[lbo-talk] re Eyewitness in Tikrit

[Stephen Philion]

There were pro-American Vietnamese as well, despite the fact that we were
shattering their country and killing millions. One can acknowledge this
without endorsing an invasion. I too grow weary of lefties who appear
anxious to wallow in negativity, as if that's some kind of Real Rad Cred.
How do you expect to talk this soldier, who apparently has soured on Bush's
action, if you call him a liar to his face? Is that the plan?

DP

--here's a shocker for DP, from an unrepentant "real rad cred." wallowing in
'negativity', I've been to Vietnam and not been to a country that is more
wild about Americans, China included and that's pretty hard to beat.  But if
I left it at that, I'd be providing a pretty superficial picture.  My
impressions from Vietnam were at best impressions from Vietnamese who spoke
English, French or Chinese.  In China, on the other hand, in depth
conversations with Chinese in Chinese can turn up a whole assortment of
opinions about the US, even from the most arently "pro-american". i think
it's fair to say my impressions about China and the extent of its
pro-americanism is a lot deeper than what I could derive from my Vietnam
visit.

On the other hand, the overly sensitive reaction you give to my response to
Mike's friend is a tad off base. How would I deal with him? I'd just talk
with him. Obviously nothing I stated implied he was a liar, but that doesn't
change the fact that most American soldiers on the ground are quite limited
in their capacity to know much about what Iraqis "think".  They hear what
their commanders tell them they think. They hear what Iraqis who speak
English are telling them what they think. And it about stops there I'm
afraid, linguistic limitations, not to mention military security, leaves it
at that.

With that soldier, in  a conversation, I might bring up some or none of
these points. Although I bet ya anything, presented in a reasonable tone he
probably could accept a fair amount of what i stated above...). I would
probably stick with what we already agree on (wmd lies lies lies, pointless
soldier deaths, the undesirability, from the perspective of dead and injured
soldiers of sending troops off to die at the drop of a hat, where are jeb
bush's patriotic sons? bill oreilly's nephews...) and develop it from there
to the extent possible, no less than I would develop a conversation with a
Lutheran on the topic of disaffection with Bush's policy in Iraq, though I
haven't got a superstitious bone in my body and we couldn't agree on
anything much related to the existence of God.

steve