Let me get this straight. One of the leading arguments for not reducing troop levels in Iraq is that it would increase violence. Another is that it would look like an admission of failure on Bush's part. And now Peters is suggesting that the only "sane" (for some value of sanity) option is to basically re-invade a country we already occupy, overthrow the government WE PUT INTO PLACE IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY, and start executing people like Pol friggin' Pot. Remember the purple fingers? Those fingers are now flipping us the bird. And Ralph Peters wants to kill them for it.

"...tens of thousands of lives... or tens of millions..."

While I agree with the premise (we must crush Iran now, or else) I think the above is the equivalent of any moral equivalence I've seen anywhere.

In a proper morality, the lives of the enemy are not compared in cost-benefit analysis of the lives of our own citizens or military personnel.

If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it.

Anything else is a decision to kill US soldiers for the sake of the enemy, which is treason.

I do not know if it's possible to crush Iran's mullocracy, nuclear program, and means to re-estabish either, without a massive (or nuclear) strike at this point. If not, then we had better strike them before they strike us.

If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it.

You, sir, are a filthy, amoral bastard. And you have no idea what the word 'moral' means.

Legion:

You've slung personal attacks, but failed to make any argument at all.

Aside from the moral argument, there is also a practical one. By use of "surgical strikes" to remove a dictator and his top staff, we allow the population to preserve the culture that created the dictatorship, and which would re-create it if we didn't occupy it (as in Iraq).

One reason why Germany and Japan did not revert to their previous behavior is that we crushed their will. Broken, utterly defeated, humiliated, with no way to convince themselves that their old behavior "worked", they were ready to make a change.

OK Bearster, here goes.

Being our enemy, or being another religion, does not remove someone from the realm of humanity. Dehumanizing and demonizing the enemy can make it easier for troops about to go into direct conflict to fight, but when those tactics are used on civilians back home, it cheapens the value of all life. You say:
In a proper morality, the lives of the enemy are not compared in cost-benefit analysis of the lives of our own citizens or military personnel.

If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it.

That's not a 'proper morality', Bearster. It's evil. Especially when you have other options besides killng those 10M. I don't think it's a good solution to the situation in Iraq, but if we brought every one of our soldiers home tomorrow, no more would die there. Iraq isn't realistically capable of threatening the US or anyone else, and won't be for decades. Why isn't that a viable option?

Yet you seriously propose a nuclear strike on Iran, something that would kill millions of people, as the most viable option. And rather than even making the limp effort of something like 'you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet' to defend the deaths of the countless innocent civilians such an act would cause, you go fully into genocide mode - as though any conflict between our culture and another is entirely the fault of the 'others' and their inherently inferior culture.

One reason why Germany and Japan did not revert to their previous behavior is that we crushed their will. Broken, utterly defeated, humiliated, with no way to convince themselves that their old behavior "worked", they were ready to make a change.

And if you actually believe that, you are not merely arrogantly amoral, you're also a complete raving idiot. I pity you, and I fear for the future of both America and the entire human race.

Bearster-- I'm not sure about Germany, but another big reason Japan was unable to revert is because it was written into their constitution that it's illegal for their SDF (self defense force) to deploy. They had to re-write a part of their constitution recently to allow a unit to deploy to Iraq for humanitarian missions.

Being crushed and humiliated is a perfect breeding ground for someone to step up, give a forlorn country an identity, and have another go at it. Post WWI Germany is a perfect example of this, and the apathy of her neighbors enabled it. I think the main reason that each country didn't revert (or in the case of Japan, be made into a slave colony by the rest of Asia) is because the US took a proactive role in not allowing it to happen. (Japan also didn't have any resources, and again, the rest of Asia would have happily taken their revenge on Japan, maybe making it a worker's paradise, if the US didn't establish a strong presence there.) To assume that people will come to the conclusion (as a nation) that their old behavior simply didn't work and it was time to make a change may be giving them a little too much credit. Plus behavior is inextricably linked with culture, and people aren't real big on forsaking it, particularly in Asia where tradition is so important.

My 2 cents.....A little off topic, and probably totally off base, so take it for what it's worth. :)

That's not a 'proper morality', Bearster.

That's precisely the morality calculus Truman employed in deciding to nuke Japan. An est 500,000 US military casualties against a couple of Japanese cities and thousands of civilians.

Y'all missed my point.

If there is a way to eliminate Iran's capability to wage terror war against the US through its proxies, and to eliminate its capability to develop a nuclear bomb, I am all ears. Let someone propose something feasible.

I say "eliminate" because appeasement is irrational, and there is no kind of persuasion that works on people who are immune to logic.

My point was that if you must wage war, then you owe a moral duty to the poor schmucks you send to fight it. You must promise them: "we will not waste your lives!" This is in addition to the moral duty to protect the lives of innocent American citizens (that's us, by the way).

This means if you can save their lives--or ours--by killing more of the enemy, then you must do that. There is no number that changes this principle. It is not an equation that is "balanced".

The purpose of a response is not to serve a self-defeating notion of "proportion" but to prevent them from doing it again.

If one must wage war, then one must fight utterly to win, to win as swiftly as possible, and with the minimum possible cost to one's own. If one must wage war, then one must do so without hesitation, without half-actions, without partial committment, without mercy.

By the very moral code Legion is espousing here, we're "successful" in Iraq. Our troops are there being sacrificed to protect the lives of Iraqis. Bush feels this is the moral way to wage war. What's wrong with it? Why not send thousands of innocent American military personnel to save tens or hundreds of thousands from death, slavery, or even from poverty??

The perverted moral code of altruism doesn't offer an argument.

Meanwhile, the enemy is laughing at our moral weakness, even as they raise the ante.

Iran, let's not forget, is run by an apocalytpic mass-murdering madman who has convinced me that he wouldn't mind going to paradise if he could kill us in the process. Do you disagree with this premise, or only with the implication?

We could simply hope he doesn't mean it. But hope is not a plan.

We could try appeasement. Maybe it will work better this time, somehow?

We have one choice. We can either destroy Iran's capacity to wage war, or we can let them raise the ante with nuclear bombs.

P.S. What is monstrously immoral is to have mercy for the enemy, but none for innocents. The gut-wrenching sight of people burning--or jumping--to death from the WTC will be nothing compared to nuclear bomb, or even a dirty bomb, dropped on NY. What if they do it to several cities at the same time?

This is what I am hoping for. The US will continue with the moral bull as expressed in the threads so far. This will enable and encourage the terrorist or Muslims (same thing) to indeed do somehting terrible such as a nuclear device in New York or one of the other northern cities. That will trigger the economic catastrophy that has been as sure thing with the extraordinary personal and national debt we have. As some point the South will get the idea once again that we can truly be free. We can then make our bid possibly with the assistance of the Muslim world. So we really do win!!

David, seriously -- up your meds.

Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov't erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel).
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Purple,
Unfortunately, I feel I have to be serious on this. It sounds like sarcasm or trying to be funny, but look at the reality of the situation.

The US is like a stack of dominos. One thing that pushes us in the wrong direction and it will fall apart. So, if terrorist preformed a nuclear explosion in NY then the financal situation will begin to unravel. With the debt that all owe, this will not take much to elicit a severe depression.

Now, many of us do not feel exactly "free". Several sections such as the Pacific region already desire to bust up the Union. You will argue that we are the most free nation on earth and that may be true, but if you compare our situation to that before 1860, we are basically slaves. I am one of the 10% that actually pay taxes in the US and am beginning to be very mad at local, state and federal governments wanting more. This is one small example, I could provide an endless list of ways the government infringes on us (try getting on a plane). As such, the South represents a section that has interest and goals that do not go parallel with the NE of the US that seems to constantly tell us what to do. So ultimately the South will go its own way.

Moralize about the use of weapons of mass distruction all you want. If you want this country to survive as is, you better start killing and getting control of alot more Muslims. As for me, I am looking to a brighter future.

My point was that if you must wage war, then you owe a moral duty to the poor schmucks you send to fight it. You must promise them: "we will not waste your lives!" This is in addition to the moral duty to protect the lives of innocent American citizens (that's us, by the way).

This means if you can save their lives--or ours--by killing more of the enemy, then you must do that. There is no number that changes this principle. It is not an equation that is "balanced".

OK, that's something I can agree completely with - the context of actual conflict. I can't agree with something like that as a pre-emptive or preventative move, however, and I didn't gather that focus from your earlier comments. By that standard, FWIW, I believe the atom bombs on Japan were actually justified - we were already at war & committed to victory; I don't see the same level of threat (yet) from Iran.

Why is that important? Why let Iran get even closer to the brink? Because of exactly what they (and NK also) are doing now - saber rattling. Right now, we're in the process of trying things below the level of open warfare to get Iran off their current course. Yes, appeasement is pointless, but there are other tools we can use. They may not work against Iran, but I believe we are morally obligated to try them before the 'nuclear option'. The problem, with Bush's preventative war policy (and what it sounds to me lilke you're proposing) is that the _next_ country that nears nuclear capability _won't_ make any noise about it. They'll just drop it on whichever enemy they feel poses the greatest threat to them at the time. It actually makes us _more_ likely to be struck by nuclear terrorism, not less.

P.S. What is monstrously immoral is to have mercy for the enemy, but none for innocents. The gut-wrenching sight of people burning--or jumping--to death from the WTC will be nothing compared to nuclear bomb, or even a dirty bomb, dropped on NY. What if they do it to several cities at the same time?

You do remember, don't you, that Iraq (and IIRC Iran also) had _nothing_ to do with that attack? And that the US is doing just about nothing to locate the guy who did? And that the leading support structure for that asshat was (and possibly still is) Saudi Arabia? Just sayin'...

I strongly disagree with the estimation here for the loss of lives if Iran has a nuclear bomb. It is maybe 5% of the estimation in my circles.
Imagine you were the Iranian president, and you have just been handed with the nuclear weapon. If you fire at Israel now, Israel fires back, and the whole thing is over. You are no longer the Middle East super power you have been for the past years, you loose your chance in bringing to the coming of doomsday, which the Iranian regime is with no doubt committed to, and you are just left to leak your wounds while Israel is leaking its wounds, and maybe the second half of the Jewish people of the Diaspora rejoin to educate their kids to reestablish Israel once the soil and the water are recovered, which according to the Iranian view is a very likely script, seeing that they feel it is the world's guilt over the first holocaust, that had enabled the establishment of the first Israel.

It would be much more reasonable of them, in view of their agenda, to:

1. Cooperate with global spread terror groups that can take their nuclear bombs to places they either can't reach by missiles or they would prefer to use terror cells rather than missiles, because missiles would have a sender address to retaliate, while bombs activated by terror cells would not. Note that for that purpose it would be much better for them to use Sunni terror groups than Hizb-Allah for example, because the harder it is to prove the source to retaliate, the more time they are going to gain to go on with their agenda of bringing back the Imam. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume they would use whatever terror group that has the "best" proven ability to strike successfully, and maximize the ability of the nuclear bombs, by hitting major targets.

2. Strike as many incapable of retaliating targets, before they strike Israel. Once they strike Israel it would be over for them. Our stated policy is that a strike by Iran would not mean 10-15 millions deaths in Iran, but the destruction of the whole of Iran for 300 years. You can count on it being true, and Iran knows that as well. So why not start with making sure that "betrayers" in the Muslim world end their way, and that only "pure" Muslim practicing societies for the satisfaction of Allah are left to great the Imam? You would be surprised of how crucial that is on their agenda. It is not the charismatic call that can unite Muslims behind them, not like "Death to Israel", but it is not less important to them, and they have been practicing the promotion of that agenda with no less efforts than the agenda of sabotaging any chance of peace with Israel and its neighbors. Take into consideration that the very existence of Israel makes them the leaders of so many Muslims and justifies what ever they do in the eyes of their public. So they won't loose this "joker" until they are ready and have made all the arrangements for the coming of the second Imam to feet their view of how the world should look greeting it.

And this brings me to another major cause of deaths the estimation you have shown does not take under consideration. Because Muslim states that are considered to be traitors in the eyes of Iran, such as Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and all of the states that have cooperated with the west, or fought Shiites in their own regimes, know exactly how serious Iran's threat to them. That's why a nuclear bomb to Iran by no means can only mean that. It with no doubt means a hysterical race towards that bomb among those countries, and then among the whole Middle East, by any regime that has oil to fund those aspirations. That means that a whole out nuclear war is no longer a question of "if" but rather a question of "when". It also means that to include only Israel's and Iran's casualties in the estimations for the loss of lives due to a nuclear Iran is in my (and others in Israel) humble opinion completely mistaken.