I am not advocating any of the positions you’ve mentioned.

I agreed with the US/NATO Balkans campaigns and I support liberal interventionism. At the same time, I support realpolitik reasons in foreign policy—unlike many (most? all?) liberals. I think isolationism is bad for the Us and ultimately bad for the world, regardless of whether it comes from Pat Buchanan or the left wing.

Against this background I found the liberal interventionist case to topple Saddam convincing.

I am an academic physician, I read a lot of issues of Lancet. You may disagree with me – however unfortunately you choose to express it – but at least I know what I am talking about.

Well, clearly another science-hater. I guess this discussion is over.”

You’re funny, in an involuntary way. Tell me a bit about YOUR science background, particularly your sophisticated understanding of sampling methodology and other epi and pub health issues. Would you kindly hold a journal club for me about the two papers? I am always ready to learn.

Ah, I get it. It’s to take a chance to swipe at those treasonous science-hugging leftists, right?

I stopped reading Lancet largely because the important stuff is usually published elsewhere (with the caveat, as I noted, of an occasional review or RCT). I also got tired of the overtly political editorials and its Euro-socialist bias—also the model of care delivery in the NHS is different enough that a lot of that stuff was irrelevant for me anyways. Plus they had a lot of focus on tropical medicine and emerging countries med— no doubt important, but a bit outside of my concentration.

If you compare the editorials in Lancet with those from Science or Nature or NEJM you ‘ll get my point. Not holding my breath, though.

I stated (per comment 45) that what the two wars have in common is that US military abandonment makes the allied government in question vulnerable to conquest. I did not realize that Soru was responding to my comment, because none of the four listed points were relevant to what I said. (Point 3 is certainly true regarding al-Qaeda and the govt of the Islamic Republic of Iran.) I know that Iran is not claiming that Iraq is some wayward province a la Saddam vs. Kuwait, I have no idea what percentage of the “insurgent” violence in Iraq is sponsored by Iran (or by al-Qaeda or by any other factions), and I suspect that moderates agree with everyone else on Point 1 and are divided over whether the totalitarian government of Iran can be reasoned with.

Re comment 71:

Evidently you do not know what the phrase “Y is vulnerable to conquest by X” means. It doesn’t mean that X has definite invasion plans. It means that X has shown a desire to invade Y in the past (which is definitely true in Iran’s case – PDF file), and that Y would indeed be vulnerable if it happened. Iraq may have 25 mil population, but Iran has a pretty stout military, and I don’t doubt its capacity to reduce that by a few million.

We know for certain that Iran and al-Qaeda want to destroy the current Iraqi government, have the capacity to do so with us gone, and will continue to wage war with Iraq (Iran through its proxies) at least until an anti-Western government emerges. As for conquest…actually I think the strongest likelihood is that Iraq would be conquered by multiple regimes – Iran (or an Iran-friendly and Iran-backed insurgency) in Shiitestan and one or more Sunni factions in Sunnistan, with some very nervous Kurds holding the north for the time being. I do not believe a Sunni government can take over all of Iraq as one did before, or as a Shiite regime maintains hold over Sunni Syria, mainly because of Iran – I don’t think the mullahs would sit by and let that happen.

As for al-Qaeda…I do not believe it will ever coalesce into the unified insurrectionist army that it never was. I do believe that it will serve as a critical breeding ground for Sunni insurgent parties, and that it will influence those parties and fight in conjunction with them – especially if a Shiite insurgency or an outright Iranian invasion emerges.

If the US is out of Iraq, somebody will seek to fill the power vaccum when and if the Iraqi government is destroyed.

There’s a case to be made for pretty much anything, OM.

There’s a case to be made, for example, for euthanasing the mentally retarded and terminally ill. Case to be made for eliminating the exploiter classes or, say, the infidels.

Now, the fact that “there’s a case to be made” for a mass-slaughter of one kind or another – that’s what really is irrelevant.

“That is however beside the point.”

Oh wait, then why did you bring it up? If it’s not just to blow up a lot of smoke?

“It is a moderately important technical journal with an editorial line that is very Euro leftactivist doctors in the in the social-democratic school.”

Ah, I get it. It’s to take a chance to swipe at those treasonous science-hugging leftists, right? You can’t (or won’t) learn about the science and question the journal on its scientific merits, and you prefer to just call it names?

Well, clearly another science-hater. I guess this discussion is over.

Second. There was a case to be made on liberal interventionist grounds to depose Saddam, and there was as a separate case on realpolitik grounds. It was the policy of the US gov’t since Pres Clinton (1998 IIRC) to depose him. I did find the liberal interventionist case (on ethical grounds) to be quite persuasive—problem is, once the rubber hit the road, things blurred rapidly and we ended up w/ smth like Iraq now.

That is however beside the point. My OP was about the statement that Iraq = VN.

“My point is this:
Deaths: Vietnam 47k vs Iraq
Wounded VN 211k vs Iraq 27k
Hence Iraq is no Vietnam, by an order of magnitude.
The Iraq war, BTW, costs less than 1% of GDP.”

You know, when you state a point you’re supposed to argue it properly, not just mindlessly repeat it.

“Lest you missed it in a fit of righteous indignation I was talking about liberal INTERVENTIONISM not liberal ideology in general.

And which part of this supposed “liberal intervionism” [sic] of Iraq is “liberal” again? If it has nothing to do with liberal ideals, then why do you insist on attaching the word “liberal” to it?

“A clear case for liberal interventionism was [...]”

We’re talking about this particular war. Not Serbia, or Rwanda, or Sudan. What does Serbia or Rwanda or Sudan have to do with whether anyone should support the current war in Iraq, and in particular Bush’s crappy efforts in this war? Nothing, that’s what.

It’s surprising how wingnuts keep trying again and again to turn a statement like “Bush very badly botched this whole Iraq war and now Iraq is a mess” to “I’m a namby-pamby traitor hippie who’ll willingly surrender to any external enemy”.

It depends. Watching from Mars – fair enough, it’s unrelated; but if you’re one of the citizens – it’s a different story.

So, how does it help you that your company CEO today is raking 5-7 hundred times your wage and paying at most 35% in taxes while in the 60s-70s he was taking only 10-15 times your wage paying 70% in taxes? I don’t see the point.

1. You’re making points of potential debate interest which alas are non-sequiturs in the context of my original point that Iraq is no VN.
2. Re: my CEO income vs mine. Don’t make assumptions about me and I won’t make assumptions about you.

My point is this:
Deaths: Vietnam 47k vs Iraq