1. There is every reason to believe that slavery would have died under the weight of its own contradictions without killing 600,000 Americans not to mention the consequences of “reconstruction” which are still being dealt with today.

2. Hitler was not our problem. He had no bombers that could reach us nor a navy to ferry an invasion force across the Atlantic. We chose to take on Hitler. The Japanses freed hundreds of millions from European colonialism. The fact that they took the place of the European overlords was none of our business. A foreign policy that reflected those ideas would have not have given the Japanese any reason to bomb Pearl Harbor.

I don’t subscribe to either of those arguments but they are legitimate.

There are arguments against any and every war – good, sound moral arguments.

Ed.

Number One is completely and factually bogus, this para from the Wiki proves it:

In 1962, Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery, freeing about 10,000 slaves out of an estimated 15,000-30,000.[22] Slavery was ended by neighboring Qatar in 1952, the Yemen Arab Republic in 1962, the UAE in 1963, South Yemen in 1967, and Oman in 1970. Some of these states, such as Yemen, were British protectorates. The British left South Yemen without forcing it to give up slavery, but did pressure the UAE into giving it up. In 2005, Saudi Arabia was designated by the United States Department of State as a Tier 3 country with respect to trafficking in human beings. Tier 3 countries are “Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.”

And those countries only so-called “outlawed” slavery under international pressure; fact it, it’s still overtly permitted, and that’s not even to get into the vast swath of Sub-Saharan Africa, Sudan, etc., where slavery has never ended!

As far as Number Two is concerned, c’mon, you really really really can’t be serious?

So that argument is completely and thorougly bogus; and I’m completely STUNNED that you even imply they are “legitimate” not even counting the fact that they are historically and factually WRONG!

The Japanese didn’t free anybody from European colonialims, they replaced sometimes benign, sometimes oppressive European colonialism across SE Asia with a brutal and bloody form of Japanese colonialism the effect of which to this day have still poisoned normal relations between Japan and it’s Asian neighbors

Considering the age you said you are Rick, you should be ashamed of yourself to even make such a ludicrous statement as you just made above; you should know better, if you don’t then I’m appalled.

Rape of Naking, Rick?

Rape of Manial, Rick?

Japanese forces in a six week period murdered over 200,000 Chinese civilians in the Rape of Nanking, Rick, are you completely out of your mind?

America, at it’s worst, anywhere, has NEVER done anything like that.

In the Rape of Manila and the Philippines, it’s estimated that the Japanse military Raped over TWO MILLION Filipina women!

Are you kidding me?

Bad American miliary personal in Iraq rape ONE Iraqi women, and they are punished and we are vilified around the world, and someone would equate that with the the deliberate rape of over TWO MILLION women? Are you kidding me?

As many as up to 200,000 women from all across SE Asia were forced into Prostitution as “Comfort Women” for the Japanese Miliatry.

My god Rick, you’ve got to be kidding me on this.

Besides, we didn’t “take on Hitler”; the Japanese bombed on us, and Hitler declared war ON US!

“He had no bombers that could reach us nor a navy to ferry an invasion force across the Atlantic. ”

Again a completely stunningly ignorant of history comment!

WOW!

The Japanese actually developed an Atomic bomb, and probably tested it in Korea before the end of the War; they even sent a Submarine ladened with a “dirty bomb” to nuclear contaminate the West Coast of the United States, and it was only by dint of luck that it didn’t succeed.

As far as the Germans were concerned, they did not have an “amphib force” to ferry an invasion force, but that is the ONLY aspect of the comment that is correct!

They had EVER intention, with Strategic plans, as soon as they took over England, to turn it into an island “Aircraft Carrier” from which to attack and destroy the United States.

That you don’t know this, is completely baffling; German scientists were ahead of us in the nuclear arms race, and it was only due to British special forces that they didn’t actually explode one first.

They developed the V1 and then V2, NOT to attack England, the developed them to build follow-ons to attack the United States, and we had not defense against them.

They were planning and building Intercontinental bombers, to attack and raze US mainland cities, especially NYC.

Hitler himself approved the building of several variants that were developed and tested before the end of the war; it was only because of the extreme pressure from the Russians and us after Normandy, that they never succeeded.

If we hadn’t had been in Europe at all, they WOULD have succeeded.

You’re betraying an ignorance of history Rick, that is frankly stunning to me, and one that is clearly you putting the blinders on, in order to not only “prove” your post is correct, but in order to back up your other posts where you have criticized the War in Iraq, and have been subsequently proven incorrect!

I like you Rick, you’re a good guy, you’re heart and head are mostly in the right place, but sometimes, you fall in love with your own analysis and writings, and you back yourself into a corner with them, and then you continue to defend them with increasingly shaky post after increasingly shaky post, in order to a) never admit you were wrong, and b) in order to what I can only surmise is a type of Patrick Buchanan/John Bircher/Ron Paul-esque type affectation; sometimes in an attempt to show you are “even-handed”.

You’re wrong Rick, in your examples, and in the thrust of your post, I’ve proven it, and if you don’t know it, you should a) be ashamed that you allowed yourself to parrot things that as so demonstrably historically wrong and b) put yourself in the position in the first place to even attempt to legitimaize such ludicrous statements.

There are, and will me “moral” wars Rick; to deny that is to go so far to the Right, that you are now sitting firmly on the Left with the Moral Relativists and Moral Equivalence-ists!

WOW!

That includes starting a war, continuing a war, stopping a war, and post-war actions, too. Other factors include: political; social; econimic; religious; military, geographical; historical; humanitarian; and, legal, each of which also has a moral component.

1. Civil War: From a Southern viewpoint, both the States and the people believed they were morally right to defend their territory, their citizens and their way of life against Northern aggression.

2. WWII: The US went into the war to prevent Nazi Germany and Japan from carrying out their avowed objective of conquering the world, first Europe (which was done), then Russia, then the Middle East, North Africa, Far East (well on the way) and eventually North/South America.

This was a morally defensive position, and we could not wait around for further developments. Few think that we could have stayed out of it.

3. Iraq: There were 22 morally valid reasons to go into Iraq in a preemptive strike. So one of them didn’t pan out fully(the 500 chemical shells seem not to count as
WMD, but they were, in fact). Not the least of which is the necessity for fighting to quell, yes, Islamic aggression.

Thus, one should say that there are valid reasons– good, sound moral reasons– to go to war, to continue a war, and to end a war.

Or else, to go dig a hole somewhere and shiver with fear and cowardice.

There was a reason they de-baathified. There was a reason they didnt plan for the occupation. There was a reason they disbanded the Iraqi military. These things are too big to have been oversights. They wanted chaos. As much as I dislike the administration, I refuse to believe that they were so colossally stupid that they overlooked all of this. There is a greater goal here.

However, we should not have stayed in Iraq. We should not stay anywhere in the Mid East. Any “stability” we preserve (for a time until we are driven out) only serves to keep all our enemies alive.

I agree. Bush WANTED to screw up. He enjoys those 30% approval ratings and failure in Iraq. What better way to be thought of as the worst president in history than not planning the post war environment?

ed.

Right. For your next trick, I’m sure you can pick a stock or two that will go up by next week.

ed.

“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”

we will keep on keeping on till the water parts or we dive down… I can dare say I know the hearts and minds of the men really making the choices these days (nor do I want to make the choices they make) I can only hope that they carry us down a better road.
Thanks for what you do, you bring sunlight into many, many, many peoples days…

MMMM…not sure that anti-colonialism is quite the strong force it was 40 years ago. I was actually referring to other currents underlying the Arab world including the Shia awakening that began actually early in the 20th century but has now accelerated tremendously with Iran, Lebanon’s Hezb’allah, and a few other organizations in the Gulf states that are empowering Shia Muslims. That is a much more potent force in Iraq than anti-colonialism which Saddam’s rise pretty much took care of.

Ed.