Posted on 02/16/2007 12:33:58 AM PST by neverdem
The crying shame of it is if you were to treat anyone promoting Bell's thesis as they deserve to be treated it would most definitely be considered "over reaction," and punishable by law.
Simply put, Bell's argument goes as follows: There have been wars in the past, global wars, in which millions have died: 50 million, for example, in the Second World War. On the other hand, if you compute the number of Americans who died on 9/11, and "even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism," this yields only 6,500 dead Americans. Then, as a way of putting this figure into perspective, Bell says that "we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in car accidents."
I wonder if the good Dr Bell considers this a bad thing that (so far) America has "only" lost 6,500 people?
Can you imagine the outrage if Ameica was taking the number if casualties we did in WWII?
America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
(Do the math)
You might try reading the WHOLE article, before commenting. I know this is a radical idea, but give it a shot..you might be suprised.
Unfortunately it is the belief of one major American party, huge part of American population and probably majority of all the world. So, this stupidity does require a proper response - a counterargument in this info-war we are in. Lee Harris supplies good ammunition here.
The last paragraph is the opinion of the author of the article, not the professor.
Or at least get past the headline.
Yes, that would have been an overreaction. IMHO one mushroom over where Kabul had been if the Taleban hadn't surrendered Ol' Slimey Ben Rotten within 72 hours would have been a measured reprisal, and would have saved lives on both sides.
No it isn't and no it isn't.
It is a recondition that our current civil society like all societies rests on a very fragile foundation. It will only last as long as the people in it are not willing to put up with it being otherwise.
A few days ago four girls beat and stripped another woman in Target. They were able to do so not because they outnumbered the other people in the store or over powered them but because everyone else lacked the will to stop them.
All the terrorists have to do is want to enslave us more then we want to be free.
It is necessary to be ready to fight to correct wrongs, regardless of a concern about "proportionality." The story of ancient Troy & Sparta - and the abduction of Helen, and the epic story of the 10 year battle (and thousands of deaths) to free one woman is but one example.
In ancient Roman times, foreign cities would not harm a Roman citizen, because to do so could cause the entire might of the Roman Empire to come down on the city, exacting a fearful payment. Being a Roman citizen meant one could travel fairly safely. And a city that harmed a Roman city might be totally destroyed and all inhabitants killed - over the harming of a single Roman citizen.
At the start of the 20th century, being an American citizen also had certain protections. Theodore Roosevelt sent Marines in many times when American lives might be at risk.
Robert Heinlein wrote in his "Starship Troopers" - where Ricco is instructed by his History and Moral Philosophy Instructor, Maj. Reid - that fighting - going to war, even a war that could kill thousands, or millions, can and should be done over just 1 individual. If we treat men as potatoes - then perhaps the deaths of less than some number of men is insufficient to raise the ire of a nation and go to war, but if the enemy exceeds that threshold, then we do go to war. Over time, that threshold level continually raises, and the nation becomes soft and will be in decline.
We saw that threshold raise as we did nothing about the terrorist attacks. We did nothing about Saddam's assaination plot against Bush(41). We did nothing about the continued violations of UN resolutions, we did nothing about Saddam's continued shooting at our airplanes. We were soft, and willing to take the insults, because we didn't have the stomach to stand strong. All in all, my guess is that the Democrats basically allow perhaps 10,000 civilian deaths a year to be inadequate justification to go to war. With the Democrats - men are potatoes.
Mike
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.