Myron Azov

Grames is correct: we have to accept compulsory revenue collection for as long as there is a serious threat to our freedoms. Which means, needless to say, in any conceivable future. Rights are not "intrinsic,” i.e., they are not a universal attribute, a magic shield presented to every human on the hour of his birth. Instead they are a function of social behavior: a feature that comes only from complex arrangements that obtain from men acting through reason and self-interest. In short, rights are contextual. It is nothing less than obscene to raise objections to assessments imposed on the beneficiaries of a free society in this age of Al Qaeda suicide bombers, Arab strongmen with fissile material, and Korean communists who rule millions in a state of living death. The fact that we are permitted to engage in this conversation now is only by virtue of the legions of courageous men and women serving us in uniform, our nuclear-tipped warheads, our dozens of intelligence agencies, and our unsurpassed spy stations in orbit. Not one item in this awesome arsenal would be possible if financed by national lotteries or voluntary deduction from one’s paycheck. Onkar Ghate wrote, “If, however, in waging war our government considers the deaths of civilians in terrorist states as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of our own soldiers (or civilians), or as a cost that must be weighed against achieving victory over the enemy, our government thereby violates its most basic function. It becomes not an agent for our self-defense, but theirs.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6418 Similarly, if the government grows more concerned with the intrinsicist fantasy of perfect individual rights than achieving an unbeatable national defense, it becomes an agent for those seeking America’s enslavement to mystics, monsters and maniacs. I disagree with Grames only on this point: his stipulation that “only a small portion of your money” be surrendered. Again, context is everything. If necessary to keep the red boot of North Korea off our faces, the government should take 90% of our income. I believe Ayn Rand once said something like this to John Hospers.

The taxpayer. There's no such thing as a free nuke. Each one costs about six million bucks. We can't go tossing them around like confetti. Please distinguish "never, ever, ever" from simply "never." A 100% free country is one in which the government protects the individual rights of its citizens and does nothing more than that. The United States is a 70 to 80% free country. For the past century, the enemies of the United States have been only five to ten percent free. Therefore, we had a right to annihilate them. Quasi-free trumps slave state any day of the week. Nope. It's Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who rejected pragmatism and defended the right of the United States to fight a war of self-defense which would include taking the lives of "innocents" in order to vanquish a dangerous dictatorship. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties Nope. What conception of "war crimes" are you blathering about? I never made any claims about "war crimes."

It only seems that way because you keep evading the answers. (See examples below.) It is unnecessary to prove the obvious. No, because I answered it. Ah, now you've got it! 1) Those who routinely trample individual rights forfeit their authority to rule. They are properly deposed and 2) a new government is established by the conquering free nation, which sets about righting past wrongs and establishing objective law. By all means. Already answered in previous post: There may be some innocent people in the Aggressor Nation, but probably very few. As Ayn Rand said, “In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties Once the Victim [Nation] occupies the Aggressor Nation, there may be an opportunity to discover what few brave souls fought against the regime, but it will typically be an insignificant number. Obviously, any citizen of the Aggressor Nation who is truly innocent would not be held responsible for reparations. Did they serve in a police/military/administrative position? Or in a war industry? Did they pay taxes? Did they not revolt against the government? Do you even bother to read my answers?! To repeat--once more: "By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights." And: ". . . once [citizens of the Aggressor Nation] have paid their debt they are free to start their lives over." And those citizens are precisely what my answer above addressed. First of all, I never said that it would be wrong to discriminate civilians from the army of the enemy. The vital point is that in providing national defense for a free nation, such discrimination is a secondary consideration. If you in fact believe that innocent civilians should never be harmed by retaliatory force, then you would urge your government to get rid of its nuclear weapons--which cannot make any distinction between guilty and innocent life forms. Yet, your defense of such weapons in an earlier thread shows that you are quite hypocritical on this topic: No, I wouldn't [urge Israel to divest itself of nuclear weapons]. I do think that in case that there is no other option available, and we are facing ither annihilation or using the bomb, then use the bomb against the attacking country. (which would be the same as letting free a man who killed someone under a gunpoint, on the individual case). Besides, the bomb is a good method to deter enemy countries from attacking. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=120409 The number of "innocents" in a target area has zero relevance to the right of a threatened nation to use retaliatory force. I'll make this easy for you. If a Victim Nation must wipe out one million “innocents” to kill the one man who threatens its continued freedom and existence, then the Victim Nation is completely justified in doing so. Cases may change. Principles do not.

No slave state has a right to "sovereignty" or "self-determination" or "non-intervention." By placing a yoke on his own citizens, a tyrant forfeits any claim to legitimate rule. As Ayn Rand said, “The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the ‘rights’ of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties Now whether the government of a free nation should undertake the liberation of that slave state is a separate matter. A cost/benefit analysis may show that more would be spent than gained by conquering the slave state. That was certainly the case with the Kosovo War of the Clinton era. No, because the Arab states were run by insane executioners who trampled the individual rights of thousands every day before sitting down for breakfast. See the first point above. I've already stated my answer earlier in the thread: “2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).” The scale of this property transfer would be determined by the extent of damages suffered by the Victim Nation and its costs in waging a defensive war. As for the former subjects of the Aggressor Nation, once they have paid their debt they are free to start their lives over. Those who held vital roles in the Aggressor Nation, however, would have to serve long terms in hard labor prisons. In wartime, the Victim Nation does not have the time or moral necessity to sort the innocent from the guilty. If someone is firing at you from an automobile, you don’t have to wait for everyone to get out of the car before firing back. You have every right to shoot in the direction of the assailant, even if it means hitting an innocent person inside the car. The same principle follows in warfare. There may be some innocent people in the Aggressor Nation, but probably very few. As Ayn Rand said, “In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties Once the Victim occupies the Aggressor Nation, there may be an opportunity to discover what few brave souls fought against the regime, but it will typically be an insignificant number. See him yourself first. You seem to be the one who is full of moral ambiguity. I, too, am speaking of conquered territories. I don’t give a d*mn about world opinion. The sooner we forget about what the world thinks and focus instead on our self-interest, the sooner we will defeat our enemies.

You are not paying attention. I gave you a detailed justification in this thread yesterday: 1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights. By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights. 2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation). 3. By dissolving the defeated nation’s government, the victorious nation would be reducing the total number of governments in the world and thus minimizing the opportunities for inter-governmental disputes and maximizing the rule of objective law. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=121725 The acceptable and moral thing is to do is 1) determine what is in a nation's rational self-interest and 2) do it. That desideratum outweighs your vaunted "world's opinion" any day of the week.

Before answering, you must first know what the questioner means by "exploit." My dictionary provides three definitions: 1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents. 2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See synonyms at MANIPULATE. 3. To advertise; promote. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition) So, in what way is it (1) wrong to employ children to the greatest possible advantage? And while it is possible that the employer of children may be acting (2) selfishly, in what way is he being unethical? Is it really better to let a child go without food and clothing than to give him a job? As for "underpaying," is there an objective criterion for that? If a laborer chooses to work for $1.00 an hour, in what sense is he underpaid? The very fact that he accepted employment at that rate establishes that $1.00 is sufficient for him.

Dismuke is absolutely correct. Dictators and terrorists will come and go. But the leftist nihilists who dominate our universities and media seek to create a permanent culture of altruism, relativism, appeasement, cowardice and surrender. If they succeed, the U.S. will be E.Z. Pickins for even the most impotent of enemies.

Not at all. My position is that our military commanders should have the discretion to annihilate not only a single evil ruler but the majority of those living in the enemy nation as well--if that is what it takes to eliminate the foreign threat quickly and with minimal risk to our troops. Having the broader option does not mean it has to be chosen. If the “threatening complicit apples” can do us as much harm as the “threatening rotten apples,” why should our bombs fall only on the latter? What good is assassinating Hitler or Stalin or Saddam if the Hydra can grow more heads? They certainly do. I have never called for mass extermination as the first and only response to foreign aggression. Here is my objective means: A free nation may kill X number of people in an aggressor nation, X being the number necessary to eliminate that nation as a threat. If X = one person, so be it. If X = every living creature in the enemy state, that is our right. The approximate quantity that X represents will be determined by our ablest military commanders. As for rape, you have yet to show how this can be an effective tactic for eliminating an enemy threat while minimizing the harm our own troops are exposed to. Our chiefs of staff will be placed under strict orders to base their determination of X on objective reality. No. That issue could be resolved more cheaply and effectively by freezing a certain amount of Australian government assets in this country.

Your idea of nation is only one of several accepted meanings. I agree that a race cannot own property. However I used “nation” in the sense of definition 2 below: na·tion n. 1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest). 4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation Really? You wrote: “Transfering ownership of anything from an individual to another because the former's country loes a war is theft.” Aside from spelling errors, this statement is clear, straightforward and unambiguous. Why is it then a strawman to ask how your principle would apply to Iraq and the Confederacy? And speaking of strawmen, what is this? “Hello Mr. Assad, I'm taking your farm and giving it to Isaac here because you are an arab and ‘the arabs lost the war’ is completely immoral.” Where did I say anything about dispossessing all Arabs--or any other ethnic group?

By participating in a war of aggression, a rogue government and its complicit population forfeit most if not all of their rights. If the people of the Aggressor Nation do not like surrendering their homes and fortunes and livelihoods to the Victim Nation, they should think twice about ever cooperating with aggression in the future. They made their salad of bitter herbs; now they have to eat it. As the Talmud says, “Take away, O Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nation." Israel is the only legitimate government in the area. Therefore, any revolt against Israel is a revolt against reason, individualism and quasi-capitalism. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff has written, "Israel established a nation morally. Land was not 'stolen' from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians. Israel established a civilized, Western-style outpost in which, for the first time in that region, individual rights were recognized." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

Really? Who owns the U.S. military's jets, submarines, missiles, nukes and who pays the wages of the people who run them? Does that mean we have to give Saddam his palaces back? And what about all the produce, livestock, wagons, rail cars, tools, and personal belongings that Sherman’s army stole? Does all that have to be returned now? And what about prosecuting those who helped wage the war on the aggressor's side? And those who worked in the factories that produced munitions, uniforms, food and medicines for the aggressor's troops. You're going to need an awfully big courtroom. What government property? See your first sentence: ". . . only individuals can own things." Look, there are Arabs living in the U.S., but no one here is talking about taking their property. The issue is 1) defense, 2) future security, and 3) justice for the victims. Just as it is legitimate "to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations” in the waging of war ( http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4581 ), so it may be appropriate to seize property from complicit populations in the processing of war reparations.

If a free nation triumphs over an aggressor nation, justice may be served by making part or all of the conquered territory a permanent possession of the victorious nation. This is what became of Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War. 1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights. By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights. 2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation). 3. By dissolving the defeated nation’s government, the victorious nation would be reducing the total number of governments in the world and thus minimizing the opportunities for inter-governmental disputes and maximizing the rule of objective law. It is the moral obligation of the aggressors to lay down their arms and beg their victims for mercy.

1. War is a last resort. The U.S. has already used up all available diplomatic means to get Iran and North Korea to stop building WMDs and stop exporting terrorism. Enough jaw-jaw. Time for war-war. 2. As I have already explained (apparently without your bothering to take notice), there is no moral difference between an individual citizen killing an innocent person when that is the only avenue of self-defense open to the victim, and a nation doing the same thing. The logical gap you keep bringing up is non-existent. 3. Any nation acting in self-defense should be held blameless for the deaths of both a) enemy civilians “caught in the line of fire” (i.e. civilians not specifically intended as targets but who die unavoidably in the process of eliminating enemy soldiers and leaders) and complicit populations (those who by continuing to work, pay taxes and do nothing to change their evil form of government keep it in power).

To the hilt of my sword. The very purpose of a government is to defend the lives and property of its citizens against aggression. If Guatemalan bandits kidnap my wife there, or if Guatemalan socialists confiscate my factory there, I have a right to place a 911 call to my government in Washington and get the Marines johnny on the spot. Yes. By comparison, if we wish to stop the spread of the Islamic jihad, our military commanders must have the discretion to target populated areas where such vermin breed. Misleading? Have I not made myself clear? If Kim is the only one in North Korea that wants to build nukes and aim them at the U.S., then let’s try to take out Kim alone. If it’s a larger group, we go for them. And if it’s the majority of the population, we make the target area still wider. Sometimes it’s not just one rotten apple, but the whole barrel. As David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute has written, “Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people. The inevitable deaths of a few truly innocent Palestinians should not stop Israel from doing whatever it takes to eliminate its enemies; any deaths of innocents would be the moral responsibility not of Israel but of the guilty majority of Palestinians that seek to destroy it.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1561 Of course, I do. I say we give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ten days to resign from office, dismantle his weapons plants, and free his people from oppression. If he hasn’t budged by the end of the grace period, we let our beautiful big birds fly. 1) Nukes are quicker. 2) The purpose of war is to kill the enemy, not increase his ranks. 3) Why should the males of the complicit population escape retribution?

I agree that shooting at a gunman with a human shield 1) is an emergency situation 2) is morally contingent on context 3) should be a matter of last resort That said, it is entirely conceivable that in the situation outlined by Dr. Ghate, one could satisfy the above criteria and kill the gunman and the baby with exemption from moral blame.

I'll be as polite as possible. The issues you raise in this post have already been examined on this thread in great detail. To go over them once more at this stage in the thread would be pointless. However, I will favor you with a response to one item: The answer is that there is no difference. If one's options for self-defense have been limited by the aggressor, the individual acting to save his own life is not morally bound to spare the innocent life or lives that must be taken in order to kill the aggressor. Suppose, for example, you are threatened by a man with a gun who is shielded by a baby. You do not have to place your own life in jeopardy for fear of harming the baby. If in the defense of your own life, you shoot the gunman and kill the infant, you are not morally responsible for the child's death; the gunman is. Credit to Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, for this invaluable parable. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2547

As I've previously explained, a nation does not itself have to be attacked in order to provide defensive force. If we adopted the position that A may not assist B in fending off an attack by C unless A himself is attacked by C, then our police and legal system would be a shambles. No cop could pursue a robber or rapist unless the cop himself had been robbed or raped. That would be anyone who "does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a 'people’s republic' and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few." If you need more personal information, consult any bio of Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden or hundreds of other peaceniks who absurdly regarded the U.S. as the aggressor in Viet Nam. Who said they were? Does the fact the founding commie fathers were Russians erase the possibility that they could inspire non-Russians to overthrow capitalism? Ho Chi Minh was only too happy to help carry out the international revolutionary agenda of these famous non-Vietnamese reds. False. Both planned and fostered a worldwide revolution to install a dictatorship of the proletariat. A worldwide revolution by definition would include America. Trotsky believed that a new socialist state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was accepted by Lenin and the Bolshevik party and guided their conception of the Russian Revolution as part of the world revolution http://www.answers.com/topic/trotskyism . Well, you've got it all wrong--again. It was Stalin who claimed opposition to exporting revolution: "The idea of exporting revolution is nonsense." Trotsky, on the other hand, fervently endorsed it: "We more than once announced the duty of the proletariat of countries in which the revolution had conquered to come to the aid of insurrectionary and oppressed classes and that not only with ideas but if possible with arms." http://www.marxist.com/league-of-nations-c...ational1936.htm After the October 1917 revolution, Lenin's Bolsheviks attempted to establish dictatorships in Estonia and other countries outside Russia. I oppose aggression against any American--man, woman or child. In the 50s, 60s and 70s by helping to spread world communism. (Note: our moral right to intervene in Vietnam was not undermined by the possibility that Vietnam was not the best place to confront communism with force. The latter is a question of military strategy, not of ethics.) Commie dictatorship, for one thing. Irrelevant to topic, which is what constitutes legitimate force in responding to aggression. Your definition has nothing to do with the way "defensive" is used in our language. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition: defensive (dî-fèn´sîv) adjective Intended or appropriate for defending; protective. 2. a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack: a defensive weapons system; defensive behavior. b. Sports. Of or relating to the effort to prevent an opponent from gaining points in a game or an athletic contest. 3. Of or relating to defense. 4. Psychology. Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one's shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego. noun 1. A means of defense. 2. An attitude or position of defense. Nothing in there about defensive force being "used only to protect oneself." Also see Ayn Rand’s “The Nature of Government,” in which she discusses how the “right of physical self-defense” is delegated to the government.

The only nations America threatens are those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. Anyone abroad who fears an invasion from United States in all probability is an enemy of reason, freedom and capitalism. Of course, Osama bin Laden shares such views. Strawman. In my posts to this forum, I have listed only a few countries that the U.S. must consider as foes. Lathanar imagines he can score debate points against a position that nobody in this forum has taken. Again, Lathanar argues against a strawman. He inserts himself into a discussion aleph_0 and I were having without even bothering to understand the point of the conversation. The question is: was the force used by the United States in the Vietnam War defensive? Answer: yes, because it was in response to an attempt to impose a communist dictatorship on the people of Vietnam, i.e. aggression. It does not matter that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese had not attacked U.S. territory in the 1960s. If I see a stranger on the street victimized by a purse snatcher, my tackling the robber and returning the purse to the owner constitutes defensive force even though the robber up to that point has done nothing to me. A government does not run off morality? Is he serious? Can a government evade moral law, abandon ethical principles and act on whatever set of “rules” it chooses to follow? That may be the government of Idi Amin and Pol Pot, but it is not any “government” I wish to be associated with.

Not all of our enemies are nations. Consider the late Timothy McVeigh. What occasions are you talking about? America has never unethically threatened some other nation's security. If Country X is a slave state attempting to export its tyranny to Country Y, then Y has the right to take Action 1: to eliminate the threat by means of total destruction. If America = X, then 1 is appropriate. But this condition has never been the case. Where is this marvelous technology? And why isn't it now being deployed in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and North Korea? Fine. But first things first. After our superb missile commanders are finished breaking the enemy's will, teams of philosophers and educators can embark to the devastated land to spread right reason. I have answered this point in Post #23 on this thread: "I would like nothing better than for Kim to take a long ocean voyage so that we could drop a missile on him with minimal collateral damage. But if he won’t leave the security of his slave state, we have every right to drop bombs in his congested capital if that’s what it takes to gain victory." Furthermore, if killing Kim doesn't end the Korean communist threat to us, we have the right and the obligation to ourselves to bomb the populated areas of North Korea until the whiff of a threat is but a memory. As David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute put it in the context of the Middle East, “Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people. The inevitable deaths of a few truly innocent Palestinians should not stop Israel from doing whatever it takes to eliminate its enemies; any deaths of innocents would be the moral responsibility not of Israel but of the guilty majority of Palestinians that seek to destroy it.” http://ari.convio.net/site/News2?JServSess...ws_iv_ctrl=1223 Whatever it takes.

False. Whether or not intervention in Vietnam was in its national interest, the United States was attempting to prevent all of Southeast Asia from falling into the hands of totalitarian butchers. That effort was as legitimately defensive as killing the Japanese who were trying to do the same thing in World War II. If in the course of performing their duty, U.S. forces unavoidably killed a few innocents, that is unfortunate but no cause for shame. Remember, we are discussing modern war, not cricket. Early in the 20th century commie strategists Lenin and Trotsky made it clear that their goal was an international communist revolution. http://www.swp.ie/resources/Who%20was%20Leon%20Trotsky.htm If one does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a “people’s republic” and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few, perhaps freedom is not very high on his agenda For the record, I am categorically opposed to killing American women and children. Such killing would constitute the initiation of force and must be punished immediately and severely. On the other hand, if an terrorist state (e.g. Iran or North Korea) announces its intentions to spread its evil beyond its borders and acquires the means (WMDs) to do so, then the leaders of this country have not only the right but the moral obligation to smash those threats and do so in a way that assures total and long-term victory. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, modern warfare is waged successfully by wreaking overwhelming destruction on the enemy, including what Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, calls “complicit civilian populations.” That is exactly how we triumphed over the Germans and the Japanese--by turning their cities into towers of flame: After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. . . The aftermath of the incendiary bombings le[d] to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devast[at]ing single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II I can only hope our current leaders will have the same appetite for killing Iranians and North Koreans.

It is not revisionist at all for it is consistent with what Allied leaders and commanders said at the time of the war: The master theorist and practitioner of civilian bombing was Sir Arthur T. Harris, marshall of the RAF and commander of the British bomber command from 1942 until the end of the war. One of the rationales Harris used was that, since precision bombing was not perfected, "to destroy something you have to destroy everything." The aiming points were "usually right in the center of the town." And Harris proudly declared at one point during the war, "I kill thousands of people every night." A staff report in 1942 stated that it was necessary to destroy 42 German cities with populations exceeding 100,000; that one ton of bombs was needed to kill 800 people; and that 75,000 tons of explosives would be dropped per month for a six-month period. And in a later report in 1942, it was said that the goal would be to cause 900,000 civilian deaths and 1 million to be seriously wounded, while 25 million would be left homeless. Besides Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria were targeted for civilian casualties in the war, but it was German cities that bore the brunt throughout the war in Europe. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM Just accurate. Yes. Have you?

When our nation's security is threatened, we should make every effort possible to vanquish the enemy quickly while minimizing the loss of American lives. When the enemy is a nation whose citizens contribute to its economic vitality, then it is entirely ethical to deprive the enemy of its means to make war by destroying its productive capability, including its workforce. This is how we won the last world war. And this is the only way we can win the War on Terror. As Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, has written, victory over the terrorists requires “devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4581 To repeat: inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations.

In today's world, even a small nuke can make a tin-horn despot a major player. I can't rule out the possibility that North Korea would actually deploy their nukes as a demonstration of their desire to be taken seriously. In the Middle East, Iran offers the same prospect, which is why it is critical that we launch a coordinated attack on that “Islamic Republic” by land, sea and air as soon as possible. We would, of course, have to occupy all of Persia to guarantee that another Koran-centric despotism would not arise from the radioactive ashes, but hopefully we’ve learned enough from our mistakes in Iraq to put on a “shock and awe” show that will make the locals stand up and pay attention. India has been a useful ally and there is no reason not to join it in making war against its eternal Islamic enemies. If Pakistan replies in an inappropriate manner, we’ll just have to give them a free “shock and awe” show as well. As for Israel, I have no qualms about joining the Israelis and putting American boots on the ground in Lebanon, and also in Syria, and further down the road into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and along the southern coast of the Mediterranean--all the way to Gibraltar. All we lack is the will to double our military recruitment incentive. Give the high school class of ’06 and ‘07 enough funds and they’ll fight all the way to the very heart of Teheran. Despite myself, I agree with Newt when he says: “I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down." This is the very definition of great American statesmanship.

The attempt--successful, it turns out--to impose a communist dictatorship on the people of Vietnam is the most hideous form of aggressive force. The effort by the United States to prevent Vietnam from falling into the hands of these murderous reds is a sterling example of defensive force. And, yes, as if it needed to be said, just as it was evil for commie monsters to target Vietnamese civilians, it would be just as evil to target American women and children. I do know. The answer is Yes!

Not in the least. My American Heritage Dictionary defines "bomb" as "an explosive weapon detonated by impact, proximity to an object, a timing mechanism, or other means." Further: "bombed, bombing, bombs" (verb transitive) is "to attack, damage, or destroy with or as if with bombs." A "mortar" is "a portable, muzzleloading cannon used to fire shells at low velocities, short ranges, and high trajectories." For the past 150 years or more, mortar shells have been designed to detonate by impact. Thus we can state that the Viet Cong did bomb U.S. positions in Viet Nam--at considerable cost of American lives.