Humanity’s Enemies

You may not have noticed, but I put some widgets in the left margin which document what I consider to be three of humanity’s biggest killers.  The first two are counters, while the last allows you to measure your own BMI and see how fat you are.  I’m a 31, which is Obese I.  Ouch.  I’m 225, supposed to be 180.  Again, the main enemies of humanity are:

  • Islam – More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
  • Abortion – has killed almost 50 times more people than Hitler (over 250 million babies)
  • Obesity – kills 300,000 people annually in the US

I would have included preventable diseases, but couldn’t get a good counter for it.

This article has 36 comments

  1. I question the accuracy of the abortion counter. What are its verifiable sources?

  2. BMI doesn't measure muscle mass. As a result, it's hardly an accurate measure of your actual health.

  3. Enemies of humanity: Poverty, Disease, Pollution, Ignorance, War

  4. Why don’t you count the number of innocent Iraqis killed by the United States in a war of choice against people who did not attack us on 9/11? It is about 130,000 and rising at present.

  5. FCL, how would you count the innocent Iraqis killed by the US? Do you include terrorists from Iraq in the figure? Foriegn terrorists? Do you include the Iraqis killed by terrorists since the war started? etc.
    It would be easier to get a tally of number of people who died in the war (although that is going to be suspect as well), but to say "innocent Iraqis" you are going to have a difficult time finding that out.
    Where does the 130,000 number come from?
    As to BMI, like Sam said, it is kind of a fun thing, but basically worthless. An athlete is going to be obese because they have so much muscle. It was interesting – I was overweight with a 27.

  6. As of October 2004 a study by the British medical journal the Lancet had pegged the total at 100,000. These are estimates of non-combatant civilians. This was arrived at by research on the ground in Iraq led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The newer total is based on estimates made by the United Nations which has been tracking civilian casualty figures by collating numbers from the Health Ministry and Baghdad morgue.
    Even if these estimates are high they put significantly more blood on U.S. hands than the deaths committed by terrorist murderers. The point is that the U.S. seems interested only in what has been done to it rather than in what we do to others. This is peculiar behavior from an ostensibly Christian nation.

  7. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. You can be a nation made up of Christians, but a nation itself cannot accept Jesus and therefore cannot be a Christian. That label is used way too loosely, mostly by Christians.
    I do think the number is very high, but I will accept it for the discussion.
    We should be interested in how many people are killed as a result of our wars in other nations, but this should be one of many factors, not the sole factor, in determining how a war is going and if it is legitimate.
    We can go back and find many more killed during WWII, probably many more innocent civilians in Geremany and Japan. That is a tragic part of war and virtually every war is essentialy a war of choice.
    But the point of war is to defeat the enemy, in this case being terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, part of that point is going to be to kill them. What makes this more difficult and why conservative argue that Geneva regulations do not apply to the terrorists is that they do not wear uniforms and hide in groups of innocent people. Instead of attacking military targets, they blow up car bombs on street corners, at the market, etc.
    I believe the vast majority of our service men and women are doing everything they can to distinguish between the terrorists and the innocents. Many of the deaths of our military have come because they do not fire on someone unless they are sure they are an enemy. Mistakes have been made and some bad apples have done some bad things, but overall I think we are trying to avoid civilian causualties.
    If we weren't we could "win" the war today by blowing up entire towns where terrorist are at, but we don't because we do not behave as the terrorists do and we value innocent life.

  8. There is no such thing as a Christian nation.
    I think this phrase is too ambiguous, and can mean many things, and I think that, depending on how you define "christian", you could have a Christian nation.
    Here's what I mean. It's like saying "Christian music." I mean, the music can't get saved, but it is still meaningful to talk about Christian music.
    When we say Christian nation, we can mean many things. We can mean a nation of Christians. We can mean a theocracy where church and state power are mixed. However, I think the best definition is, a nation founded on Christian principles and worldview. I would argue that our nation is Christian in this last definition, though she has strayed from God in much of her legislation.

  9. Regarding lives in Iraq:
    1. Here's an estimate of Iraqi lives saved by the Bush doctrine, and why the 100,000 number is a misreading of the Lancet report.
    2. Here's the real numbers:
    Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
    9,306
    Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
    64*
    *Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists)

  10. Here's an estimate of Iraqi lives saved by the Bush doctrine.
    Is this some sort of sick joke? Hmmmm, perhaps we can create bloody civil wars in other countries and save even more lives! Not that it matters right? Civilians casualties are just collateral damage on the march to democracy.
    I think Bush should have the guts to send 500,000+ U.S. soldiers to Iraq/Afghanistan and end this. Do what needs to be done in Iraq. Also, it would be appropriate for those who think that the war in Iraq is justified to actually be the ones fighting it.

  11. Also, it would be appropriate for those who think that the war in Iraq is justified to actually be the ones fighting it.
    That is the case for the most part. If you poll our military particularly the ones who have served in Iraq, you find a high approval rating for the war and the mssion there.
    If you are throwing this out there as a type of chicken-hawk meme, you should know better. We can't honestly limit decisions over certain areas to only people who are directly involved in that area.
    We should certainly listen to advice from individuals who have experience, in this case the military, but that cannot be the only voice in the discussion. If that was the case, many of those who oppose the war would not be able to speak for the same reasons – no personal experience.

  12. The front page of iraqbodycount.net, lists 43,525 civilian deaths as the minimum number since the U.S. invasion, so it is interesting why Seeker would choose this as a source for his “numbers”.
    Seeker claims that one can measure the lives saved by the Bush doctrine; this is of course improvable. How can one establish what would have happened with another course of action. Seeker, if you are claiming prophetic powers please do so plainly. This is the type of sloppy thinking that led Emperor George to throw us into this mess in the first place. With this type of “flawless” logic it is no wonder Seeker thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old.

  13. I have repeatedly avoid a win at all cost mentality and an ends justify the means. Did you read what I wrote. I said we could win the war tomorrow, but we value innocent human life so we don't simply drop bombs all over the place.
    The intentional or grossly negligent targeting of non-combatants is a fundamentally immoral policy.
    I agree, but where we disagree is that apparently you think the US is engaged in this practice now. I disagree as I said in my earlier comment. The whole second half of my comment is dedicated to that thought.
    We shouldn't just go in and "wiin the thing," by killing everyone that prays toward Mecca. That would be a horrible thing to do morally and strategically, but more importantly morally. That is why we are still see terrorists and their attacks today. We do not do everything we can to wipe them out because they are surrounded, intentionally, with civilians.
    Your points about WWII lead me to belief that you are either a pacifist or an isolationists or both. It seems as if there is no war that you can identify with America in or see any justification for our entrance into a war.

  14. It occurs to me that Seeker will claim that some of the deaths tabulated by iraqbodycount.net include deaths as a result of the reaction to the U.S. invasion as well as deaths because of a breakdown in law and order resulting from the invasion. The moral responsibility for these deaths falls on the U.S. since we chose to invade and depose the sovereign government of Iraq. As Colin Powell warned, “If you break it you own it”. Since we created the conditions that currently exist and are in fact the guarantor of security by dint of our occupation then the moral responsibility is ours. We must not let Bush and/or his supporters, including Democrats who voted for the war, escape the harsh judgment of history for this monstrous action.

  15. Does the US get credit for stopping Saddam's genocide?
    How does this factor into decisions on Dafur?

  16. Aaron,
    I will answer your last post first.
    First of all eliminating Saddam is not an action that can be considered in a vacuum. We have to ask ourselves what was the cost. The true answer to this question will probably not be known for decades. However, it does not look promising for the war’s supporters. By creating an anarchic situation in Iraq and unleashing a sectarian war we will have made the situation considerably worse than before we invaded. This is on top of the aforementioned casualties inflicted by the U.S. as well the use of Iraq as a terror recruitment tool. So if this cost is acceptable to you then go ahead and give credit to the U.S. for this state of affairs. If you do want to give credit to the U.S. then you should be prepared to condemn U.S. policy toward Saddam during most of his reign. He was good at doing our bidding and had our full support until 1991, which would include the height of his murdering ways.
    A multi-lateral intervention in Darfur, which without U.S. leadership won’t happen, may very well be justified. It is worth noting however, that the U.S. is not overly fixated by the Darfur tragedy precisely because it is motivated by imperial interest not humanitarian principle. This motivation is what drives horrendous action in places like Iraq and creates the justified impression that the U.S. is not bound by the rules of civilized international behavior.
    Let me get back to the current conflict: if you think the U.S. is conducting this war in a way that takes reasonable and prudent care to minimize civilian casualties then what a wonderful set of rose-colored glasses you must wear. You can claim 2+ 2 =5 but that does not make it so. By any measure the U.S. conduct of this war has been indiscriminate and unjustified. It is beyond disgusting to claim that we are being somehow circumspect in our conduct compared to the level of violence we COULD throw at Iraq. Tell that to the bereaved of the scores of dead who fill Iraq’s morgues week after week. Your endorsement of current U.S. policy in Iraq makes it clear that you are willing, whether you admit it or not, to use terror tactics to achieve your foreign policy goals.
    It is irrelevant to this discussion whether or not I am a pacifist or an isolationist, except to try and dismiss my criticism and excuse Allied conduct in Iraq and in past wars such as WWII. That however, will not wash. If you are so inclined then justify how intentionally targeting innocent German and Japanese or Iraqi civilians was/is a morally correct policy.

  17. Of course, I am not trying to dismiss criticism, nor have I ever provided an opinion on this war. However, I did want to counter your statistics so that we don't think they are unspun facts. Sure, what I provided had the opposite spin. You can decide what you like. Me, this argument, like some others, is not one I usually engage in.

  18. It appears we are on different sides FCL, while I may indeed wear rose-colored glasses and say 2+2=4. You seem to be wearing dark tinted glasses claiming 2+2=3 to keep the analogues going.
    You have a very bleak view of America that I think is titled in the opposite direction of mine. Maybe I do give my nation too much of a pass, that is up for debate, but you seem to desire to blame America for all the ills of every situation we are involved in or not involved in.
    You can accuse me of support terror tactics all you like, but I have yet to see you offer any real answers for anything, only complaints and attacks against the US.
    The question of your viewpoint was not one to dismiss your criticisms, but rather to find the root of them. I am just wondering if you have ever approved of a US military action. Can we meet the FCL standard?

  19. Aaron,
    I have a bleak view of what The United States has become in the last 108 years; a rogue smug, self-serving empire. This historical fact is completely at odds with this nation’s founding principles and has done much damage to the cause of liberty at home and abroad.
    So to answer your question, no military action taken by this nation since 1898 has been justified. These military actions have not defended the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or our free passage on the high seas, which are the only legitimate rights that any nation has. Since 1898 we have been systematically and violently pursuing imperial hegemony and we have not much cared who we destroyed in the process. It has been correctly stated that “war is the health of the state”. The United State’s welfare/warfare state has all but destroyed the grand experiment begun in 1776. I hope that clears things up for you.

  20. Yeah, right, the fight against the genocidal regimes in mid-twentieth cen. Japan and Germany wasn't justified. Duh.
    That being said, we have, indeed, entered on an imperial adventure totally at odds with the agrarian republic envisioned by the Founders. Oh, well, such is life…

  21. Louis,
    Our involvement in WWII was imperial in nature and not purely defensive. How long do you think it would take the United States to attack if someone cut off our oil the way we did to Japan? Germany and Japan posed imperial challenges to U.S. hegemony and that more than the defense of our legitimate rights was the cause for our involvement in the war. This was an involvement that was preceded by systematic lies and violations of our human and constitutional rights. Does any of this sound like the last 5 years?
    In addition there needs to be a calculus of the costs of that involvement. In 1939 half of Europe was under dictatorship and most of the Far East. In 1945 Half of Europe and most of the Far East was under dictatorship. The only difference was a re-shuffling of the dictator’s land areas so that the even more genocidal Stalin had greater power than before the war. Oh and the world was minus 50 million people who got snuffed out for the “cause” Duh.

  22. It's really fascinating what lengths some people will go to blame America for everything that's wrong in the world. Now, somehow, Japan and Germany were merely responding to "U.S. hegemony." I suppose that's why Japan attacked China and butchered hundreds of thousands of civilians BEFORE they attacked us. And, of course, it's America's fault that Hitler systematically murdered millions of civilians and threatened to destroy western civilization once and for all. Yep, it's all our fault that 50 million died in WWII and that millions more died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and, now, Kim Il Sung. I guess Nazism, Facism, and Communism were just benign beliefs that had nothing to do with any of this. I agree that we should have done more to eliminate the evil and genocidal communist regimes immediately after the war, but I wonder if a war-weary world could have stood it. Whatever the case, your argument is not only unhistorical, it is absurd.

  23. Louis,
    I never said America was to blame for all the problems in the world. Nor did I say that Germany and Japan were simply responding to U.S. imperial activity. The point I made was that The U.S. clashed with Germany and Japan because all involved had imperial designs that made conflict almost inevitable and that our involvement was not worth the cost either internationally nor domestically. Apparently you believe that only the U.S., of all nations in the history of mankind, acts out of purely noble motives.
    There are two main rationales given for our entry into WWII. The first is that we needed to do so for our own safety. This is false. First of all it is unlikely that Germany and Japan would have been able to “destroy western civilization once and for all”. Secondly it is clear that the U.S. was not made markedly safer or materially more prosperous by our entry into and prosecution of WWII. In fact the war had little affected the relative strengths of adversaries vis a vis the U.S. If anything we were less safe because the USSR emerged in a much stronger position than Germany ever had.
    The second rationale given for U.S. entry into the war is a moral one. We had to save the world from the evil of Hitler and the Japanese. These regimes were indeed evil. Yet these rationales don’t really stand up. First of all Hitler’s crimes were not at the time universally known and this moral argument was really only made in hindsight. So this could not have been our reason for entering the war. The second failure of this argument is that allying ourselves with Stalin presents…ahem, morally ambiguous problems of its own. In point of fact Stalin was far worse than Hitler in the sheer enormity of his violence. To argue that allying with Stalin was necessary because Hitler was so evil is an insult to the memory of both sets of victims.
    In the end the war may have been inevitable, especially after U.S. entry into WWI (but that is another discussion). However, our entry into this war did not have to be inevitable. What we do know is that we entered the war, as nations throughout history have done, with motives that don’t make the mythic 5th grade history texts. What we do know is the United States contributed to the greatest carnage the planet has known. What we do know is that the U.S. was not markedly safer or better off because of the war. What we do know is that, for all the carnage the world map was just as dominated by dictators as before the war. We also know that the U.S. emerged with much innocent blood on its hands. We witnessed the degradation of the American ideal in the form of the internment of Japanese-American citizens, the mass terror bombing of innocent civilian population centers and the enormously increased power of government in the lives of all Americans. All in all this is a pretty poor return on a very bloody investment.
    You can go on believing in the do-goody good bullshit civics version of U.S. history if you want. Or Louis, you could open your mind to revised ways of looking at the past. I think it odd that someone who positions himself as a “freethinking” atheist would have such child-like faith in the sanitized version of humanity’s past.

  24. Geez, what a weird argument. No, I don't think we alone in history act out of purely noble motives. But I think acting against the genocidal and facist regimes of the 1930's was, indeed, noble. And, no, these are not fifth-grade fantasies.
    I note you ignore the actions of Japan and Germany before we entered the war. Certainly, they were vicious and exhibited the beginnings of their genocidal designs. You ignore my mention of China's fate: of course, for if you hadn't your argument would fall apart. And, elements of our gov't knew about, if not the full extent of Nazism's plans, the beginnings of them. It was inevitable and necessary to confront them sooner rather than later. It would have been immoral not to.
    You simply assert that we didn't enter the war for our own safety, offering no proof or evidence other than the weak declaration that the Axis powers' victory wouldn't have ended liberal western civilization. I vehemently disagree. Nazism's victory would have had virtually unimaginable consequences. And do you really think they, out of the goodness of their hearts, would have left us alone? They had rockets, and were developing nuclear weapons. The victorious German war machine, allied with Imperial Japan, would have eventually crushed us. Further, the USSR didn't emerge more powerful, but devasted by the war. We could taken them easily (too bad we didn't).
    Yes, allying with the Soviet was a smelly affair. But I guess they seemed less odious than Hitler, and less of a threat as well. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Too bad we didn't finish them off when we had the chance (something Patton and Churchill advocated).
    Yes, yes, we participated in atrocities. But that's what happens when total war occurs. And, of course, hind-sight is always 20-20. "If onlys" are a dime a dozen here. However, I'm glad WE won and they lost. Infinitely so. If we hadn't fought this war all out, the death and destruction would have been far worse (imagine death camps here in America).
    Your final paragraph gives you away. Your personal attack merely underlines the desperation of your specious argument. Extreme leftists love to revise history to fit their anti-America agenda. I don't hold much truck with recent American history, but WWII (not WWI, btw) is a different story. Not only does it take a heaping dose of revisionism to make our part in it equal in blame to that of the Axis, it also takes something near insanity. But, then, when the chips are down, there's little difference between your brand of leftist cant and the evils we rightly confronted in WW2.
    And your moral argument is hilarious. You simply claim, again without evidence, that the true nature of nazism and imperial Japan was not "universally known." I beg to differ: the nature's of these regimes was well understood, both here and abroad. It may have taken a while to overcome pacifistic and isolationist impulses, but by the time America entered it, the was had been going on for some time. And don't forget the murderous acts of Japan in China were there for the world to see (as well as what happened years earlier in Spain – remember Guernica?).

  25. btw: Where's Aaron and seeker here? I would expect at least some kind of defense of xian civilization against the depredations of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

  26. Louis,
    I have not ignored the actions of Germany and Japan before the war. Neither did American policymakers who felt their hegemony under threat. The U.S. did not forget what Japan was doing in China either. What exercised U.S. policymakers about Japan in China was their ending of the so-called “open door” policy which conferred economic privileges upon the U.S. at the expense of China’s sovereignty. It was, as in most other areas of U.S.-Japanese and U.S.-German relations a case of empires colliding.
    Understanding the nature of the dictatorship in Germany is one thing but having a grasp of what the Germans were doing to the Jews was something else. The Holocaust was not widely known to U.S. policymakers and was not a driving force in our entry into the war.
    When I say that the U.S. did not enter the war for its own safety, I mean the defense of the legitimate rights of the U.S. citizens. Of course empires feel unsafe from other empires but that does not make their wars just. I also did not say that a Nazi victory would not end Western Civilization. What I said was that it was unlikely that they could accomplish such a victory, please read more carefully. By December 1941 it was clear that the best the Nazis could hope for was a stalemate and by January of 1942 it was clear they would lose altogether. Japan’s attack on the U.S. was a desperation move and when it was clear they did not sink the aircraft carriers in the Pacific their gambit had failed. These facts were known to Allied military planners. So despite your assertions Western Civilization simply did not hang in the balance.
    To claim that the Soviets were “less odious” than the Nazis is to concede that our entry into and conduct of the war had no real moral basis. The USSR was probably the most murderous regime, save maybe Mao’s China, that the world had ever seen. To defend this alliance is to turn your back on what it was that made Western Civilization unique in the first place. So is your cavalier dismissal of Allied war conduct as something that just happens in a war. What is it that you as a great defender of Western Civilization are defending anyway? The right to murder hundreds of thousands of innocents? To destroy wantonly in an immoral counter value strategy? To descend this far down the moral scale is to hand the totalitarians a victory before you even start. Your moral recklessness is also evident in your simplistic statement that we could have “taken them easily” in reference to the Soviets. Besides this being factually in error it would be the height of irresponsibility to have tried. You would place millions in the crosshairs of a WWIII just to satisfy your desire to impose an American hegemony upon the world. But what would be the real difference between us and them? You would already have us ally with dictators; bomb innocents into dust and grossly violate the rights of our own citizens.
    When all is said and done you have failed to justify U.S. entry into or conduct of WWII. You have only repeated the arguments of the day; arguments in favor of a “Pax Americana”, which is fancy talk for empire. It is the defeat of all such imperial ideologies; Nazi, communist or Amerikan that is the true defense of Christian values. It is not about us vs. them or lines on a map or symbols on a flag. It is about defending the inherent worth of all God’s children from whoever threatens them.
    Just for the record I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, not your standard leftist. Although I would rather be a raving leftist than a state worshipping imperialist running dog any day.

  27. Louis,
    You are doing a fantastic job against FCL's anti-American revisionist history. He twists history to his liberal agenda just like he does scripture ;).
    However, I would agree that, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the two world wars, our causes have been less than honorable. I think FCL has thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
    I haven't jumped in because, truth be told, I'm not that knowledgable with history – I've spent most of my time studying science and theology, and now, I'm coming up to speed on history, esp. religous history.
    I agree that our motives in WWII were part noble, and probably part ignoble. But it is always such – self-preservation and advancement are part of most foreign policy decisions. But the cause was just, no matter what our motives. Same with WWI.
    Other modern conflicts are harder to decide on – in many cases we had to support the lesser of two evils, not a good, and inevitably, it came back to bite us. I am of the belief that Christianity, with a healthy dose of secular humanism thrown in, is our only hope.

  28. Not much more to be said. FCL is, clearly, a Puritan. It's kind of weird how leftists are really puritans at heart. He wants America to be entirely pure of any stain at all to be even worth considering. What happened in WW2 is thus grist for his mill: America killed civilians! America gained superpower status! America doesn't have a halo! How terrible! What do you think happens during wartime, tea and cookies? Of course people get killed. However, there was a fundamental moral difference between us and the Axis powers, and if you can't see that…well, too bad for you.
    This litany of evils supposedly refers to America's "Hegemony." What a laugh! Before WW2, America's armed forces were a joke. We were in a severe depression. The real hegemonistic power was England…with Germany, Italy and Japan making bids for empires on their own.
    Nowadays are, of course, different. It seems like the Bush admin wants to be hegemonistic, but is having a tough time of it. We can't even subdue such rinky-dink countries as Afganistan and Iraq. Some hegemony! Our real hegemony is economic, and will soon be challenged by China. Whatever the case, I always laugh when people accuse us of empire. Where are our Satrapies? Is Canada, Mexico, Central America and Cuba under the thumb of U.S. governors? Are Iran, Afganistan, and Iraq nuclear wastelands? What countries pay us tribute? Why is the U.N. still standing on U.S. soil? We're kind of a half-assed empire if you ask me. If we were as wicked as people like FCL believe, why aren't we in better shape? Hell, they should name me Emperor! I'd see that things were ordered aright. Anyone who didn't bow down before our power would be radioactive ash; the ACLU and its ilk would be memory; Muslims would be escorted back to where they came from; a more muscular xianity would be the state religion with me as its head; and this nonsense about spreading democracy would in the garbage where it belongs. I would certainly be a better Great Leader than that canting twerp we have now. They want evil? They don't know what evil is.

  29. As is typical of shoddy argumentation you have answered a charge I did not make. I never said The U.S. was as bad as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. What I have been saying is that
    1. U.S. was not justified in entering the war based on its legitimate security needs. Which are its territorial integrity, sovereignty and freedom of the high seas.
    2. The costs of our involvement both moral and practical were not worth our involvement.
    Now if you want to successfully attack my first position you have two options; one is to factually show how Germany and Japan could have conquered the U.S. or put the U.S. in a position that would have made its legitimate security needs untenable. Another way to attack this position is to argue that nations can rightfully go beyond the defensive needs that I have outlined and fight wars of national interest. You clearly think that this is permissible as per you comments on the U.S. turning on its erstwhile ally the Soviet Union after the war. Please show how this type of action is morally justified and is practically effective by making us safer.
    If you wish to successfully attack my second position you will need to show the moral righteousness of the costs of the war versus its gains. Show how it was worth it to contribute to such a carnage which left the structure of international relations little changed but more unstable. Explain how allying with and elevating the power of Stalin was a moral good. Show how diminishing our constitutional and civil rights were a morally good thing. Demonstrate that our conduct of the war was not a war crime. Please put forth an argument that convinces that 1000 bombers over Dresden, fire bombing Tokyo, the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were righteous actions. Please do better than “that is just war”. We know they can’t be justified by Christian values and since you don’t care for Christians anyway go ahead and put forth your best secular humanist rationale. Show everyone that your ethical views should not be considered a canker sore on the body politic. Unless or until you can do these things your views of U.S. involvement in WWII should be considered the wistful musings of an apologist for death.

  30. Yawn. You sound like a somewhat condescending professor giving a midterm. If I had wanted to continue the dialog I might have taken the avenue you outline above. Obviously, I didn't. The controversy has become tiresome and ridiculous. And boring. I dislike having to argue with ideologues, particular those as nasty and self-righteous as you.
    finis.

  31. FCL, you make some valid points, but I don't necessarily think that (a) only direct challenges to national sovereignty are the only legit reasons to join the wars (and don't forget, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor), nor (b) that entering to stop a moral evil like Hitler against our allies is bad either.
    But i will soon be out of my depth on these issues.
    And Louis, how can you call FCL self-righteous? He has defended homosexuality with the scriptures!

  32. Seeker,
    As for being attacked at Pearl Harbor, true enough and some response was probably called for. However, as I pointed out we had cut off the Japanese oil supply, and I dare say we would have had a similar response. This is not to justify the Japanese attack (nor our probable response if faced with a similar situation). It does go far in helping to understand U.S. motives in the Pacific pre-Pearl harbor.
    Eliminating Hitler (or any such tyrant) is something that cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. I was simply making the point that the cost of eliminating Hitler, to us and the rest of the world was too high for the results obtained.
    There is not enough time to go into a full discussion about the criteria I outlined for entering a war. Let’s just at this point say we disagree and leave it at that

  33. Louis,
    I don’t blame you for wanting to quit. After being faced with a full on moral and historical challenge to your cherished faith in a sanitized past you found yourself unable to defend that mythic history in which you cling to so tightly. If I had received a pasting like that I would want to run and hide as well.
    Class dismissed.

  34. The reason I was (am) absent. I don't have internet over the weekend – not at home. Secondly, you were doing a pretty good job yourself. You can be frustrating to debate against, but you are effective and eloquent so I enjoyed seeing you dismiss FCL's "blame America" tirades.