Since it looks like we are going to be going to war with Iraq,
I wondered if anyone here on TER has pondered what is evil? What should be the proper response to it?

e·vil

- The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
- That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
- An evil force, power, or personification.

- Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of injustice. (is LE evil?)

-=giggle=-  =)

-- Modified on 2/5/2003 12:58:34 AM

The definition of evil that I've used to teach the concept to my children is simply this--Evil is the intentional causing of pain,  hurt, and suffering and deriving pleasure and joy in doing so.  Lesser forms of evil can occur from callous disregard or lack of due diligence resulting in harm and lack of concern for the effects on another.  This definition of evil would make it difficult to justify a preemptive full scale war.

This is simple ... evil is a thief ... somone who steals someone else's belongings ... of course in biblical terms, it is the one who tries to make someone violate some of the ten commandments.

Of course, as far as I can tell, there will be no war.  Risks are too high in the long term, whether we achieve our strategic objectives or not.

innocent people.  This will definitely fulfill most civilizations’ or religions' definition of evil.  There are other words for bad deeds done by a wicked person to another person.  But no word other than evil could adequately describe the following examples:

The systematic killing of European Jewry is evil.
The Black Slavery is evil.
The massacre in Rwanda is evil.
The genocides in the Balkans are evil.
The mutations (chopping off limbs to terrorize civilians) in Liberia is evil.  (Oops, a mistake, it is Sierra Leone, not Liberia.)
The human experiments by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are evil.
The gassing of villagers in Kurdish Iraq is evil.
9/11 is evil.
The unleashing of guard dogs against unarmed civil right protesters is evil.
On and on…

Not sure whether Stalin and Mao are evil or just cold blooded dictators.

Evil needs to be confronted with force and determination; otherwise it would gain strength through the timidity of good people.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing" --- Edmund Burke

BTW, just saw the movie “The Pianist” last evening – definitely a masterpiece by Roman Polansky – no cheap sentimentalism at all; the real story itself is powerful enough.


-- Modified on 2/5/2003 7:46:48 AM

the opposite of good...

your own family or your own country.  There is some pleasure in such defense, though hopefully some aversion and/or disgust at the same time.

Personally, I have not been convinced that the U.S. attacking Iraq is justified or wise.  But it's not because I would not define Saddam as evil.  I think he is.

If Saddam is by definition evil, and he certainly does, how can we sit back and not do anything.. Isn't the war justifiable on moral grounds??


PS:  Remember your history...

I had learned from the Nuremburg Trials that an attempt by some of the psychologists to understand how certain soldiers could have committed these atrocities found one common element..
They were devoid of any empathy or ability to feel the pain and suffering of others.. No capability whatsoever.. One of them defined evil and the inability to empathize with people as evil...

Evil wears a dirty diaper on his head and wears piss stained sheets for clothes. Evil calls themselves holy warriors when all they really are are pitiful cowards who murder innocent people. Evil eats camel shit sandwiches and blames americans for it. Evil attacks the most giving nation in the history of the world and calls it a holy war. Most of all evil is soon to find out the unbridled power of the good and righteous and I for one cannot wait to see their bullet riddled bodies thrown into a pile and burned.

just my 02

Rarely is it what we do.  Sadaam gassed the Kurds.  We bombed Hiroshima.  Both were against the laws of war.  Both were arguably done to terrorize a group so they would not resist further.  Both arguably saved further bloodshed.

Killing "innocent" civilians has been a tool of war since the very beginning.  Perhaps we should go to war to punish or prevent evil, but we don't.  We did zip to protect the Kurds or the Ruwandan's who were being massacred.  

We go to war when there is a direct substantial threat to us, or perhaps to prevent a wider threat to peace.  Saadam is a samll time evil dictator who at most is a threat to the region. He is not capable of "spreading his evil."  We have him easily contained.  He is not capable of "destroying us".  We do not have to destroy him first to protect ourselves.  So I have never been able to figure out why Cheney and the hawks have been pushing for this confrontation even before 9/11.

Something to keep in mind.. Saddam will have no reservation about gasing his own people during a military invasion, showing the dead bodies on television, and claiming the US did it..

Alot of innocent people will die in this war..

What has been discussed here is the personification of evil. Evil, I believe, are negative premeditated actions or thoughts which people direct towards any person but themselves. People commit an "evil" act, the act being the vehicle for the person to show their anger, malice, hatred, greed or envy. When someone decides to go out and inflict some harm, be it physical or mental, that is evil. The thought of doing something to harm someone would also be evil, even if a thought.

The question of what is evil is as complex as the question of what is good. Both need the other for defining.

Evil is the doing of wrong that goes beyond mere wrong. If I steal $10,000 from Bill Gates, that is wrong, but I doubt anyone can really say that it is evil. If I steal $10,000 from a little old lady and it leaves her destitute, thus destroying her life, that is evil. It is a little like defining pornography, "I can't exactly define it, but I know it when I see it". Hussein has done evil, to the Kurds, the Kuwaitis, and his own people. If he had never done evil, then I would say we do not have a right to a pre-emptive strike. But is this really a pre-emptive strike, or is it a continuation of our actions against him after he invaded Kuwait? He made promises in order to stay in power after his previous evil, and he has not kept those promises. Therefor, if we remove him from power, it is not pre-emptive, it is a response to his original evil.

You said..........

Lesser forms of evil can occur from callous disregard or lack of due diligence resulting in harm and lack of concern for the effects on another.  This definition of evil would make it difficult to justify a preemptive full scale war.


I don`t think you can say that the United States has acted with disregard, callous or otherwise, and we certainly have shown a great amount of diligence.

# 1. We have gone to great lenghts to care for those that are directly affected by our military actions. We have provided food and medicine and we have gone to a great deal of trouble to avoid any civilian casualties. Can the leader of Iraq say that?

# 2. We have spent 12 years waiting for Iraq to honor it`s commitment to the cease fire.It has consistantly fired on planes patroling the no fly zones. It has not only refused to show any proof of disarmament it has cheated the process at every turn.
It has used the money, meant for humanitarian purposes, to further selfish greed and deadly aspirations.

I for one , take your equating the United States position with that of evil disgusting.

Make no mistake, when this conflict starts, and it will start soon in my opinion, you should hit your knees at the side of your bed that night and thank God that someone , somewhere in this world had the forsight and courage to stop true evil.

You could have forwarned us all in the week before September 11th and most of us would have told you how the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin were "small time" and "not capable of spreading their evil". We would have said that the evil in that region was "contained" and incapable of reaching us with their destruction.

After the 9/11 events, and the evidence was gathered, I remember hearing people say how inept our government was because we failed to "connect the dots". Well, today, Colin Powell connected them without question.

In my opinion the reason the Bush administration has been aggresive in it`s actions towards Iraq is because, unlike Bill Clinton, he understands that Iraq signed a cease fire agreement and he has to be held to it for the sake of the peaceful people in this world and in memory of the lives lost the first time around. If Hussien had been truely interested in joining the mainstream world community he could do so much good for his people. Regretibly, he is not.

Nicole - for other perspectives on Colin Powell's speech and the impending war with Iraq, look at some of the Salon.com articles posted today.

to avoid massive causalities of US solider (hundreds of thousands in the estimate) and shorten the war.

Iraq's gassing of the Kurds was an act to suppress and intimidate a minority population.  There was no need to kill tens of thousands of Kurds.  A conventional military suppression wouldn’t incur massive causalities on Iraqi soldiers.

Iraq is actively seeking nuclear weapon.  Just look at what happened in North Korea after 8 years of containment.  Unlike the North Koreans, Iraq had lots of resources and great design on the domination of Middle East, at least the Arab part.  He had connections with the Islamo-fascist terrorists in the world.  He hated USA and many of his fellow Arabs hated USA.  The stakes are too high to ignore.

Even if US suddenly don’t have to depend on oil for its economy, there are many, many countries in this world (China, Japan, most of Europe, India, etc.) that depended on oil.  With that domination, Iraq would have untold power over many countries.  Islam has never undergone its own Reformation.  There are many Muslims in the world who dreamt of the return of the glory days of Islam and blame western cultures for the woes in their everyday lives.  It is quite similar to what happened to Germany in early 1930s.

Don’t understand the power of evil and the timidity of ordinary people.

Howdy NOSC,

Have you read Thomas Paine's "The Crisis?" It is an extraordinary series of essays. I've enclosed a link to a page that has the text for each.

IMHO conflict is the soul, mind and spirit at odds over something the heart knows instinctively.

Enjoy.

Ishtar! That movie was just plain evil!

Hey . . . you asked!

Alot of innocent people died in Sept. And to be perfectly frank if innocent people are going to die my preference is for it to over there rather than over here. I have a business associate in Pakistan and I asked him about how we are perceived over there and while his opinion is obviously not typical as he is a wealthy businessman, he said Americans are the first to offer aid when a country suffers a national disaster first to send food to starving people, first with medical supplie where they are needed and in general give more than the rest of the world combined. Here's a little factoid for you to roll around. The US gives more each year in international aid than the GNP for all but 8 countries. That means we give away more money every year than 95 percent of the countries in the world take in within their total economies. OUr thanks for this? To be pissed on by the likes of dirty ignorant towel wearing fanatics. I have strong opinions on this?  You betcha. If someone breaks into my house and threatens or hurts my family I'm not the type of guy who goes and asks his neighbors what I should do, I do what needs to be done in the strongest means available. Does that make me a "cowboy"? As those pitiful French cowards call us? I don't know were we cowboys when we liberated there pitiful excuse for a culture from the nazis? We left thousands of dead Americans in their country liberating them beacause they were to afraid to defend themselves. When it comes to taking care of your own you do what needs to be done and deal with the crying bleeding hearts later. The french would not support us if we had a letter in Saddam Husseins handwriting sent to the white house covered with anthrax. They would vote for a strong worded rebuke. What no one likes to talk about is the fact that the French for the last 10 years have been profiting from illegal contracts with th the Iraqis to buy their oil. As far as I'm concerned if a stray tomohawk knocked down the Eiffel Tower that would ok with me.

Just 02 more cents worth...........maybe a nickel.

I wish we would apply the same standards to N. Korea, which in my view is a much more immediate threat...

and other Islamic groups were a known threat to us.  They had attacked us *many* times before, including the first world trade center bombing, and the embassies in Kenya, but never had inflicted enough damage so that we took them seriously enough. They will probably attack us in the future, despite what we did in Afghanistan.  Even with 20/20 hindsight you could not justify an invasion of Afghanistan because of the Kenya bombing.  

Sadaam has never attacked *us*, just his neighbors. His army is half the size it was in the gulf war.  There is no credible scenario where he would attack us or any of our allies in the region, because we could retaliate with overwhelming force.  The CIA has said that he is no risk to use whatever chemical or biologic weapons he has, *EXCEPT* if we attack him. He has no nuclear capacity.  There are a lot other countries with atomic weapons, and chemical and biologic capability. And personally, I don't think artillery shells with mustard gas, nerve gas, and anthrax are that dangerous to us.

We *and the world* have a legitimate interest in making Sadaam live up to the inspection regime.  But are we going to war (and kill a lot of "innocent" Iraqui's) because he "broke the rules"?  Maybe the UN could authorize a war on that basis, but that's a pretty weak reason for us to go to war on our own.  If we are going to act alone, the one reason that could justify it is he that is a direct and immediate threat to us.  As I said, I just don't see any evidence for that even if he did break the rules.

...to the gassing of the Kurds doesn't fly.  Equate the gassing of the Kurds to the Rape of Nanking where over 200,000 civilians & Chinese POWs were murdered AFTER the city had already fallen  would be a more appropritate analogy & there are many, many more.  And FYI in case you weren't aware, the Japanese Empire was working on an atomic bomb themselves & there's no logical reason to assume the would have given a second thought to using it.  Yes, the USA has not always done what I consider to be the right thing...but name a country that has!!

And as far as Saddam being "contained"...the rest of Europe thought that about the Munich conference in 1938 with regard to Hitler.  Perhaps another analogy more on point to the current situation with the regime in Iraq than your reference to Hiroshima.  

No, I don't WANT war...ever!  But there are times when it is the most appropriate action to take, & in those cases sooner is usually better than later.  And I still fell this way despite having a close family member who is being deployed & will thus be put in harms way...as have been countless thousands of others for more than 200yrs, protecting the abiltity of citizens of this nation to speak critically without fear of retribution.

Totally agree with your logic and reasoning. What does concern me is that I think we have backed down to North Korea which in my mind represents a much more dangerous and immediate threat.
They have a nuclear bomb. They are now starting their nuclear reactor and will have a few more within 4-6 months. They are actively improving there missle technology which they do sell to terriorts and rogue nations?  

Seems to me we have a more urgent matter here.. The problem is they could utterly destroy South Korea with conventional weapons let alone Nuclear... Talk about evil.. There Dictator is starving his population to support and build weapons..

Suggestions???

I'm not wise enough to know how to compare the potential threat posed by N. Korea to that of Iraq under Saddam, but I do have certain thoughts along those lines.  

I don't think when you pay blackmail, which is what we did in giving aid in exchange for NK to shut down nuclear weapons building, that there is ever such a thing as making only one payment.  The American public is aware that the majority of NK citizens are starving & thus have our sympathy, rightfully so.  But how many are aware of WHY the are starving & living in such poverty (worse than the average Iraqi)?  A huge part of the reason is the resources devoted to the leaders & the military--no reason for a nation of 22 million under to threat from an aggressor to have a fully equiped armed forces exceeding a million, more than the USA has although we have more than 10 times the population.

Personally, while I agree they could destroy S. Korea in much the same manner that they did in 1950, I doubt they would be that foolish.  I don't think they'd get the support from either China or Russia as they did then.  And the NK leadership are not fanatics in quite the same sense as Saddam & Al-queda, etc.  I think they love the good life they're living far to much to martyr themselves, which would be the ultimate result in attacking S. Korea or using a nuclear weapon.  I think what they're doing is a bit of sabre-rattling in order to get more aid, & that they're content to export weaponry to others who are willing to martyr themselves.

Old Colin told Bush the Father that the time was ripe to force a new regime in Iraq, and eliminate Saddam, not to mention what was left of the Iraqi Republican Guard.  Old George vetoed the idea at the behest of the Good Old Boys from Exxon, Texaco, and OPEC.

The political lesson learned in Korea, and forgotten in Vietnam, is that when you do fight a war, you must fight it to win.  And to win convincingly enough so that you need not fight the same f**king war again.  The last time we did that was World War II.

Colin Powell was a major in Vietnam and commanded a battalian, around 750 men, and directed small platoon and company sized engagements in that war.  He learned the lesson on many occasions (as did I) when he was ordered to stop an action due to political considerations that had nothing to do with the military reality of the situation.

Politicians have a limited view of what's to be done.  It lasts until the next election year.  The difference in World War II is the the whole world knew that it was a war against complete evil in Europe and complete political and economic hegemony by Japan in the Far East.  So the whole world signed on.  

The "politically astute" doves that were bourne out of the 60s and carry on into today's society have their hearts in the right place, but their minds are in neutral if they think that anything short of violence will unseat Saddam.  Go into exile?  My ass!  I wonder if Jane Fonda will travel to Baghdad.

PS:  You all know who Powell and Schwartzkopf are.  For those that don't know, Fred Franks commanded the left hook asault into Iraq that dealt with the Republican Guards, and in my humble opinion is the finest officer that served in the Gulf.  I worked for him when he was a major in Vietnam.

Nicole, I agree to having hoped all along that more evidence would be produced as Colin Powell did at the UN meeting.  My concerns, however, were not so much with getting backing in a military sense, but in showing the world, at least those who don't already have their minds set against us, that there is something more to this than simply rhetoric to conceal a hidden agenda.

Frankly, had we not abided by the UN resolutions in the Gulf War, which only authorized military action sufficient to drive the Iraqis from Kuwait, we probably wouldn't be facing the situation as it exists today. I'd almost prefer that we not be shackled by such restrictions now.  The UN does a lot of good in many ways, but it definitly does have its limitations in being such a political body.

if we are going to do this, let's do it right.  Two things:

1) We must have a clear idea of what a post-Saddam Iraq will look like.  I'm not convinced we have this.

2)  We must finish the job quickly.

I also think the administration should be more honest about the likely costs of the war in terms of human life and money.  

I agree it needs to be done as quickly as possible, & I think that lesson has been learned.  But as it will be necessary to go further than in the Gulf War, I doubt it's reasonable to expect it to be over as rapidly.  And because Saddam isn't as stong militarily in terms of conventional weaponry, I think he'll use whatever chemical & biological weapons he can...as a result we aren't likely to have as few casualties as in 1991.  Most people expected more then, & I think they expect more now.  Just how many, I doubt anyone knows.  Civilian casualties are almost a certainty as well...Saddam has already shown he has no problem in placing military targets in or near populated areas.    

As to monetary costs, I'm sure it will be huge..but the more important question (lives & dollars) is what the cost might be for NOT taking action.

It's likely there is a vision for a post-Saddam Iraq...probably more than one as I've heard different speculations.  It's likely that the circumstances of battle might be a determining factor in how this shakes out.  I just hope myself that whatever the result, it leaves the Iraqi people with some degree of self-determination as opposed to the installation of a strictly US controlled government...which I don't really think will happen.

The best evidence that Iraq doesn't have any nuclear capacity is that George W. is dedicated to going after him. Yet, North Korea, a demonstrably more dangerous foe with confirmed nuclear weapons and the promise of more on the way, is virtually left alone. Add to this mix, North Korea's much stronger conventional army, as well as missiles that can easily reach Japan, and a strident tone that makes Hussein look (in comparison) like a pussycat. N. Korea's declaration de jour was that they retain the right to preemptively strike potential aggressors, apparently taken right out of George W.'s playbook.

If George W. is really concerned with the distribution of weapons of mass destruction and could care less about controlling Iraqi oil, then he should get on the stick (hopefully with better diplomacy) and convince North Korea not to start up that nuclear reactor. Otherwise, new weapon's grade nuclear material is either going into N. Korea's nuclear weapons or for cash on the open market.

And gee, weren't we suppose to be going after Osama Bin Laden - when did he morph into Hussein?

on Japan is that we were already at war in Europe. We did not have the rescources to fight a two front war of such a huge magnitude.

The fight in Europe was so difficult we had to team up with the Soviets to defeat Hitler even though we knew we had huge political differences with the communists.

We needed a quick Japenese surrender to the war they started in the Pacific theater in order to be victorious in Europe.

Had we not been swift in the Pacific the world would be a lot different now and many more civilians from all countries involved would have perished.

never hear any of the pundits mention this, it seems obvious to me that the two Koreas may be unified in the not too distant future, as Germany was.  They may seem to be at each other's throats now, but both would gain by unifying, and both would immensely enjoy from seeing Japan squirm if this happened.

Both even without reunification, Japan is already squirming plenty.

The problem is that when you are as poor as N. Korea, and isolated.. what do you do when you have nothing to trade? You sell the only commodity you have.. and that is missile technology and Bomb making capability. They have already done this.  At the present rate that they are developing their missile technology, they will have the capabilities of reaching the Pacific coast by 2006. There leader is extremely paranoid, and I am not sure that a miscalculation could not result in tragic consequences..  North Korea must not be permitted to sell its technology to rogue nations and terriost states. The same rational for why we are going into Iraq, really does apply here..

The difference is N. Korea is much more formidable.. But we are not going to be able to ignore what is going on in the Pacific..

First let me appologize for extending this thread.

Exageration and hyperbole is not persuasive.  When somebody trots out Hitler they usually have a losing argument. Sadaam is a minor regional dictator, who we will eliminate in a few of months, although the backlash from the war may last a lot longer. He poses no Hitlerian threat to dominate the world.

I didn't really want to get into an argument about Hiroshima.  My main point was that fighting evil is just a slogan to demonize the enemy.  Bush's justification for mounting an aggessive war against Iraq is that Sadaam poses a serious threat to us and world peace.  Why?  Because he has biological and chemical agents, and is making inneffective efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.  Never mind that he has no way to deliver those weapons against us.  Never mind that we could destroy him if he attempted to do so, and thus he would never try.  Never mind that he has never attacked us or said he would try.  And never mind that many other countries, including us, have all of these weapons and more.  Every nation has the right to self defense, without consulting world opinion. Is that what we are doing?  Self defense against a two bit dictator, who has never threatened us?  

If we were attacking Iraq to liberate its people and impose a more democratic and just society, I could support that.  But that would impose different obligations on us.

Now to Hiroshima vs the Kurds.  I agree that one can distinguish the two based on the rightness of the cause, but I spoke about the "evilness" of the means.  In 1988 Iraq and Iran were at war.  The Kurds with Iranian support mounted a rebellion that drove the Iraqi's out.  Sadaam bombed Halabja killing some 5000 people, to terrorize and punish the population for rebelling.  That attack was evil and against the laws of war. He eventually put the rebellion down.  The US said nothing because we were supportin Iraq in its war agains Iran.  So was Sadaam's war evil?  The US didn't think so.  We supported him and gave him aid by attacking Iran when Iran attempted to cut off Iraqui oil shipments.

In 1945 Japan was clearly about to be defeated.  The question was how was the war to end.  The US was insisting on unconditional surrender and occupation.  So we dropped an atomic bomd on Hiroshima, killing some 100,000 mostly civilians.  This was done to terrorize Japan into surrendering.  10 days later we dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, killing some 70,000.  These actions were against the laws of war.  Were they desireable as a means of shortening the war?  Probably.  But could we have dropped the bomb on a military installation?  Could we have avoided dropping the second bomb?  Would we have been justified in continuing to drop atomic bombs until they surrendered?  

Certainly our war against Japan was justified as self defense.  Iraq's war against Iran was a war of aggression, which we supported. Can we justify our attacking Iraq as self defense?

Sorry to be so long winded and I promise that's all I will say on this subject.

You do make some good points & I basically agree with them.  But in my mind Iraq probably poses the more immediate threat due to both its more strategic location & the fact that it apparently is more advanced in terms of biological weapons..those don't require the complex delivery system that nuclear weapons do to be effective, thus terrorists could make use of biological weapons today.  

No doubt N. Korea is more formidable, & while they certainly should not be ignored, they are less strategically located..although I'm sure Japan wouldn't think so.  In addition, I would be less surprised if Russia & China supported them than I would if those two nations didn't take a firm stance against any military aggression by N. Korea.  That regime is truly isolated, but because of their own doing.  The pitiful conditions there are also in great measure caused by that regime.  Other than sympathy felt for the plight of the common citizen, I doubt if N. Korea has any support..IMO a nation without allies.  Frankly, I would be supportive of aid to N. Korea if done properly..that is to help them now AND help them become more self-sufficient in the future.  But that aid should be tied in to effective inspection/monitoring of nuclear & long range missle technology, & done in such a manner that the aid actually helped the people & not just enrich those in power..not like was done in Somalia.  Unless it is done in a way somehow similar to what I've described I would think of it as blackmail payment.

Iraq on the other hand, does have some support in the Islamic world due to shared hatred of both the US & Israel which seems to over-ride the ideoligical differences between the Sunnis & most other Islamic sects.  My biggest immediate concern regarding military action against Iraq is what Israel's response will be if Saddam hits them as he did in 1991, but this time with chem/bio warheads.  The Isralis showed restraint then..would they again?  If not, will a much larger conflict ensue?

All diplomatic efforts in Iraq have proven abject failures.  Perhaps the same might prove true in N. Korea, but as yet I don't think suffcient effort has been made to reach the same definitive conclusion.  Does N. Korea bear watching?  Certainly, & very close watching.

and the result of war is even more so.  I have confidence US will prevail.  The cause is just and the timing dictates that US couldn't wait any longer. (The suffocating heat of fighting in desert)

Without knowing exactly how long is the campaign, what kind of casualities US will suffer, what sort of infrastructure remained, the response of ordinary Iraqi and the response of Kurdish North, Shiite South, Turkey and Iran, it is pointless to spell out the adminstration's vision in detail in a Senate hearing.

The insistence of Turkish army to come in with US troops in Kurdish Iraq is worrisome but a price that has to pay.

-- Modified on 2/7/2003 11:41:43 AM

Carl, I'm afraid you've got your timeline backwards.

On May 7, 1945, German formally surrendered to the allies.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima.

As the war in the European Theater had ended on May 7, 1945, there was no need to drop an atomic bomb to secure a quicker victory over Japan, in order to then be victorious over Germany.

The best reason forwarded by Harry S. Truman for using the A-bomb was to eliminate the need for a land-invasion of Japan by Allied forces, which might have produced an estimated 500,000 American casualties. A figure, interestingly enough, which is similar to the number of estimated Iraqi civilian casualties, if we now go to war.

-- Modified on 2/7/2003 11:22:18 AM

-- Modified on 2/7/2003 11:23:29 AM

fanatic devotion to the Emperor by the Japanese convince Truman that an invasion by US alone would cause numerous casualities to US soldiers that was simply unacceptable after all the loss in the European theatre.

The British was exhausted in WWII and basically gave up the Pacific.  The Soviet waited until Hiroshima to move against Japan.  Even then they basically took the Kurile Islands and moved into Manchuria as a base for their Chinese Communist ally.  They had great design on domination of Europe so they wouldn't devote much resources against Japan.  US was basically alone in the invasion of Japan.

With the infiltration of the like of Alger Hiss, Roosevelt allowed the Soviet to gain much strength in the ending days of the European theatre.  It took 10 days and TWO atomic bombs to convince Imperial Japan to surrender.

Even though US won the final stage the Pacific theatre without much loss thanks to the atomic bombs, within a few years, China and North Korea turned communist and allies of the Soviets.

If US got tied down in the Battle of Japan and exhaused its manpower and resources, I doubt that the Marshall Plan would be adopted.  There were lots of communist sympathizers in France, Italy and Greece.  Greece in 1947 almost turned Communist and for years the Communist Party in Italy was the second largest party in that country.  The fate of Europe in the 2nd half of the 20th century would be vastly different if the atomic bombs were not used.

Turkey and the Soviet were against going all the way to Baghdad.  I believe at the time, that adminstration basically underestimated the survival skill of Saddam Hussein.  They had a bigger fish in their mind - reassurance and possibly peaceful conversion to democracy of USSR.

German Unification had just completed.  Eastern Europe was at the infancy of changing from communist states to democracies.  Gorbachev was under great pressure from the hardliners.  If US broke its promise to USSR and the world and went into Baghdad, the potential risk and consequence to Eastern Europe and USSR was too great for them to comtemplate.

Then again, Bush 41st was a basically caretaker administration suitable for handling the transition of the East from communism to democracy but lack the bold visions to envision a revolution change of landscape in the Middle East and for that matter, the Balkans.

was discussed at length after the Battle of Stalingrad (8/1942 – 2/1943) which affirmed the importance of the Soviet effort in the defeat of Nazi Germany.  At the time, it was the greatest allied victory against the German army.  (It probably is still the greatest land victory against Nazi Germany though I really hated the Soviets.  JMHO, the greatest and pivotal victory in WWII is the Battle of Britain.)

Because of the sacrifice of the Soviet army and the importance of their war effort, FDR had to agree upon the sharing of control in Germany after the war.

The unwillingness of Field Marshall Montgomery to suffer large casualties and the decision of Eisenhower holding back Patton in his Third Army drive to Berlin in the early Fall 1944 allowed the Soviet army a deeper thrust in Central Europe.  With the Battle of the Bulge just finished, the death spiral of FDR, the weakened position of UK and the intrigue of Alger Hiss (He was a key advisor in Yalta and the organization of UN) in Yalta, the fate of Eastern Europe was set.

I don’t think US foresaw the total domination of Eastern Europe by the Soviets.  Because the location of Berlin and the fact on the ground by the Soviet army in Czechoslovakia and Germany, US and UK had to accept a de facto divide of Germany with Berlin divided and surrounded by East Germany.  If US troops were allowed to march to Berlin in 1944, the whole of Germany and Czechoslovakia might not fall to the hand of the Soviets, at least the Czech Republic part.  (East Germany and Czechoslovakia were the main military and industrial part of Warsaw pact satellites.)

With troops of the ground, I bet Churchill would argue successfully for a neutral Germany without Soviet influence.  There would be no need for Yalta and USSR would not be emboldened by the naivete of US.  The world would be different now.

Your description of what I wrote goes far beyond what I said.  And, it captures little of my own feelings and sentiments.

I wrote that my definitions of evil would make it difficult to justify a preemptive full scale war, not that one could not be justified.  I also did not specifically address war with Iraq or any of the actions of the United States of America.

That being said, any war by its very nature involves pain and suffering that is intentionally inflicted.  No war has ever been able to avoid all collateral damage or harm to innocents.  Yet, war can be a necessary evil.  And, I believe that there are justifiable wars that do not have to have the scope of World War II where there was no doubt at all that Nazi Germany had to be stopped.  I also believe that we can win a decisive, strategic, and limited war against Iraq.

I see all kinds of arguments pro and con regarding going to war with Iraq.  By "I see" I mean not that I have heard the arguments or read about them but that I sympathize and am torn by both sides of the debate.  No matter which stance I consider taking towards the subject, I have misgivings.

The original poster on this thread asked for definitions of evil and then threw in an inquiry about feelings towards the war.  I never applied the words, "disregard" or "callous" or the phrase, "amount of diligence", to the US or the war.  I also don't recall ever comparing the actions of our country to those of the leader of Irag.

Your statements, "I for one , take your equating the United States position with that of evil disgusting" and "Make no mistake, when this conflict starts,...you should hit your knees...and thank God that someone...had the forsight and courage to stop true evil." were very patronizing, judgmental, and simplistic.  I could write much more to elaborate my position, but I will leave it at that I agree with you that action needs to be taken to confront Sadaam Hussein and to address his flaunting of international laws and the fundamental laws of humanity.  I pray that our leaders come up with the most efficent and effective way possible to accomplish this confrontation.

Your rebuttal is good enough for me.