my point

Matthew Rockel said...

its also about 300 less than the number of US citizens who died on September 11. Maybe we should declare a war on cars, AIDS, and suicide.

finneganswhistle said...

So are you saying that war is not as big an issue as these other causes of death? Or perhaps that we shouldn't be upset about the war based solely on the american body count, since few americans are up in arms over suicides and chronic liver disease? I believe death is the ultimate price. I think we have to ask, "what are we buying with these deaths?" Also take into consideration who is ultimately responsible for these deaths(on our side). It is the government, who sends the troops there. In most of these other cases, there is no entity responsible above the individual. Discuss further?"

The impetus for the graph was my reading of an essay by C.S. Lewis entitled "Why I am not a pacifist". In it he is speaking about about why a man might participate in war even if drafted. In it he points out the obvious: war is terrible, no good man likes war. Though i don't have it here to quote from, he speaks about how he doesn't believe that death and pain are the worst evils. That the suppression of a higher religion by a lower one or the suprresion of a higher secular order by a lower one are worse evils. That all men die, and most miserably. That two men can die while being most selfless in serving their country or helping a compatriot is an honorable death, even if (at least) one of them has been decieved as to the good for which they are fighting. The thought that a long life is better than a short one is unfounded.
Add to this that he is speaking about men who were consribed to serve in war time. We have an military that is all volantary. So these men put themselves in a position of service to their country when their country decides to go to war. I know that some people think of the military as a way to earn money for college- which it is, but to think that you would never have to see active duty is ridiculous.

It is impossible to acess whether the world- or even just the US, is better or worse for having gone to Iraq the second time. It is not, in my opinion, too much of a stretch to make comparrisons between Saddam and Hitler. One difference is that Saddam was unsucessful in his attempts to invade and take over his neighbors because of the swift actions of the US and other colalition forces in the first gulf war. Saddam has well established himself as a power crazy dictator. He defied deadlines because he did not care about the lives of his people. He was willing to test the will of US threats not becasue he thought he could take us, but because he didn't think we could act. Men like him only respond to force.
Had their been no second action, it seems likely that a saddam remaining in power would eventually follow along the lines of a Hitler.
Thats what I was thinking.