A challenge to Yaron Brook

[Free Capitalist]

Walker, notice:

Even from what you remember of the speech, moral justification of the "total war" theory (killing civillians, and disregarding international standards of how wars ought to be fought, is a justified and effective tactic toward victory) is completely intermixed with the moral imperative that killing civillians and disregarding international standards of war in that situation MUST to be done, if one wants to fight this war morally.

What Brook is saying is that in that particular situation (whatever it was that he used as an example), since total war is moral, then the tactical suggestion he makes is also necessarily moral, and by corollary doing the opposite would be necessarily immoral. That's a non sequitur.

Someone (not me) could very validly say, "I approve total war, but let's leave Fallujah alone." This would be an entirely moral statement, but Brook doesn't seem to allow any room for it. To advocate leaving Fallujah alone, from hearing the speech and his impassioned voice, seems to be tantamount to advocating slow torture of American newborn babies by Muslim suicide bombers. That's a big part of the emotional charge of his speech, and that's what I disagree with. But I do still fully agree with of the all tactical recommendations he's made, as well as the moral justification for the specific philosophy of war he's put forth.

I just think he did not cut any moral slack for "just war" tactics, and that to him killing civillians and using nuclear weapons is always the most moral ways to fight any war. The argument is: nuclear weapons are moral, and therefore we must use them.

Wars usually, but not always, have been won by utter obliteration of the enemy. Sometimes the exception is what counts, but there are no exceptions in Dr. Brook's speech. To him, it seems that utter destruction and conversion of Middle East into a glass factory is demanded by a rational standard of morality.

[Zeus]

I would send the Muslims back to the middle east and the Christian back to the Dark Ages, were it possible.   

And what about the pragmatist, existentialist, and positivist intellectuals in the universities? Where would you send those? Into the noumenal world?

I think you may be making an error in equating will-breaking with terrorism.  When you fight a war you fight to win; will-breaking, civilian killing, city levelling, and all.  There can not be some half-way point.  We can not be so concerned about protecting human life, regardless of the values those independent minds hold, that we forget what the objective of a war is.  It is to win, and if that is not the objective then the war should not be fought to begin with. 

Actually, there is no error to be found: terrorism is a military tactic. The legitimacy of its use lies, not in military strategy, but in philosophic principle. When America used it in the examples you mention, it was perfectly legitimate because America is perfectly (morally) legitimate. And it would be legitimate today. However, a technical tactic cannot be used as philosophic justification. The latter determines the former, not vice versa. Which was the point of my post.

If there are a great majority of freedom-loving Iraqi's, Ukrainians, South Korean's, Chinese, Afghani's, they really have two options.  Either they can sanction their government and the way they live (explicitly or simply through their apathy) or they can fight against it, as the founding fathers of our country fought for theirs.  Those in our enemy countries who yearn for freedom have the oppurtunity to be benefactor's to mankind in the same way George Washington, John Locke, and many more great men are the benefactors of our lives.  These heroic men did not fight because they were interested in being heroes.  The spoke out and fought because they refused to live in a world where men were reduced to slavery, dogma, economic misery, political injustice and more.

While I'm not saying that every civilian living under dictatorship is a moral person, or that the US military should be deployed to any and every hellhole that "needs freedom," you must realize that the United States of America does not exist in isolation.

In any clash between the US and some foreign evil, it is the US that has much to lose, hence the need to put pressure where it counts: the US intellectual class. The dictatorships of the world will exploit every instance of altruism they find, and the US, like virtually every great society in history, has her fair share of altruism in foreign policy. [There was yet no Ayn Rand with the Objectivist Ethics.]

Even if we were to ignore the latest case, i.e., the appeasement of Iran (in spite of a very vocal and semi-rational internal opposition), we can see the vacillating support given to Israel and India (against Pakistan). See also the appeasement of Gaddafi when he should have been destroyed all those years ago. And what about the money given to the PLO? And the support - even if minor - given to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? And the insanely ridiculous sanction of OPEC, allowing some gutter gangsters to determine prices of a commodity produced by Americans???!!!!

Whenever you pay that high price to fill your car tank, just remember that it needn't be so.

There are other examples in history - lesser known - of some dubious practices in American foreign policy. One example that comes to mind is the curious death of a Nigerian politician who had been popularly elected president of that country but was denied office by the Nigerian military and thrown in jail. On the eve of his release 5 years later, he dies after drinking a "cup of tea" in the presence of Thomas Pickering and Dr. Susan Rice, both high-ranking U.S. officials. In fact, it was Pickering who broke the news to the numb Nigerian populace. The politician was a very successful businessman with the potential to take that country out of its misery by bolstering enterprise and pro-American feeling. His death was glossed over in the American press - who cares what happens in some African backwater?

And most of us are aware of the (pragmatically proper) US Cold War strategy of deposing any pro-Soviet government in the Third World. The biggest errors committed here lie in the kind of cretins substituted for the pro-Soviet regimes. The worst of the worst were used, thus giving capitalism a bad name.

One may argue that "the majority of people in these Arab countries were not on the verge of becoming Objectivists or anything, so what's all the fuss about?" But the point can be made that neither are Americans.

America has to set an example by not tolerating any kind of nonsense. For, even with all the problems I have listed, her foreign policy is still the best. Virtually no other country on earth would stand up today for any kind of life-enhancing principle.

The US need not go around freeing the world. But where it is in her interest to do so, she must work to do so properly and if need be, ruthlessly.

[Godless Capitalist]

If you are not actively opposing your government then you are silently sanctioning it. Some might say, "well Bush was elected president so why aren't you moving to another country?" and my response to that would have to be that I think there is no place better to live than America and that I am fighting for change in word and deed in the most free country on Earth.  People in Objectivism who are looking to forward Ayn Rand's ideas in the public area and change the intellectual culture of this country are excellent examples of ardent opposition to our current government.  The point is that if you are not acting to change something which you disagree with than your apathy and silence is your sanction.

(Marc K, I hope this will also answer some of your points. Also, as has been said there is no rule requiring me to respond to every post addressed to me. I have been very busy with work lately and simply do not have time to keep going over the same arguments.)

Elle, your argument is valid is a country like the US that allows dissent. But in a dictatorship such dissent can get you killed. So you do not have a free choice between slavery and freedom as Marc K says; you have a choice between slavery and a probably suicidal attempt at freedom. Failing to make that attempt is not a sanction.

About the issue of being able to flee a dictatorship, perhaps it would be a good idea for some people to read or reread the ending of "We the Living."

[Godless Capitalist]

You have previously conceded that a people are responsible to suffer the consequences of the actions of their government. So the relevant question here is: whose responsibility is it to secure the liberty of an enslaved or threatened people if not their own?

In a final attempt to enlighten, allow me to analogize:

A criminal with a gun breaks into your house. He warns you not to alert the police and threatens to kill you unless you feed him. He likes it at your house and decides to stay. What would you do?

Perhaps initially you comply with his demands but what if he stayed for weeks or months or years? Would you resist at all? Would you attempt to subdue him or escape? Would it be rational to go about your business as if nothing was wrong?

If the choice was between complying with the demands and making an attempt at resistance that had a 90% chance of getting me killed, it would be rational to comply until my odds approved. But lets look at the wider issue. Let's say the police find out about this situation and are trying to figure out how to deal with it. Do they say "GC is not fighting back against the criminal, therefore he must be supporting him, therefore we should arrest both of them"? Of course not. They would recognize that I was being held against my will and try to free me from the criminal.

Now I know a war is not the same since it is not our responsibility to free victims of dictatorships. And if they are killed accidentally as a result of our defending ourselves that is not our fault. But that is not the same as saying they are all the enemy.

[Durandal]

Kudos to Godless Capitalist. I think too many people are ingoring contextual complexities in this discussion. Remeber what Albert Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[tommyedison]

If the choice was between complying with the demands and making an attempt at resistance that had a 90% chance of getting me killed, it would be rational to comply until my odds approved. But lets look at the wider issue. Let's say the police find out about this situation and are trying to figure out how to deal with it. Do they say "GC is not fighting back against the criminal, therefore he must be supporting him, therefore we should arrest both of them"? Of course not. They would recognize that I was being held against my will and try to free me from the criminal.

Now I know a war is not the same since it is not our responsibility to free victims of dictatorships. And if they are killed accidentally as a result of our defending ourselves that is not our fault. But that is not the same as saying they are all the enemy.

It does not matter whether the government is the representative of its citizens or not.

The only thing that matters is whether the citizens are actively, passively or against their own wish aiding the enemy government financially or emotionally and speeding our destruction. In that case they are responsible for their government.

[BurgessLau]

I think too many people are ingoring contextual complexities in this discussion. 

What do you mean by "contextual complexities"?

What are examples in this discussion?

I am asking because this issue applies to all matters in life, not only in war.

Leftists are fond of invoking "nuances" and "complexities" as a way out of essentializing and acting on principle. On the other hand, conservatives, being intrinsicists, follow rules regardless of circumstance or context. So, what is the third way, the objective way as applied to this discussion?

You can use the following, which is my position, as a target:

In a war, I have a right to destroy my enemies (as well as bystanders), and that includes all those who knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, guiltily or innocently, actively or passively support those who are trying to kill me.

[Yes]

Why should a single U.S. soldier surrender his life for the sake of saving those Iranian civilians, when we have the option of annihilating the entire area with nuclear weapons instead?

From what I could gather, Yaron Brook's many essays regarding the War on Terror decry the manner in which it is being fought. The main gist of his criticism is that the Bush Administration is letting its concerns about killing innocents in war interfere with its mission.

This has been borne out in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where no surrender was sought among the enemy factions, thereby leaving them in place, and in fact embolding such enemy factions.

That being said, I strongly disagree with Jack Wakeland's criticism of Yaron Brook, and find it confounding that he is in fact in agreement with a war strategy that is as flawed as that being used in the War on Terror.

[dark_stranger]

If the choice was between complying with the demands and making an attempt at resistance that had a 90% chance of getting me killed, it would be rational to comply until my odds approved.

That depends on what values you need to sacrifice in order to "comply." If everything I value in my life is taken from me or destroyed, then 1 year or 100 years of life will not be rational.

d_s

[Elle]

Elle,

I agreed with your post except for the following section:

In a free country, people are guranteed "the benefits of freedom, capitalism, justice, etc." regardless of what beliefs they subscribe to.  Even people who have beliefs antithetical to those that make individual rights possible are guranteed protection of their individual rights. 

These rights are only revoked when an individual initiates force against another individual. 

While I'm all for actively monitoring U.S. citizens who practice Islam, I believe it would be an injustice to force them to leave the country because of their beliefs. 

But, let me know if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

As I said, it would be "appropriate" that they get the practical implications of their ideas. I said I would like to send the Muslims to the middle east, the Christian to the dark ages... and let me add the Kantians to Nazi Germany, the pragmatists to the socialist countries of the UK, the humanitarians to Africa, the environmentalists to Canada and so on... where it possible. As I said before. It's not, but it would be justice if it could be so.

However, I am aware there is absolutely no way they could be forced to leave the country as U.S. citizens unless they committed an act of force which forfeited their rights and gave the US government reason to authorize retalitory action.

[ex_banana-eater]

I just think he did not cut any moral slack for "just war" tactics, and that to him killing civillians and using nuclear weapons is always the most moral ways to fight any war. The argument is: nuclear weapons are moral, and therefore we must use them.

Wasn't he consistently advocating to do whatever wins the war, not to use certain objects that have an intrinsic ethical quality? I kept hearing him repeat: If it is moral to use nuclear weapons, then do so--as to imply that there are no restrictions on the force the moral country can use (since nuclear bombs are basically the most powerful of all weapons). He said countries are morally obligated to use nuclear weapons ONLY if they are the best means of achieving victory. I don't think he ever said: Use nuclear weapons and bomb civilians even if it is not in our self-interest.

[Marc K.]

I am puzzled by this. First, are ObjectivismOnline.net members obligated to respond to another member's queries?

I am puzzled by your incredulity. I politely made an earnest appeal to Godless Capitalist’s sense of integrity to stop evading the issue and his lack of knowledge about it. He is not obligated to respond and I never said I would report him for not responding.

Second, what rule do you think GC has broken that would justify reporting him to the moderators?

His evasive behavior across three threads seems irrational to me. Many of his posts on this subject not only lack intellectual content, they are antithetical to Objectivist principles even after being instructed to the contrary. I’ll let you and the admins. decide whether he has broken the rules but you’ll have to follow his unprincipled assertions through this thread, the one I cited in my previous post and a third one about Dr. Brook’s speech. Even if he hasn’t broken the rules, I would feel compelled to report him if he continued to post in a similar fashion.

[Free Capitalist]

I don't think [Yaron Brook] ever said: Use nuclear weapons and bomb civilians even if it is not in our self-interest.

No, but one of the impressions I got from his speech was that bombing of civilians and use of nuclear weapons is always in our self interest, and failure to use these options is a sign of altruistic thinking on some level.

---

Godless Capitalist, you're missing the point. Who cares if the enemy civilians cannot escape, or that any such attempts will be suicidal in nature. They are still building the bombs that will blow your home up, aren't they? Take pity on them if you must, as you press the red button, but do press the red button and feel no moral shame for doing so. They have it coming, and they know it, as they miserably sit in their war factories and manufature, against their own choice, the tanks and the airplanes that will rain death on you and your loved ones.

War is very brutal, and terrible. But wars have always been this way, and the last thing we need right now is sensitivity training about connecting our hearts and sharing our feelings; there's no place right now for a therapeutic session about how all living things are connected and that we should all hold hands and sing songs together 'round the campfire. This is, unfortunately, the time to kill, and to kill without pause, because those who pause in war rarely get a second chance. These are hard and unforgiving words, but reality itself is unforgiving. It's not going to cut us any slack if we start feeling all emotional about the poor wretches working unhappily to kill us... working unhappily, but working nonetheless.

[Godless Capitalist]

FC: I don't think I'm missing the point; I'm just arguing a different one than you are. See below.

In a war, I have a right to destroy my enemies (as well as bystanders), and that includes all those who knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, guiltily or innocently, actively or passively support those who are trying to kill me.

I agree with this. The key word here (for me at least) is "support." If someone is unwillingly contributing to the war effort against me, it is justifiable to kill them. But the responsibility for that person's death lies with those who coerced him, not with the individual because he did not attempt to rebel.

[Free Capitalist]

the responsibility for that person's death lies with those who coerced him

Has anybody here claimed otherwise?

Besides you're shifting the focus away from what we originally talked about. The original subject was, "Can, and should, enemy civilians be bombed as a legitimate and moral war strategy", not "Who is to blame".

Since you're shifting topics, are you conceding the original point that enemy civilians are "fair game"?

[gadfly]

As far as strategy, what viable options have been presented other than Total War, and how could they be implemented?

Personally, I'd like to see a little more on this topic before I assume no other option exists.

Was it terrorism when the Union fighters burned and destroyed hundreds of thousands of square miles of private property in the Confederate States?

Was it terrorism when America carpet bombed parts of Europe in WW2?

Was it terrorism when America dropped an atomic bomb or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki following the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Was it terrorism when America bombed Afghanistan following 9/11?

No, it was war.  It was total war; and the good guys won.

A good start. Good examples.

[gadfly]

I agreed with your post except for the following section:

In a free country, people are guaranteed "the benefits of freedom, capitalism, justice, etc." regardless of what beliefs they subscribe to.  Even people who have beliefs antithetical to those that make individual rights possible are guaranteed protection of their individual rights. 

These rights are only revoked when an individual initiates force against another individual. 

I second that.

It's wrong to say that it's appropriate for groups of people to be sent out of the country for their beliefs, unless you supply some other distinguishing characteristic that justifies it, such as "violent Christians from Lebanon who were engaged in illegal activity". It's no more permissible coming from Objectvists than any other group. Otherwise, you are saying that our form of government is wrong, and individual rights should be ignored so that certain groups of people can be arbitrarily deported.

[MisterSwig]

I have no peace of mind with this issue. When I heard Brook's speech, I loved the non-comprimising aspect of it. And now Wakeland has forced me to question it. Emotionally, I like the argument for total war, but emotions are not tools of cognition.

A new press release from ARI speaks to this issue. In it Dr. Brook says that we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers' lives and go after Iraqi civilians who harbor and support the insurgents.

[Al Kufr]

A new press release from ARI speaks to this issue. In it Dr. Brook says that we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers' lives and go after Iraqi civilians who harbor and support the insurgents.

Well hes right that we should put the lives of american soldiers above everybody else, but the problem is not that we haven crushed the Insurgents with military might, its that our soldiers are trained to fight a certain kind of war( attrion warfare) and the insurgents fight very differently, if we want to beat the insurgents we need to change our doctrine to maneuver warfare at every level.

Our soldiers suck when it comes to small unit tactics, we need to improve that and also how fast we adapt to the changing situation in Iraq because there is tooo much bereaucracy slowing everything down. Brooks is righty about the war but unfortunetly he is thinking of this war in Clausewitzian terms.

If you want to see what I mean, loom at this power point presentation circulating the military right now.....

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/ppt/4gw_ooda_iraq.ppt

[BurgessLau]

Well hes right that we should put the lives of american soldiers above everybody else, but the problem is not that we haven crushed the Insurgents with military might, its that our soldiers are trained to fight a certain kind of war( attrion warfare) and the insurgents fight very differently, if we want to beat the insurgents we need to change our doctrine to maneuver warfare at every level.

Al Kufr, I have been struggling through your posts for a long time. One theme is very clear: You set aside philosophical issues as unimportant in determining the course of war. You speak as if military strategy and tactics were more fundamental than philosophical principles. You are proceeding as a pragmatist, not as an Objectivist.

For example, what point is there in engaging in small-unit tactics in urban warfare if one's morality calls for the devastation of whole neighborhoods that support, harbor, or even merely tolerate enemies of the Allies in this war?

[Citizen Publius]

Jack Wakeland is the kind of guy that thinks the United States should not have used atomic bombs to end World War II.

The United States is not using thermonuclear weapons in the Middle East. We are establishing a free society between three, count'em THREE, totalitarian faithist theocracies. This is a very difficult and costly humane thing to do. Jack Wakeland decries the nature of warfare, i.e. civillian casualties, as an excuse to point a finger at the United States for defending itself.

Once a free and self-governing Iraq is established, it's economy will thrive and the standard of living in Iraq will rise considerably. It will serve as an example in a manner similar to the example West German posed to East Germany.

Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is, as I type these very words, the surrounding dictatorships don't like this and they are sending in mercenaries and munitions. Militarily speaking, Iraq seperates them from each other strategically.

My question is this: If radical Islam is so different from "regular" Islam and is in such a minority, why do we not hear an outcry from the hundreds of millions of Muslims who detest terrorism; even in this country?

Jack Wakeland is all talk and no substance...unless one wants to tally up his lies.

[Al Kufr]

Al Kufr, I have been struggling through your posts for a long time. One theme is very clear: You set aside philosophical issues as unimportant in determining the course of war. You speak as if military strategy and tactics were more fundamental than philosophical principles. You are proceeding as a pragmatist, not as an Objectivist.

For example, what point is there in engaging in small-unit tactics in urban warfare if one's morality calls for the devastation of whole neighborhoods that support, harbor, or even merely tolerate enemies of the Allies in this war?

Im taking morality into account in all of my posts, but you don't act the same in every situation.

Here is an example, if a midget attacks you with his fists, what is the moral thing to do? Defend yourself by eliminating the threat, right? So you just walk up to him and kick him in the head, fights over. Why did you just attack him head on? Because you were in a higher position strategically than him, physically in this case.

Here is another example, lets say you are walking down the street and a mob of 8,000 gang members say that they are going to catch you and kill you.

What's the right thing to do? The answer is the same as the first situation, defend yourself by eliminating the threat. The moral thing to do is to defend yourself by destroying them, but are you telling me that you are going to attack them right there? One man against 8,000 thugs? NO!!! You are going to try to position yourself in a place so you will be able to attack and destroy those 8,000 thugs. BUT AT THE MOMENT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO RUN LIKE HELL!

The moral question to both situation has already been answered, but NOW the question is, what position do you want to be in when you choose to eliminate the threat?

You can choose to eliminate those 8,000 thugs at the moment they say they are going to kill you, but will you win that battle?

That's why the title of the thread is "some people like to fight more than they like to win". If YOU and I were in that situation with the 8,000 thugs you would attack them and i would run Because you want to fight and I want to win.But im not running away Because im a coward, im doing it because I want to be in a better position to fight them, i.e. progress. But just Because I run does not mean I lost.

Our instinctual reactions to a challenge are “flight” or “fight,” running away or battling with others. Sun Tzu taught that neither of these reactions get us anywhere. Strategy is focused on progress. Hence Sun Tzu’s focus on positioning and advancing positions.

-Gary Gagliardi

Everything and I mean everything today is teaching people that flight and fight is all there is. There is never a word about strategy, positioning, or progress. 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu saw how futile this was and warned us.-

--Gary Gagliardi

Now, if you are in a lower position strategically and you want to rise up, you wont do that by compromising any moral principals, for example protecting yourself by allying yourself with another evil gang. That will only lead to your destruction in the long run. Im still taking morality into account.

Here is a Lind quote:

Not only did most of the insurgents leave Fallujah before our assault, they realized that if we had concentrated in Fallujah, we had left openings elsewhere. They took full advantage of those openings. It is perhaps time to ask which side has the better commanders?

Stalingrad is now seen as one of history’s great defeats. But in fact, the Germans had largely won in Stalingrad on the tactical level, before they were outflanked and encircled operationally, then defeated strategically.

If we look at Fallujah through that lens, the parallels become clearer. It is not certain we will ever fully control Fallujah, just as the Germans never took full control of Stalingrad. Nevertheless, we will claim a tactical victory.

"American generals have once again shown the world that they have no operational skill – a situation that is typical of a Second Generation military. (It may be useful to remember that the American military failed operationally in the first Gulf War as well; Saddam’s’ Republican Guard escaped 7th Corps’ slow, inept attempt at operational encirclement.)"

-William S. Lind

I want you to put yourself in the same situation the terrorists are in iraq, if the big bad american military is going to come after you ,what will you do? RUN!, get out! But just Because they run does not mean they lost.

So we will go in Fallujah, and "win" and get our "tactical victory"....yay...but it doesn't matter. Remember just Because the terrorist run does not mean they lost! they are just repositioning themselves.

"Of course, Fallujah itself was largely destroyed in the American assault. The American military did the only thing a Second Generation military can do: it put firepower on targets. 2GW armed services are one-trick ponies: they only have one act, and they perform it regardless of whether it fits the circumstances or not. In Fourth Generation war, the usual result is what has happened in Fallujah "

-William S. Lind

Now in iraq, what makes you think that we are in a higher position strategically?

Because we have bigger guns? better technology?

Im not saying we shouldn't kill the terrorists or the people that support them, but how are we going to do it? More intelligence, better tactics, better adaptability,more people helping us(good iraqis that do support us).

If our goal was to annihilate entire towns we should have done that when the war started.

But we choose to treat all iraqis like they were allies and give them freedom, and that was wrong. And now that we are in iraq and we want to accomplish a certain goal we have to get allies among the people in iraq, and im not saying that we should make deals with thugs and not punish people that did support the terrorist in the past, im all for justice.

But when you fight the terrorists, what position do you want to be in? With all the iraqis for you or against you?

[Al Kufr]

Jack Wakeland is the kind of guy that thinks the United States should not have used atomic bombs to end World War II.

The United States is not using thermonuclear weapons in the Middle East. We are establishing a free society between three, count'em THREE, totalitarian faithist theocracies. This is a very difficult and costly humane thing to do. Jack Wakeland decries the nature of warfare, i.e. civillian casualties, as an excuse to point a finger at the United States for defending itself.

Once a free and self-governing Iraq is established, it's economy will thrive and the standard of living in Iraq will rise considerably. It will serve as an example in a manner similar to the example West German posed to East Germany.

Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is, as I type these very words, the surrounding dictatorships don't like this and they are sending in mercenaries and munitions. Militarily speaking, Iraq seperates them from each other strategically.

My question is this: If radical Islam is so different from "regular" Islam and is in such a minority, why do we not hear an outcry from the hundreds of millions of Muslims who detest terrorism; even in this country?

Jack Wakeland is all talk and no substance...unless one wants to tally up his lies.

Where did Jack Wakeland say that we shouldnt have nuked Japan? Do you have a link to those statements?

What were his arguments?

[stephen_speicher]

Jack Wakeland is all talk and no substance...unless one wants to tally up his lies.

This comment is completely unjustified and totally unwarranted. Jack Wakeland's remarks do not constitute "lies" just because you disagree with what he says. Calling someone a liar is a serious moral charge, and unless you can substantiate such a claim you should apologize to him immediately.

[Citizen Publius]

Where did Jack Wakeland say that we shouldnt have nuked Japan? Do you have a link to those statements?

What were his arguments?

You are right. I was wrong. I should have read Jack Wakeland's complete quote before I posted. Based on what I have been able to read that Jack Wakeland wrote, I am in agreement with him. Other than what I have learned about them in this thread, I have no idea who Yaron Brooks or Jack Wakeland are.

Actually, when I made that post, I was just looking for something to debate. I now realize that I made a mistake. I will just sit this one out and watch from the sidelines.