killed those kids.

They didn't die in vain, his vanity sent them off to be murdered.

They did their duty, he didn't do his.

[DutchLiberal]

48. I respectfully disagree.

The soldiers who died in Iraq, did not die to protect their country, nor did they die to protect their fellow citizens. They died because Bush wanted to steal Iraqi oil for his rich buddies. Okay, I realize this is a simplified answer, but basically that's the bottom line. And dying for that is dying in vain. It's sad, I'm sorry for those who died in Iraq and for their families, but that's the way it is.

[TahitiNut]

2. It's entirely up to the people of this nation whether such death is in vain.

What have we learned? :eyes:

For example, I would gladly give up my life if it led to the removal and imprisonment of this regime ... and it's clear that would depend on the actions of other people in my nation.

The military does not decide where and how their lives are lost. That buck stops in the laps of the people of this nation and nowhere else!

In financial terms ... it's like the difference between recognition and realization.

[maxsolomon]

3. you would DIE to see bush & cheney out of office for ONE YEAR?

and in prison for what, 3 years max?

all the deaths in iraq, american & iraqi, have been FOR NOTHING. and the fault lies with 1 man, the narcissist in chief, not with all of us.

i'd like to see him in prison, but i'm not willing to DIE for it. this is my only life.

[TahitiNut]

5. Q.E.D. ... and that's how people die in vain.

:shrug:

[maxsolomon]

10. you believe in patriotism.

i don't.

this is demonstrably NOT the "greatest country on earth".

[TahitiNut]

12. It's only what we make of it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

:shrug:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

... so the question remains what the 'friends' do with that. :eyes:

[Boojatta]

18. John 15:13 sounds like a recruiting slogan.

"Have love of such a degree that no one has more. And be all you can be. And don't worry about GWB as Commander in Chief. Yours is not to wonder why, but to do and die."

[DutchLiberal]

8. The fault lays with many more people: Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.

And with the MSM who supported him, and with the people who "re-elected" him in 2004, and with Democrats who voted for the war.

[maxsolomon]

9. bush could have said no

it was ultimately only the president's decision.

if he had any moral compass whatsoever, he would have. its not like this clusterfuck wasn't predicted.

[DutchLiberal]

22. That's too easy. We have to hold *all* people accountable.

[Boojatta]

7. Don't be glad about the prospect of giving your life.

The political battle in America is nothing like the war in Iraq. The casualty is the truth. Nobody is drafting you into a battle that will cost you your life.

The reward is not death, but a good life. The reward for making a significant positive contribution will be that you will deserve and possibly receive the gratitude of millions.

You don't know what the future holds. We need you now and we will need you in the future.

[Boojatta]

13. More clear or no significant difference?

It's too late to edit the Original Post.

What counts as success? After 75% of US soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq and the regime in Iraq is reasonably stable, what kind of regime in Iraq will have been worth the lives of the US soldiers who died serving in Iraq? What kind of regime will be worth the lives of US soldiers who will continue to die in Iraq?

Vietnam united under leadership that spread from North Vietnam to all of Vietnam. Many people fled from Vietnam to avoid dying or trying to live under that particular regime. Many people used boats to flee and became known as "boat people." We already know that, in the opinion of John Edwards, either that was not a symptom of a serious problem or the situation would have been even worse without the sacrifice of American draftees in Vietnam. Somehow John Edwards knows that the American soldiers who died in Vietnam did not die in vain.

So what is John Edwards expecting? Without further American military involvement in Iraq, will history record a total of nine million refugees who fled from Iraq during the years 2003 to 2012? Does that mean that a slight drop in the rate at which Iraqis are forced to flee and a total of anything under nine million refugees will have been worth the sacrifice of the lives of all US soldiers who lost their lives while serving in Iraq?

What is John Edwards' standard for success in Iraq?

[trayted]

14. They died unnecessarily. I'm sick of people saying "in vain," because that's the way it's framed

There was no reason for them to die. That's how it needs to be said.

[Boojatta]

16. John Edwards could have said, "Did they die in vain?"

"That question isn't completely clear to me. I will say that Americans died unnecessarily in Vietnam. I hope that's clear to you. If that's unclear or doesn't provide enough information, then I'll be glad to do what I can to make my answer more clear or to provide additional information about my views."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. How about pre-meditated murder? eom

[Boojatta]

20. Kick so that people who have a good answer can respond.

Believe it or not, I am undecided regarding John Edwards. This thread is not an attack on John Edwards. It's a question. There will be various responses from various people, but I do not assume that there is not one very good answer that I remain ignorant of.

[LSK]

21. why are you picking on Edwards? You wont find Obama or Hillary saying they died in vain

About the only ones who have the guts to say such a thing is Gravel and/or Kucinich.

This was actually a debate question a while back and they all danced around it.

I dont even think Gore would say it.

[Boojatta]

25. This thread is not going to sink John Edwards.

I was watching when he spoke. With the others, I would need to do some research. Maybe I'm just lazy. However, maybe the John Edwards angle is not the important part of this thread. His name is prominent in the thread title, but not quite as prominent in the OP. Thread titles are rather short and leave little room for expression.

Isn't the policy issue more important than the personality issue? Isn't it important for voters and candidates to appreciate the concept of sunk costs? Now that you're participating in this thread, why not discuss policy?

[LSK]

27. I support Edwards mostly because of his Healthcare Policy

And his long career of representing the little guy against Corporations.

I did not see the speech that you are talking about, and you provide no context to this said speech, so how can I discuss it?

When and what did he say?

[Boojatta]

29. Here's a link to a transcript.

COOPER: Senator Edwards, are the troops -- did the troops in Vietnam die in vain?

EDWARDS: I don't think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that's been given to them by the commander in chief. No, I don't think they died in vain.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

You do have a good point regarding excessive emphasis on personalities. If I could go back, I would have written the OP differently to omit or minimize reference to a name. However, the thread title is a different matter. I'm not convinced that there's anything wrong with the thread title given the nature of the forum.

[LSK]

30. yeah, they all danced around that question

If it was up to me, I would say yes, they did.

But I'm not running for Pres so my choices are limited. And since they all dance around the question in the same way, the point is irrelevant.

[Boojatta]

33. "And since they all dance around the question in the same way, the point is irrelevant."

Can you post excerpts to support that statement? If the onus was on me to back up the OP, then don't you now have an onus to back that up?

Were they all asked the same question?

Does "they all" now exclude Hillary Clinton even though you have already done some copying and editing to convert my original OP into an allegation about Hillary Clinton ?

[LSK]

34. apparently Clinton wasnt asked the question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu_bm9pmpig

But Obama danced around the question.

[Terran]

36. Has it occurred to you...?

that possibly he genuinely believes this to be true? A lot of people at DU, myself included, do think that our soldiers died in vain (i.e., "unnecessarily") in Vietnam and Iraq, but those of us who think that hold different opinions about the military than a lot of people do. Edwards, like possibly the majority of the country, may believe that ideal about the inherent honor of military duty...that dying 'for your country' is an inherently honorable thing, and never done "in vain". If so, and it seems not unlikely, then your criticism is totally unfounded. The whole issue is truly a matter of opinion and nothing more.

I also agree that it *is* political suicide to say that any American soldier died in vain; it's simply far too personal a thing to hit home and not have a negative backlash. Bottom line, it would be *offensive* to people, deeply offensive. I care very much about whether my candidate speaks the truth about important issues like how Bush got us into Iraq, about climate change, about the state of our economy, but this...? If you don't understand why it's political suicide, then you are out of touch with how a great many people think about the issue.

[Boojatta]

37. What quixotic military adventures might Edwards instigate

so that there can be some additional "inherently honorable" deaths?

How probable do you think it is that the majority actually believes that?

Edwards, like possibly the majority of the country, may believe that ideal about the inherent honor of military duty...that dying 'for your country' is an inherently honorable thing, and never done "in vain".

[Terran]

46. Answers

Your first question is pointless, since nothing in the statement you quote from Edwards implies that he is remotely interested in doing any such thing. I think they call that a 'straw man'?

Your second question? I'd be willing to be at least 50% of the people in this country feel that way. If you live in New York or San Francisco or Santa Monica, then it's probably a tiny minority, but not in the rest of the country.

[Boojatta]

38. Would these words be "political suicide"?

That question isn't completely clear to me. I will say that Americans died unnecessarily in Vietnam. I hope that's clear to you. If that's unclear or doesn't provide enough information, then I'll be glad to do what I can to make my answer more clear or to provide additional information about my views.

(copied from elsewhere in this thread)

[Terran]

47. And the inevitable follow-up from the press is...

"So, you're saying that American lives were wasted in Vietnam, that they died in vain."

It's a semantic and political trap. It's a deadly issue that involves lots of parents who have lost their sons in horrible god-awful ways and will spend the rest of their lives looking for any shred of redemption in that death. And our guy is going to be the one to even suggest to them that there was NO redemption there, *nothing*? The news media would have a ball with that.

Yes--political suicide of a sort never seen before. At least 10 times worse than say admitting you're gay.

[Bongo Prophet]

52. "It's a semantic and political trap." - You nailed it, Terran

Edwards' answer was about the best one could do, by using term "unnecessary" instead.

Edited for clarity
I meant
-- Boojatta's version of what JE coulda shoulda said is a good response.

[Exiled in America]

45. I comletely agree with Edward's response 100%

I think saying that solider's "die in vain" when they are ordered into situations that may be a mistake is a completely inaccurate thing to say. Further, its part of a framing of the issue that I simply don't accept.

Any solider making the choice to serve is fulfilling a duty with honor that is never and will never be "in vain." Period.

Having said that, we can and should question whether soldier's deaths were necessary and there is a framing difference between asking that and asking the former.

Frankly I APPLAUD Edwards for not taking the bait with such a question. I believe that answer was sensible and fair. Could he have elaborated on the larger mistakes of leadership when it came to Vietnam? He could have, but it would have been a mistake. It diverts him off message, which is something you should never allow someone to do. It would have become a major and detracting story, much like Obama's Pakistan comments (whether right or wrong, and I think they were right) diverted that campaign off message and into a news cycle that wouldn't end for weeks.

I say this, from my limited experience as a campaign manager.

Frankly you're post sounds a lot more like you just don't "like" edwards because you support someone else than it sounds reasonable or fair.

[Bongo Prophet]

53. I also APPLAUD candidates for not falling into traps or misspeaking - skills needed to win

At this point, JE might welcome further clarification time, just to get some press. Not the best way to get followup, though.
So, good that he passed on that pitch... :)

[LSK]

23. Barack Obama is ready to sacrifice how many lives to say the previous ones didn't die in vain?

What counts as success? After 75% of US soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq and the regime in Iraq is reasonably stable, what kind of regime in Iraq will have been worth the lives of the US soldiers who died serving in Iraq? What kind of regime will be worth the lives of US soldiers who will continue to die in Iraq?

We already know that, in the opinion of Barack Obama, vast numbers of boat people fleeing the regime in a united Vietnam under the leadership that spread from North Vietnam to all of Vietnam was not a symptom of any serious problem. Somehow Barack Obama knows that the American soldiers who died in Vietnam did not die in vain.

So what is Barack Obama expecting? Without further military involvement in Iraq, there would have been nine million refugees fleeing from Iraq during the years 2003 to 2012? Does that mean that a slight drop in the rate at which Iraqis are forced to flee and a total of anything under nine million refugees will have been worth the sacrifice of the lives of all US soldiers who served in Iraq?

What is Barack Obama's standard for success in Iraq?

[LSK]

24. Hillary Clinton is ready to sacrifice how many lives to say the previous ones didn't die in vain?

What counts as success? After 75% of US soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq and the regime in Iraq is reasonably stable, what kind of regime in Iraq will have been worth the lives of the US soldiers who died serving in Iraq? What kind of regime will be worth the lives of US soldiers who will continue to die in Iraq?

We already know that, in the opinion of Hillary Clinton, vast numbers of boat people fleeing the regime in a united Vietnam under the leadership that spread from North Vietnam to all of Vietnam was not a symptom of any serious problem. Somehow Hillary Clinton knows that the American soldiers who died in Vietnam did not die in vain.

So what is Hillary Clinton expecting? Without further military involvement in Iraq, there would have been nine million refugees fleeing from Iraq during the years 2003 to 2012? Does that mean that a slight drop in the rate at which Iraqis are forced to flee and a total of anything under nine million refugees will have been worth the sacrifice of the lives of all US soldiers who served in Iraq?

What is Hillary Clinton's standard for success in Iraq?

[Boojatta]

26. You based that on the original OP, but I revised it at post 13.

[LSK]

28. maybe you should try his website???

Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

* Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
* Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
* Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
* End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

In addition, Edwards believes stabilizing Iraq requires a major diplomatic effort to:

* Engage in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria
* Support a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through convening a multi-party peace conference.

Edwards also believes the United States must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

:shrug:

[Exiled in America]

44. That is policy I support, and I don't give a shit about people making stupid abstract smears

That is concrete policy and I support it 100%.

[hfojvt]

I am not sure what you are responding to

where is the Edwards statement on this matter? How does Edwards' statement differ from Clinton or Obama?

It's kinda hard to predict the future. I think we need stabilization before we pull out. If we pull out without some sort of stabilization or replacement peace-keeping force then that could cost another half million Iraqi lives. Is it worth it to sacrifice 10,000 American lives to save 500,000 Iraqi lives? I think so.

Our enemies recently killed over 200 Iraqis in a suicide attack. They did not attack us, they attacked Iraqis. Is it impossible to prevent a whole lot more violence and destruction in Iraq? We need to do what we can to fix the mess that Bush created.

Why bring Vietnam into this? What did Edwards have to do with that? Why stop there? Did the casualties in the thirty years war die in vain? Etc.

[Boojatta]

39. Here's a link to a link

Reply #29: Here's a link to a transcript.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[WI_DEM]

43. Show me a politician who will say "They died in vain" and I'll show you someone who will lose.

I'll bet even Dennis Kucinich wouldn't say it.

[iamjoy]

50. What About The Other Candidates

are you asking this question of them as well? If so, it is a fair question. If you are singling out John Edwards then it is an attack on him and you were deceptive to post a link to this question in the forum for Edwards supporters.

I am thinking the latter because your question was specific to John Edwards and not "our candidates." You do not reference any recent quote or statement by Edwards on Iraq, just stuff that was already known.

So, I think you have a beef against Edwards and are being disingenuous.

[spindoctor]

51. They did NOT die in vain!

They died in IRAQ!


...and lord knows what they were doing there.

[Blackhatjack]

55. This is just a smear against John Edwards .... nice try, people see through you....

If anyone has spoken up for the troops it is John Edwards.

He has consistently called for an immediate withdrawal of the troops to begin NOW.

If this was just a principle you are adhering to then you would have named ALL THE CANDIDATES you believe are not upholding your position.

If hearing the words "they died in vain" is paramount to you, remember that the families of those who have fallen have more skin in the game than you do, and it would bring them no relief to hear those words --and it would not change the sacrifice that their loved ones made for their country.

Shame on you. Your motives are quite transparent.