About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 5:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with a lot of what Andre is saying, and  I'll have more detailed comments later.

I do want to note that I don't think that all Muslims are the enemy and strongly view people as individuals rather than statistics and opinion surveys.

Ethan


Post 1

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Personally, I’m more of the “one country at a time type”. Unfortunately Clinton dismembered our “2 wars at once” military so unless you can pull a couple armored divisions out of then air, we need to finish off Iraq first (I have a few ideas on that but that’s another discussion).

That said, Iran is ripe for couping, a couple of well placed smart bombs and that regime will fall. Whether it falls into civil war or not frankly doesn’t matter. As for Pakistan, we need to keep the current regime up as long as we can. The fact is, even though the country is full of Islamists, the government is at least fighting them a little, self-preservation is a mighty powerful incentive. Besides, we can’t risk terrorists getting their hands on Pakistan’s nukes.

As we all know, the real problem is Saudi Arabia. The problem is, they made the policy of not pissing off America an art form. We all know their funding terrorists, but you’re not going to find a paper trail. They’re funding the mosques that spread the hate but when we call them on it they cry religious freedom. Finally, all it would take is a few primitive torches to bring their country to a stop. Unless your goal involves annexing the Arabian Peninsula and probably killing half the people who live there, we’re going to have to deal with our oil being under foreign, Muslim control.


Post 2

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually Clarence, the vast downsizing of the military started under President George Bush Sr. and his then secretary of defense Dick Cheney. I saw many fine people forced out of the service at that time.

Ethan


Post 3

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True, I know. But Clinton cut almost twice as many troops and spending as Bush did. The Cold War was over, of course we should have cut troop levels, but not that much.

Post 4

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The main problem is where the money is being spent - they decided to cut troops and trim down manpower, but they kept spending billions on weapons platforms that are more and more advanced when the rest of the world has already given up trying to compete in that arena!  It is important to keep the tech edge, but we need to stop buying Army #1 (high tech big-war, or Leviathan) and deploying Army #2 (low tech individual soldier, or sys-admin).  When it comes to weapon systems, though, suddenly every congress person of any party or ideology is a defense expert on whatever gets built in their district or State!  That is why our military spending is high, yet the actually wares needed by the troops (armored HMVs, flak vests, even ammo) is often in short supply...  However, this is changing due to the school of hard knocks, like it always does.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Mohammad-with-a-bomb-turban cartoon is on the cover of the current copy of The New Individualist with an article by me on "The Jihad Against Free Speech." Our members and subscribers should have that issue now. We'll post it on our website soon. For the rest of you, subscribe now so you won't have to wait!

Post 6

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Those cartoons weren't even funny.

Can we have an RoR competition to draw funnier ones?

;-)

Andy.

Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 3:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Andre,

 

I already picked a bone with you over bombing the mosques as I hope you remember. I think that would be a very stupid thing to do. People should be judged by their actions before their beliefs and many people who find the mosque in Pakistan holy would be punished because of the idiot that's at the pulpit. Bombing the mosque would not only piss of a sovereign ally it would give Muslims something that is actually morally wrong to moan and jihad about. Before I likened it to the bombing the church at Golgotha because the priest was a war monger. Wouldn’t that piss of Christians worldwide and with reason?

Also, your idea of having states sponsor the creation of cartoons is not only a bad one it is opposed to Objectivism. Sponsoring political statements is not a proper function of government. If there is to be a cultural war between the worlds it can only be done by people like us. Not our governments which should only be made up of a basic legislative body, judicial system, military, and police force. Not to say, of course, that Bush and other government officials shouldn’t denounce the fatwas.

Better is your idea of a Fatwa against the Pakistani Mullah and the mullah in Afghanistan. But, instead of having a billionaire do it (which will never happen) why don't you raise the funds yourself? I’m leery of raising money for hits on people, but when government breaks down the people must take charge. And, we know these Mullahs are guilty of their threats. So, I’ll chip in.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 4:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> The Mohammad-with-a-bomb-turban cartoon is on the cover of the current copy of The New Individualist [Ed]

Yes!!

ARI is also doing good work on this issue...it's depressing that it is only the two Objectivist organizations that have any courage...what about the conservative publications, the libertarians, Reason?, Cato?...grow some testicles!!

I think Objectivists, in the interest of building bridges to potential allies, should email these organizations and urge them to grow some balls. (Well, I'm half serious).

Post 9

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clarence writes: 
 As for Pakistan, we need to keep the current regime up as long as we can. The fact is, even though the country is full of Islamists, the government is at least fighting them a little, self-preservation is a mighty powerful incentive. Besides, we can’t risk terrorists getting their hands on Pakistan’s nukes.

Pakistan is pretty darn scary because they already have about 50-100 "Islamic bombs," I've heard. Their current president is perhaps pitiable because he's had four or five recent assassination attempts, and really does seem both much more liberal than his people, as well as not long for this world. Still, he pardoned that scientist who gave crucial nuclear technology to North Korea. Pakistan is simply not our friend.

One oddity of US foreign policy I've long disagreed with, but have never heard discussed, is the gratuitous and extreme personalization of it, from Reagan to the present. I'm referring to how America's leader always pretends to be personal friends with some possibly reform- and freedom-minded dictator. As a principled and intelligent alternative, I think the US should state openly that it primarily favors govenment reform and freedom in Pakistan, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. but not any particular leader (which is mostly none of our business anyhow). I think we should openly state that all friendships between our leaders and theirs is provisional and the US will immediately backstab any leader of any state at any time if a new strong group or leader emerges which is even more inclined to reform and freedom. The current policy of highly publicized (and mostly phony) personal ties does not aid the advance of liberalism, in my view. I think it introduces a certain ossification and popular despair into the equation; it seems to slow down needed change and causes resentment in the foreign country. Thus having George Bush pretend to buddy-up to every possibly liberalizing dictator is generally counterproductive, in my view.

But Pakisatan is a huge problem. Let's hope Iran and North Korea doesn't join the nuclerar club. We need a foreign policy of moral clarity and confidence, as well as firm pro-freedom principles. And often it's better to fight sooner rather than later. 


Post 10

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip writes:
 ...it's depressing that it is only the two Objectivist organizations that have any courage...what about the conservative publications, the libertarians, Reason?, Cato?...grow some testicles!!

I think Objectivists, in the interest of building bridges to potential allies, should email these organizations and urge them to grow some balls. (Well, I'm half serious).


None of us is going to live forever. Might as well live it like a man and respectable human being. Life is better with courage and honor. Someone should inform the Europeans and Japanese of this too.


Post 11

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre,

Although I do not agree with your position on Pakistan, I do agree that Iran is an enormous problem that must be dealt with. Overall there is a great deal in your article that I agree with, and I enjoyed the passion you expressed it with.  

Thanks for the article.

George


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre Zatonavich's article deserves a gold medal for sheer thoughtlessness and irresponsibility. He stomps and cheerleads for still more war-making, despite rivers of innocent blood to be shed, despite endless carnage and suffering to be imposed, and despite the vast swath of destruction his war-crusading fantiasies would inflict on his victims abroad and at home. How this person imagines that his reckless bloody fantasies accord with individual liberty eludes me.

Mr. Zantonavich also deserves a Nobel prize for context-dropping. Islamic fanatics have threatened to murder cartoonists who have offended their religious sensibilities. Such threats, of course, are wrong and reprehensible. From this observation, Zantonavich concludes that the West ought to more or less wage an all out war against Moslems, not only in Iraq but Iran and Pakistan. What he omits from his ravings is whether or not Middle Easterners have legitimate grievances against " the West", meaning in particular the United States and Britain.

Since the start of this non-defensive military adventure of George Bush's, to which US troops and tax dollars were committed for reasons that have been shown to be purposeful fiction, many innocent Iraqis have lost their lives, or have been maimed and wounded, or have seen their homes and property reduced to rubble. The US military has belatedly acknowleged (although they "don't do body counts") the deaths of 30,000 Iraqi civilians in this "war of liberation". Sadly, this number now appears far too low: other estimates based on careful studies estimate 98,000 civilian deaths. Alexander Cockburn, the Left-wing columnist, performed a statistical analysis of population trends and concluded that perhaps 180,000 Iraqi's have lost their lives since the dangerously delusional Bush launched his invasion of Iraq.

During the 10 year imposition of sanctions on Iraq, at least 350,000 innocent Iraqis lost their lives. George Bush's Gulf War cost another 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqi lives. Despite poltical blather to the contray, Iraq has never posed a military threat to the United States, which helped install Saddam Hussein and supported his war with Iran (which cost two million lives).

These deaths are wrongful, because individuals have rights that ought to be respected. As such, military action must be restricted to the purpose of upholding our defense--narrowly defined and strictly interpreted. But the American invasion of Iraq is wholly unrelated to our defense; that's why the intelligence agencies had to manufacture the "evidence" of WMD's and other fictitious threats posed by Saddam Hussein to Americans. I use "manufacture"and "fictitious" responsibly and consciously, based on abundant evidence that continues to come to light.

In light of the above, should Mr. Zantonavich be surpirised and outraged that some Islamic fanatics desire retribution from "the West"? Those fanatics hold to the same ethos as he does: collective guilt derived from poltical collectivism. Thus the prospect of further wrongful deaths and destruction, more taxation and regimentaion, and further massive violations of individual rights does not give him pause.

Most people have concluded the obvious: the invasion of Iraq was a terrible blunder that has imposed enormous costs on Americans in blood, lost liberty and treasure ($500 billion and rising); and unspeakable suffering on helpless Iraqi individuals. Bush's crusade ought to be named Operation Horrendous Injustice, an appropriate title from the perspectives of both Americans and Iraqis. And incidentally, the injustices to which I refer emphatically include the mass murder of Americans on 9/11 with which the Bush Administration was--at the least--complicit. Anyone who wonders about the terrible events of that day should read David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor or visit 9/11truth.org.


Post 13

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Humphrey,

I thank you for your lengthy, thoughtful, and empassioned remarks.

Now when will you be delivering that Nobel Prize to my New York apartment? ;-)

Much of what you say I agree with. But I think the key point of the article is that a non-military and military foreign policy of pure principle is the way to go. Even something that sounds and seems truly extravagent on the surface will rather quickly improve the quality and quantity of lives in the West and Islamdom tremendously.

For the current situation in Iran, for instance, I think America is so truly terrible at teaching and imposing freedom on them that the proper policy is to smart-bomb the holy living hell out of their dictatorial leadership, focusing on the government, military, police, and religious establishment. Then we should go in there with ferocious commandos and unceremoniously kill every last one of their higher-ups we can find. This will all save American and Iranian lives in the long run while vastly enhancing the quality of life of both.

It's worth noting that despite huge US ineptitude in "liberating" Iraq the Iraqs still seem glad we did it. Since they aren't complaining maybe you shouldn't either. If we focus intently in Iran on the top 500 or 5000 leaders or so it may spark a liberal revolutuion, and is very likely to earn us popular Iranian gratitude in my view. Mainly it will chastise their leadership and dictatorship hugely.

MH, thanks once again for your intelligent and emphatic thoughts. Hope I'm not making you too apoplectic.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I've observed on another thread, you can view the cover of the current issue of The New Individualist, which has the Mohammad-with-a-bomb-turban cartoon, on The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society website at this link:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-13-1664-New_issue_of_The_New_Individualist_is_out_To_be_posted_soon.aspx

The lead story by me is on the jihad against free speech and Robert Bidinotto has a hard-hitting piece on cartoon journalists. The entire issue will be posted on the website soon, after our members and subscribers have a bit of time to enjoy it exclusively as a reward for their loyalty!

Post 15

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Zantonovich, thank you for your polite response to my comment.

How does one determine if a war is just or unjust? The answer flows directly from the principle of individual rights that government exists only to defend. As such, the proper role of government is necessarily restricted, for as soon as it ventures into performing "good works" (however defined) it does so at the expense of its citizen-clients who pay it to protect their rights. So, for example, even if the invasion of Iraq were a genuine war of liberation that sought to install private property and individual freedom--even if one assumes that these institutions could be somehow grafted onto an authoritarian superstitious culture--such an undertaking falls outside the job description the "Defense Department" is hired to perform.

However, "good works" backed by coercion never yield the happy results that politicans promise us, which is why politicians continually change the announced objective of their programs, from the War on Poverty to the War in Iraq. These "good works" are invariably bad, not only for citizens forced to underwrite the costs of the program, but also for the so-called beneficiaries of the program. Name any coercive "do-good" program, from welfare to affirmative action to urban renewal to foreign aid to social security to "wars of liberation" to "police actions", and one can readily identify a broad swath of  "beneficiaries" whose lives have been destroyed, or whose rights have been trampled, or who find themselves wedded to perverse incentives.

Dropping bombs and killing a lot of people in a non-defensive military action will accomplish nothing of value. Value is created through individual action and voluntary exchange, which is the antithesis of militarism. The only effective assistence one can extend to unfortunate Iraqis or Pakistanis is free trade in goods and ideas. To do that, we first need to secure our own freedom and shore up our own culture. Then we can serve as a shining beacon of light to the downtrodden and beleagured of the world.


Post 16

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Borders also caved on this. They refused to carry an issue of Free Inquiry which printed the cartoons. Barnes and Noble did not cave in, so it's good-bye to Borders.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.