Debating a Viet Nam vet

[Monkeyleg]

A guy I work with is a Viet Nam vet, and saw combat. Sounds like lots of combat.

We talk politics a lot, and we're polar opposites: he's about as liberal as they get, and I'm 180 degrees from him.

When the subject turns to US actions in the Middle East, he's able to frame the debate by using his experience as a starting point. Perhaps my guilt over not serving plays a factor in holding me back as well.

At any rate, he's 100% anti-war. He doesn't think that we should have spent all of the time and resources we did confronting the Soviets during the Cold War. He believes that any actions that we take against terrorist groups will only make them hate us more, and increase attacks against us.

He's a smart guy, but isn't well-versed in current affairs. For example, for over a year I've been telling him that Hillary Clinton is preparing to run for president, and he doesn't believe me.

Most of his knowledge of current affairs comes from listening to NPR, or from watching PBS.

All of the above is intended to provide you with the best picture I can paint of him.

My question is this: how can I get past his using his combat experience as the frame for the debate? He has never said, "I saw combat, and you didn't." But, for me, that seems almost implied.

I enjoy our discussions because they're very friendly, and I learn a lot from him. Conversely, he learns a lot from me (Hillary's campaign, for example).

Please don't let this thread get tangled up in arguments over US Middle Eastern policy. I want to focus purely on debating techniques.

[wingnutx]

Simply don't bring it up.

There are combat vets on both sides of the fence. This wouldn't be possible if having that experience gave one special insight into geopolitics.

[Monkeyleg]

wingnutx, I could do that.

But both he and I enjoy our discussions. He's one of very few ultra-liberals that I like to talk politics with. The others just end the discussion by calling me a %#$(% nazi.

[Ron]

If you don't feel like you can debat him point by point just ask questions.

By asking him pointed questions to support his position you will gain a better perspective on your own position.

You don't always have to "win" a conversation to influence someone.

Sometimes the act of posing a difficult question is more effective than head to head debate.

That is a two way street also, thats why I enjoy APS and THR. I enjoy being challenged and don't mind being wrong, learning the truth is more important than the vanity of being right.

[Perd Hapley]

Plus 1.

And quit calling him a liberal, you group-thinker.  [rolleyes]

[Monkeyleg]

Fistful, it's hard to tell if your "group thinker" remark was aimed at APS's now-departed troll, or at me. Please either make your remarks more clear, or add subtitles for the mentally-challenged like me.

For the purposes of this thread, though, I just want to mention that my co-worker describes himself as an anti-war, big government, tax-increasing flaming liberal who supports just about every entitlement program you can name.

He's very intelligent, and knows a lot about more topics than anyone I've met. But he plays the "low expectations" game by starting each discussion by saying that he's an ignorant guy who was born poor.

After reading just a few replies, my thoughts tend toward just telling him that his combat experience doesn't make him any more qualified than me to judge our foreign policy than my experience in politics makes me more qualified to tell him who to vote for.

And then insist that we keep discussions about the ME on the topic of the ME, not on Viet Nam.

[Stand_watie]

You might start by trying to determine exactly how "anti-war" he really is. If he's a true believer, there's no point in debating it with him.

Perhaps ask him what the Polish, Belgian, French, Netherlands, English etc response to the nazi war machine should have been?

[Perd Hapley]

Another of my sarcastic attempts to mimic old Ban Stupid People, or whatever his name was.  So kind of him to educate us all from his superior wisdom.

I think GoRon had the best advice.  Whatever position he takes, make him explain it.  He'll either reveal assumptions or points of view you can clearly disagree with, or he'll begin to realize that he can't explain what he believes because it's unbelievable.  This is called the Socratic method, or Columbo method.

If he seems to use his combat experience as unimpeachable moral authority, ask him how his experience in Viet Nam relates to the Mid-East situation.  His experience gives him a certain amount of authority.  Recognize that much, and no more.

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the clarification on the sarcasm, Fistful.

Regarding my co-worker: at the end of the day on Tuesday, we got into a bit of a discussion about Viet Nam, Iraq, and wars in general.

He made mention that one of the families he'd come to know in the village he worked had a son who was a VC "sapper." That, to him, was the ultimate irony: here he was, working with the locals to help the US war effort, and one of their own was his enemy.

He also brought up the point that Viet Nam is now one of the most popular tourist destinations, a point made with no small amount of irony.

I don't think he's lying to me about his service. He doesn't talk about "kills," or anything like that.

But, maybe he just saw too many. Don't know.

All I know is that he is opposed to just about every war or conflict or police action or whatever you term our military involvements since WWII.

That's an obvious conclusion for anyone to reach, veteran or not: wars should not happen.

But they do.

My frustration in my debating with him is that I cannot bring myself to say, "you saw combat in Viet Nam, but that's not what we're talking about now." Maybe I should be so blunt, but doing so would probably just result in a shut-down of further political discussions. Seeing as how I've been able to win him over on a few points, a shut-down would be a loss for me. The best successes I've had have come from bringing people to my side one point at a time.

I think I'm intelligent enough to see the long-term geopolitical implications of what the US is doing in the ME, although whether the US is doing it right is the subject for another thread.

My co-worker, though, isn't looking that far ahead. He's looking back.

And, as I've said, he's erected a hurdle for me in debates.

[Stand_watie]

...
My frustration in my debating with him is that I cannot bring myself to say, "you saw combat in Viet Nam, but that's not what we're talking about now." Maybe I should be so blunt, but doing so would probably just result in a shut-down of further political discussions. Seeing as how I've been able to win him over on a few points, a shut-down would be a loss for me. The best successes I've had have come from bringing people to my side one point at a time.

I think I'm intelligent enough to see the long-term geopolitical implications of what the US is doing in the ME, although whether the US is doing it right is the subject for another thread.

My co-worker, though, isn't looking that far ahead. He's looking back.

And, as I've said, he's erected a hurdle for me in debates.

As far as I can see, if you can't direct the topic away from his serving in Vietnam being an "ace", you can't debate him. It's cataclysmic on a personal level, but irrelevant to whether or not war can be morally acceptable. If you're too polite to convey that to him you may just have to leave the debate for a combat veteran to have with him.

This trump card is played by the victimhood society purveyors regarding every topic.

1. "Well you're not black so you can't understand..."
2. "Well you're a man so you can't understand..."
3. "Well you've never been raped so you can't understand..."

I'll agree that I can't understand how someone who has been through a profound/particular experience that I haven't feels, but if it's not relevant to the topic, I'll either say so or agree to disagree on the topic.

[Leatherneck]

As a veteran of the Vietnam war, I do not believe I have any special insight into geopolitics. If you want to discuss the nuances of dive-bombing, I may have some expertise of use. Similarly, you might want to defer to your friend on matters of mud and blood, etc. But his combat expewrience doesn't relate to war in the ME any more than mine does.

TC

[280plus]

I'd listen to a few nuances on dive bombing.

You know, in case the need ever came up.

[Leatherneck]

Heh. OK, here's one:

Steeper is better when they're shooting back.

TC

[AJ Dual]

You can stress the differences between Vietnam and Iraq.

"The Pooch was Screwed" in Vietnam before we ever went there. Vietnam appealed for independence to the allied powers after the Japanese were expelled as WWII wound down. France's partial collaberation with the Germans and the Vichy government should have strengthened their claims.

They were ignored. Perhaps as racisim, that French colonial rule was "natural", or Vietnam was just too "little" to be bothered with in the post-war era.

Ho Chi Minh would have been "our guy" had the U.S. made diplomatic efforts to back him and Vietmaneese independence early on. By the time we had our panties in a wad over "Domino Theroy" in the 60's, he was deeply in the pocket of the Russians and the Chineese. And had the comblock made a move on Viet Nam, the Chineese and the Russians could have had Vietnam as thier "Vietnam" instead of Afghanistan a whole generation earlier.

Imagine the Viet Cong and the NVA using the same tactics, but with our backing...

Vietnam was also a conscript war, Iraq is not. And the reluctant  "volunteers" who thought they could skate a minimum enlistment for the G.I. Bill and now find themselves dodging IED's are hardly in the same boat as some draftee snatched the day after he's handed his H.S. diploma.

Other things: Does anyone here think that the political left wouldn't be excoriating the Bush administration as being "in bed" with Saddam, or "soft on Iraq" if we hadn't invaded? Turning a blind eye to thier WMD program and the UN inspections they'd still be dodging? Some sort of unholy three-cornered Haliburton/Cheney oil conspiracy? Anyone who's intelectualy honest would have to admit it's a distinct possibility the left was going to put Bush into a catch-22 on Iraq no matter what he decided.

(Remember all the Democrats "talking tough" on Iraq in '99-2000?)

Also, after the first few months, the majority of insurgents are not Bathists trying to re-take Iraq and re-install Saddam. They are mainly various flavors of Islamists who want to fight the U.S. 'just because". Whereas the NVA and the Viet Cong believed they were fighting for "their country". Many of the insurgents are "imports" merely seeking jihad, as we know...

You could also ask him if there was ever a moment in Vietnam (the South) that compares to the "purple ink of democracy" that the Iraqi people displayed in the elections?