Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post Reply
Posts: 2056
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »


Question 1

Does our author, Gen/Prof Robert Latiff, exhibit an understandable ambivalence about what his military career embraced – the development of new weapons?

Answer 1

So it would seem.

Question 2

Might he have been happier as a “conscientious objector”?

Answer 2

Even Gen/Prof Latiff probably doesn’t know the answer to that.

Question 3

BTW, what is a “conscientious objector” under U.S. law?

Answer 3

Even though there has not been a military draft for many years, virtually all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants living in the U.S. – age 18-25 – are required to register with the Selective Service.

Per the U.S. Selective Service ( –

Today, all conscientious objectors are required to register with the Selective Service System. A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

In the Event of a Draft

How to Apply: In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for conscientious objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

• how he arrived at his beliefs; and
• the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented. A man may appeal a local board’s decision to a Selective Service district appeal board. If the appeal board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the national appeal board.

Who Qualifies?

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

Service as a Conscientious Objector

Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual’s specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to alternative service – described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

Alternative Service

Conscientious objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of alternative service are jobs in:

• conservation
• caring for the very young or very old
• education
• health care

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

Question 4

Also BTW, did Sargent Shriver (brother-in-law of President Kennedy and driving force behind the creation of The Peace Corps, The Job Corps, Head Start, VISTA, Upward Bound, etc.), as the First Director of The Peace Corps 3/22/1961 - 2/28/1966, REFUSE TO MAKE PEACE CORPS PARTICIPATION AN EXCEPTION TO THE MILITARY DRAFT because he did NOT want The Peace Corps to become a haven for “draft dodgers” who did NOT qualify as Conscientious Objectors???

Answer 4


Question 5

In other words, did Sargent Shriver demand that volunteers for The Peace Corps join it “for the right reasons”???!!!

Answer 5


Question 6

On 4/28/1967 at the height of the military draft for the Vietnam War, did reigning World Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Muhammad Ali, refuse induction into the U.S. military with the claim that he was exempt because as a Minister of Black Islam, he qualified as a “Conscientious Objector”?

Answer 6


Question 7

Indeed, had Muhammad Ali changed his name from Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. when he joined the Nation of Islam years earlier? In doing so, did he denounce his birth name, Cassius Clay, as a “slave name”?

Answer 7

Yes and Yes.

Question 8

His Conscientious Objector claim having been previously rejected by his draft board, was Muhammad Ali convicted of draft evasion on 6/20/1967 and given the maximum sentence – a $10 thousand fine (about 2 years of wages for an assembly-line worker) and 5 years in prison?

Answer 8


Question 9

Was Muhammad Ali stripped of his World Heavyweight Boxing Championship and banned from boxing for 4 years while his appeal made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Answer 9


Question 10

Through both World War I and World War II, had members of religious groups opposed to war (e.g., Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites) been able to claim Conscientious Objector status?

Answer 10


Question 11

BTW, even though your religion is not opposed to war, can you still claim Conscientious Objector status on the basis of your own personal beliefs?

Answer 11

Yes, at least today (please see Answer-3).

Question 12

In Clay vs. United States (403 U.S. 698 (6/28/1971)), did the U.S. Supreme Court rule unanimously 8-0 (Thurgood Marshall having recused himself because of previous involvement in the case while at the Dept/Justice) that the government had failed to explain why Muhammad Ali’s C.O. application had been denied, noting that his beliefs were founded on tenets of Islam AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM?

Answer 12


It is interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court noted that THE ACTUAL TENETS OF ISLAM were irrelevant, and the tenets of Islam AS MUHAMMAD ALI UNDERSTOOD THEM were the key.

In this regard, our focus book for 12/13/2017 was Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “Heretic: Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now” (Harper Collins 3/24/2015).

In “Heretic” Hirsi Ali explained that the heart of Islam is “World Conquest as the result of VIOLENT Holy War” and that the Quranic “peace verses” always cited by Islamic apologists come from the Prophet Muhammad’s Mecca period during which he and Islam were floundering, while the “Sword Verses” come from Muhammad’s later Medina period when Muhammad and Islam were flourishing as a result of military conquests, many of which Muhammad led personally.

And Hirsi Ali further explained in “Heretic” that all 4 main schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and all 25 approved Islamic interpretations of the Quran agree in general that any statements in the Quran that are inconsistent with later Quranic statements ARE ABROGATED and, in particular, the “peace verses” cited by the Islam apologists ARE ABROGATED by the “Sword Verses.”

Question 13

Was Muhammad Ali NOT imprisoned while his appeal was pending? Did he win while his appeal was pending a lawsuit against the New York State Boxing Commission? Did this result in his becoming the top contender for his old Heavyweight Crown?

Answer 13

Yes – Yes – Yes.

Question 14

Accordingly, did Muhammad Ali fight Heavyweight Champion Joe Frazier on 3/8/1971 in Madison Square Garden in what was billed as “The Fight of the Century” because it matched two UNDEFEATED Heavyweight Champions? Did Ali employ his “rope-a-dope” routine for the first time? Did he lose a unanimous decision? Is that unexpected in view of the time-immemorial maxim that a challenger never defeats a reigning champion except by knockout?

Answer 14

Yes, “The Fight of the Century” took place 3/8/1971 in MSG.

Yes, Ali employed his “rope-a-dope” routine for the first time.

Yes, Ali lost a unanimous decision.

No, the loss by unanimous decision was NOT unexpected in view of the time-immemorial maxim that a challenger never defeats a reigning champion except by knockout.

BTW, of Ali’s 61 professional fights (his many amateur fights included winning the Olympic Gold Medal in 1960), he won 37 by knock out.

Question 15

BTW, did this 3/8/1971 “Fight of the Century” have an impact on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6/28/1971 decision 3.5 months later?

Answer 15

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 16

Is this a good example of how politically sensitive the U.S. Supreme Court (which we have often called derisively America’s highest, though unelected, legislative body) is to public opinion???

Answer 16

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 17

Did it then take 8 fights for Ali to earn a second fight with Frazier in MSG on 1/28/1974? But had Frazier already lost his title to George Foreman, enabling Ali to win by a unanimous decision since the knockout-of-a-reigning champion “requirement” did not apply?

Answer 17

Yes and Yes.

Question 18

Did Ali then knock out George Foreman to regain his championship in “The Rumble in the Jungle” as Ali liked to “lip off” IAW his “Louisville Lip” moniker – even though he may have offended a few Zaire residents?

Answer 18

Yes, Muhammad Ali regained his Heavyweight Crown by knocking out George Foreman 10/30/1974 in "The Rumble in the Jungle."

Question 19

Did Ali then continue to defeat virtually all comers while reigning not only as Heavyweight Champion but also as the darling of the anti-war crowd, of the African-American community, and indeed of virtually all of America for his principled stands???!!!

Answer 19


Question 20

Who developed the “Just War Doctrine”?

Answer 20

Per our focus book “Future Peace” (p. 114) – “Aquinas and Augustine were leading figures in just war theory…..”

This month’s Reference Materials Section (viewforum.php?f=726&sid=763c863f73f5a8a ... c90c94df1a) includes a Wikipedia Article on the history of the Just War Doctrine which begins with a picture (unfortunately our website software does not accommodate pictures) of Saint Augustine with the caption “Saint Augustine was the first clear advocate of just-war theory.”

BTW, we have always taken the position that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their footnotes, and there was no footnote for the caption to that picture.

HOWEVER, the article does contain a 392-word section on Saint Augustine with 3 footnotes.

Question 21

What are the requirements of a “Just War” per the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Answer 21

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraph 2309 on p. 556) says –

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

 the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

 all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

 there must be serious prospects of success;

 the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

**********End of Catechism Paragraph 2309**********

Question 22

Who coined the phrase “Peace Through Strength” meaning that the development of superior weapons will, at least hopefully, deter enemies from attacking?

Answer 22

It appears to have been “coined” by Roman Emperor Hadrian though it was frequently used by President Ronald Reagan.

Question 23

Was the 1967 Arab-Israeli War really a “proxy war” in which American weapons used by the Israelis proved to be better than Soviet weapons used by the Arab countries?

Answer 23


Question 24

Did the demonstrated superiority of American weapons preserve the world’s “Pax Americana” for at least another three decades?

Answer 24


Question 25

Does “Peace Through Strength” mean that there is necessarily any “Justice”? For example, if Hitler had developed nuclear weapons before the U.S., does anyone think for a minute that the world’s “lingua franca” would NOT be German rather than English??? And that the ovens in Hitler’s concentration camps would not still be running full tilt to incinerate “Unter-Menschen”???

Answer 25

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 26

How is “Peace Through Strength” different from the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (aka “MAD”) championed by Henry Kissinger throughout “The Cold War”?

Answer 26

Henry Kissinger promulgated when he was still a Harvard Professor the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (aka “MAD”) that no nuclear power would engage in a full-scale use of nuclear weapons on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities (for example, nuclear submarines that might survive a first strike) since both the attacker and defender would be destroyed.

BTW, Vladimir Putin has continually threatened the use of “tactical nukes” in his current War Against Ukraine.

Question 27

In theory, don’t both “Peace Through Strength” and “Mutual Assured Destruction” rest on the assumption that a national leader would NOT want to destroy her/his own nation???

Answer 27

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 28

Was this true of Hitler??? After all, in addition to all of his other actions that would arguably destroy Germany, DIDN’T HITLER ACTUALLY ORDER HIS RETREATING MILITARY DURING THE LATER STAGES OF WORLD WAR II TO DESTROY ANYTHING OF VALUE IN A “SCORCHED EARTH POLICY”???

Answer 28

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Hitler did order his retreating military during the later stages of World War II to conduct a “scorched earth policy.”

Question 29

Did his military commanders disobey Hitler’s “scorched earth policy???

Answer 29

Yes, because they knew Germany would need whatever infrastructure might otherwise survive the war.

Question 30

Would any psychiatrist be able to guarantee that instead of Hitler merely committing suicide (whether or not his “scorched earth policy” had been carried out), Hitler would NOT have destroyed the entire world in a Nuclear Holocaust if he had had nukes???

Answer 30

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 31

Can you think of any other world leaders (e.g., Chairman Mao who also killed many millions of his fellow citizens) who would have had no qualms about destroying the world in a “fit of pique”???

Answer 31

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 32

In order to avoid this becoming a “Long” (vs. “Short”) Quiz, since I had so much fun in Questions 6-19 with Conscious Objector status and one of my all-time civil-rights idols, Muhammad Ali –

(A) In addition to the requirements for engaging in a “JUST WAR,” are their also extensive rules for the “JUST CONDUCT” of a War (such as the treatment of POW’s, the use of certain weapons such as chemical weapons, the treatment of civilians, refraining from torture, etc., etc.)???

(B) And extensive requirements for ensuring a “JUST PEACE” (such as the just treatment of defeated populations while prosecuting “war criminals” since you can’t (or at least shouldn't) execute everyone, helping with rebuilding such as the Marshall Plan for Europe following World War II (which may only be “self-interest” since festering poverty can lead to more wars), etc., etc.)???

Answer 32(A) - The “JUST CONDUCT” of a War

As we have studied many times in the past –

(1) The UN’s International Criminal Court at The Hague (NL) was established by the so-called “Rome Statute” for the prosecution of four types of crimes – (A) genocide, (B) crimes against humanity, (C) war crimes, and (D) crimes of aggression.

(2) It was agreed at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 7/17/1998 and entered into force on 7/1/2002.

(3) According to the ICC’s website, 123 countries have agreed to ICC jurisdiction – 33 in Africa, 19 are Asian-Pacific, 18 are Eastern European, 28 are Latin American or Caribbean, and 25 are Western European or Other.

[BTW, UN membership includes 193 countries.]

(4) Among the 70 UN-member countries that have NOT agreed to ICC jurisdiction is the United States because it does NOT want the ICC to have jurisdiction over the members of its military forces (not to mention over the CIA, etc.).

(5) Citizens of the countries that are NOT signatories of the Rome Statute are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court UNLESS the U.N. Security Council, in which the U.S. has a veto, provides the ICC with jurisdiction. This was the procedure followed for providing the ICC with jurisdiction to prosecute Serbs for war crimes in the Bosnian War.

Answer 32(B) – A “JUST PEACE”

As we have studied many times in the past –

The Treaty of Versailles, officially concluding World War I, imposed impossible reparations against Germany at the insistence of the French. Which the French mercilessly continued to enforce periodically for many years by continuing to invade militarily and pillage Germany’s industrial heartland (aka “The Rhineland” because it was centered on the Rhine River) -- taking back to France vehicles, railroad rolling stock, and anything of value that could be packed into them -- until, 17.5 years after the 11/11/2018 end of World War I, when Adolf Hitler called a halt on 3/7/1936 to the French pillaging by “re-occupying the Rhineland” with German troops. Which made Hitler wildly popular in Germany!!!

As we have commented in the past –

Since even a half-wit should have known what the French would do (and even a half-wit should have known that he would not be able to HOODWINK the American public into fighting the French following World War I to prevent their pillaging), objective historians would conclude that Woodrow Wilson was the "Father of World War II"!!!

[Though American historians, particularly those affiliated with Princeton, perpetuate the myth that Wilson was a decent president, or at least not “the worst”!!!]

BTW, we have often concluded that Woodrow Wilson was indeed “the worst” because –

(1) he segregated the U.S. armed forces, and

(2) he fired all African-Americans employed by the U.S. government (which is why we today have “Civil Service Rules” making it virtually impossible to fire employees of the U.S. Gov.); and

(3) he violated the international law of war which prohibits “neutral” nations from shipping war materials to “belligerent” nations – which Wilson did SURREPTITIOUSLY in the holds of PASSENGER LINERS in the hope that the Germans would sink those ships AS GERMANY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW so that Wilson could inflame American public opinion into going to war against both Germany AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (whose “heir apparent” The Archduke Ferdinand had been assassinated by a Bosnian Serb touching off World War I when the Russian Czar Nicholas II supported his fellow Slavs requiring the French and Brits to honor their treaty commitments to the Russians).

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – Future Peace: Technology, Aggression, and the Rush to War by Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Robert Latiff – Feb 15”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest