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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I could write an article that documents every claim contained in the paragraphs above. But it would not get published on this site."

There is ample evidence (not least of which is your posts on the subject over the past few months) that it would.

By all means, do so. It would be preferable to the usual "go read my reading list."





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As repugnant as Ron Paul's foreign policy is to many, I think that much of what he advocates will likely come to pass regardless of who happens to be in the oval office.  Economic reality appears to be nearer to intruding on the U.S. collective consciousness in a sobering way.  "Humble" might be a word to describe more than just our inevitable foreign policy in the near future. Dreams of "victory" and of reliving the old superpower days will fade along with the invalid fears of Islamo-fascists conquering the universe. 

An economic depression is probably unavoidable at this point (even a Super-Ron in the White House can't undo all the harm that has already been done), but americans will eventually dig their way out as they always have, and hopefully some of that extra-time we'll enjoy as a result of the high unemployment will be used for some collective introspection. Fixing our problems here at home might then earn us the respect we used to enjoy around the world and the moral authority we've lost by abondoning the principles upon which our nation was founded.  Bin-Laden might take some credit for having suckered us into a financially devastating and unnecessary "war on terror", but he really only helped to nudge us along an invalid path we chose for ourselves decades ago. 

Ron Paul understands where the real battles need to be fought, and in that regard he's anything but a pacifist, or non-interventionist. Those supporters of sending others to die for their own warped views of what they  believe (sincerely, I'll grant) to be in our "national interests" have deserted the real field of battle and are handing Al-Qaida the victory Bin-Laden alerted the world he was after.  There is a comforting thought though; we can pin all the blame on Bi-Laden so that we'll feel better about our collective selves.

"Those who fight reality are destined to lose."


Post 22

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Now that Ron Paul’s defenders have identified themselves as conspiracy theorists of the 9-11 Truth Movement, may I suggest that they continue this discussion on Rosie O’Donnell’s blog, where you will no doubt find plenty of wing nuts eager to engage your moronic speculations. This is a website for Objectivists, not postmodernist Theologians (David Ray Griffin) and their wild-eyed, rationalist fantasies.  Even crusading leftists like Alexander Cockburn see through this crap.  We try to have semi-serious discussions here.

 

 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 1:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Do people think Ron Paul got the level of support he received because of his supposed pro-liberty stance or because he advocated surrender in Iraq and anti-immigration laws that garnered a coalition of isolationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, populists and peaceniks? (John Armaos)"

If by "surrender in Iraq" you mean "declaring victory and getting the hell out of a fight we shouldn't have picked in the first place, allowing the federal government to quit stealing so much in taxes", then yes, a lot of Paul's supporters liked that additional pro-liberty stance.

He lost a lot of his supporters over the immigration ads, especially when the newsletters surfaced that at least suggested that his POV on immigration might have been driven by a strategy of pandering to people with ugly views about race.

My support for Ron Paul is based on his desire, backed up by his actions in Congress, to seriously downsize the federal government. Surely I'm not the only pro-liberty person to feel this way.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 3:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It depends on who you mean by "Americans."  Most people do not vote.  Most elections for candidates or issues are fairly close. So, generally speaking, the winners tend to be the minority of Americans who marginally unite well enough to loot the others. 

Apparently, most Americans believe in minding their own business.  The parsimonious explanation is that most Americans do not pay attention to politics because they know that the political realm is largely irrelevant to their lives.

As for the looting of others, that, too, does not work very well, which is why governments run deficits.  You can enact a tax. Collecting it is something else. Wayne County (Detroit) has a special hotel tax and the state collects an airport parking tax.  Needless to say, these only help to chase away convention business.  Michigan collects 47 different taxes ... and people wonder why the economy here is in such bad shape.  The point is that the looting does not work, which is why politics is largely irrelevant.

Most Americans do care about freedom and they vote with their feet to prove it. 


Post 25

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It depends on who you mean by "Americans."  Most people do not vote.  Most elections for candidates or issues are fairly close. So, generally speaking, the winners tend to be the minority of Americans who marginally unite well enough to loot the others. 

Apparently, most Americans believe in minding their own business.  The parsimonious explanation is that most Americans do not pay attention to politics because they know that the political realm is largely irrelevant to their lives.

As for the looting of others, that, too, does not work very well, which is why governments run deficits.


I agree with most of Michael's post, and sanctioned it.  I disagree with how you phrased it, though I suspect that we don't have any huge philosophical differences here.  To clarify my POV:

I would phrase the second paragraph as follows: "The parsimonious explanation is that most Americans do not pay attention to politics because, even though the political realm profoundly affects their lives, they consider their one vote to be irrelevant and incapable of changing who is in office, and thus rationally concentrate their efforts on things they do have control over."

The third paragraph I would phrase as follows: "As for the looting of others, that doesn't work very well, because the looted take whatever preventive measures they can, leading to even more looting, and causing those hapless folks not in a position to sidestep the looting to suffer ruinous taxation.  Governments run deficits because the politicians have such a voracious appetite for spending other people's money that no matter how much wealth they confiscate and squander, they have even more spending plans they feel "need" to be enacted."


Post 26

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'll try in the next few days to document two or three of the claims I made in my previous post; I don't have time now. Of course, one can waste lots of time posting links that, it is entirely possible, no one reads.

Post 27

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I'll try in the next few days to document two or three of the claims I made in my previous post; I don't have time now. Of course, one can waste lots of time posting links that, it is entirely possible, no one reads."

Links are helpful, when they're from trustworthy sources. But that shouldn't form the core of your argument. They are support, not a substitute. Neither can you simply assert controversial statements. You have to take facts that are known or easily verifiable and consistent with other facts or general principles that don't do violence to common sense and bring them here. Don't expect your readers to do lots of research by reading content pointed to by links, no matter how worthy. Otherwise, you will continue to persuade few.

It isn't easy to build a case for conclusions that go against the grain. One way scientists do this, successfully, is to gather separate lines of corroborating and mutually supporting evidence that point to the same conclusion. I recommend you emulate their example.

Post 28

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 12:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In response to Jeff's comment, I would happily write an article presenting documented facts related to US military interventions in the Middle East, that explains why these facts support the idea that US foreign policy is "hegemonic"--directed toward the goal of enforcing US demands on other countries for purposes outside our own (narrowly-defined) defense. In other words, supporting Ron Paul's basic critical view of US policy abroad.

However, I would need some assurance from Joe Rowlands that he would be willing to publish the article. A couple of years ago, I offered to Joe to write a three part article on the events leading up to World War Two, including in the Far East and Europe. The article would have also included some discussion of the intellectual currents in politics and philosophy that animated TR Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR, and their eagerness to engage Americans in wars. Joe declined the offer, citing the dangers of amateur historical commentary.


Post 29

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Still another huge example of the corruption of US military adventuring today is massive evidence supporting the theme that Bush was complicit in permitting the mass murders of 911, for the purpose of dragging Americans back to war in the Middle East.  Read David Ray Griffin's books. But, of course, this is the sort of subject that must never be raised in polite company. –  Mark Humphrey

 

I can’t imagine why Joe would ever question the merits of Mark’s historical scholarship. 


Post 30

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,

It's Joe's site and he can do as he sees fit, but given the diverse and sometimes execrable material that does get published here I can't see why he would decline. But if he has in the past, he may again. It's his site and he can apply whatever standard he wishes. Maybe he would allow you to post it in the Dissent section.

SOLO has no preview policy and you could publish there. Of course, given the orientation of Mr. Perigo and others (which I largely share) you would get ripped harder than Dane did in the Dissent section here. And, of course, there's no guarantee it wouldn't get removed. (Though that's unlikely.)

As a writer, I know full well the frustrations of not getting published, not getting read, etc. But, in your case, I would counsel you that, unless you're willing to change your ways (not your views, necessarily) with respect to how you support your case, it would be a waste of your time to make the effort.

Not that you asked my advice...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 4:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim

If by "surrender in Iraq" you mean "declaring victory and getting the hell out of a fight we shouldn't have picked in the first place, allowing the federal government to quit stealing so much in taxes", then yes, a lot of Paul's supporters liked that additional pro-liberty stance.


1) The government steals all of your money to pay for everything it does, not just for this war. The government doesn't have a policy of forcible taxation only to fund the war in Iraq. Does that mean everything it does is evil? I find that argument lacking.

2) Sure we can declare victory and leave. But I'm not sure how that isn't the same thing as retreat. Wishing it to be a victory and simply declaring it doesn't actually make it a victory.

3) We didn't pick the fight. Saddam Hussein through his actions picked the fight.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/08, 4:06pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Friday, February 8, 2008 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1) The government steals all of your money to pay for everything it does, not just for this war. The government doesn't have a policy of forcible taxation only to fund the war in Iraq. Does that mean everything it does is evil? I find that argument lacking.

2) Sure we can declare victory and leave. But I'm not sure how that isn't the same thing as retreat. Wishing it to be a victory and simply declaring it doesn't actually make it a victory.

3) We didn't pick the fight. Saddam Hussein through his actions picked the fight.


In response:

1)  I don't care to use the inflammatory word "evil" here.  It isn't evil, or even wrong, to have police departments, fire departments, a postal service, or even Social Security.  What is wrong, from my POV, is having a government monopoly providing those services via compulsory taxation under the threat of imprisonment for resistance to those involuntary levies.  These are all things that could be provided by competing private firms, through voluntary contributions in exchange for those services.

National defense, obviously, is THE stickiest part to getting to complete anarcho-capitalism.  But, I think even that could be financed through voluntary contributions -- if you refused to pay your levies, your name would go on a computer database, open to public access, listing all people who have voluntarily given up all federal protection, and who could be kidnapped or otherwise be taken advantage of by foreign nationals.  Clearly, those refusing to pay would be advised to vigorously avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights.

If paying for the war in Iraq was based on voluntary contributions, the war would be over rather quickly -- as would most government programs, if people were allowed to decide if they wanted any given service, and wanted the government to provide it, and wanted it at the price the government was charging.

2)  I left out the /sarcasm tag.  Leaving is leaving -- label it what you want.  Even if you believe we had a reason to start the war, hey, we dismantled the army Saddam had built up, we permanently eliminated Saddam and his two sociopathic sons -- seems like we could have declared victory at that point and got the hell out, and if the Sunnis and Shiites decided to start shooting at each other (again), well, not our problem.  We obviously have a difference of opinion about whether bad things would happen to any of us if the U.S. left.  We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

3)  Which Americans, exactly, did Saddam Hussein kill just prior to the war you say he instigated?  Where exactly were those nuclear stockpiles located?  Cause those names and places seem to have slipped my mind.  I have, however, attended the memorial services for Marines serving in my home state killed since that war started.  I didn't have the chutzpah to go up to their crying, grieving families and claim those deaths were Saddam's fault.  It seemed impolitic.



Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim

1) I don't care to use the inflammatory word "evil" here. It isn't evil, or even wrong, to have police departments, fire departments, a postal service, or even Social Security. What is wrong, from my POV, is having a government monopoly providing those services via compulsory taxation under the threat of imprisonment for resistance to those involuntary levies. These are all things that could be provided by competing private firms, through voluntary contributions in exchange for those services.

National defense, obviously, is THE stickiest part to getting to complete anarcho-capitalism.


I won't even get into this as anarcho-capitalism is an anti-Objectivist concept, with a just a cursory examination revealing it to be a self-refuting concept. There have been a ton of threads on RoR about this, mostly excellent ones from Bill Dwyer, here is a good one.

But the point to my previous argument is that since we have compulsory taxation for every government service, you then can't pick and choose government services and say they are bad or unjust solely on the grounds those services are funded compulsory. But you can point out the injustice of compulsory taxation in general. For example compulsory funding for a police department doesn't negate whatever good comes out of having a police department, as a police department is devoted to rights protection, perhaps incompetently but if measuring competency by degree it's definitely not zero.

So you can provide your arguments why the war in Iraq is unjust but compulsory taxation alone is not a compelling argument as the entire justice system we have is funded through compulsory taxation and to be consistent with that argument you would also have to say locking up Ted Bundy was unjust because he was sent to a prison funded through compulsory taxation.

2) I left out the /sarcasm tag. Leaving is leaving -- label it what you want. Even if you believe we had a reason to start the war, hey, we dismantled the army Saddam had built up, we permanently eliminated Saddam and his two sociopathic sons -- seems like we could have declared victory at that point and got the hell out, and if the Sunnis and Shiites decided to start shooting at each other (again), well, not our problem. We obviously have a difference of opinion about whether bad things would happen to any of us if the U.S. left. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.


My original point was that you can't simply declare victory and leave and have it mean it actually is a victory. Without a coherent meaning to the word victory that distinguishes itself from retreat (retreat meaning to withdraw from enemy fire), then there is no value in simply declaring victory. Although you have provided some concretes for what victory means in Iraq, specifically dismantling Saddam's regime, I would have to definitely disagree that it would be a satisfactory measure for victory since after Saddam was removed a vacuum of power was left behind that was filled by Islamo-fascist terrorists. To leave them to their own doing, to take control of a large middle eastern oil-rich country to use as their new safe-haven to launch terrorist attacks against the west means defeat, not victory.

3) Which Americans, exactly, did Saddam Hussein kill just prior to the war you say he instigated? Where exactly were those nuclear stockpiles located? Cause those names and places seem to have slipped my mind.


I see. And are those the only criteria necessary for a justification for war? But actually the first one you give was met. Saddam Hussein routinely funded Islamo-fascist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, including giving money to the families of suicide bombers praising them for their depraved acts. These Islamo-fascist organizations are responsible for killing Americans, Europeans and Israelis.

I have, however, attended the memorial services for Marines serving in my home state killed since that war started.


I have profound respect for the men and women who serve our military. Including some of my own family members who have fought and died in previous wars. So I don't know what relevance it has that you have attended some of these funerals and I suspect you are using emotionalism as a substitute for a reasoned argument, i.e. that since soldiers die in wars and you went to a soldier's funeral and saw a grieving family, you have some exclusive insight now that leads you to believe the war was unjust. Well on the contrary, you would rather have that Marine's death be in vain and abandon Iraq to Islamo-fascist thugs. Looking at a soldier's death and ignoring the context does not say whether a war was just or not.

I didn't have the chutzpah to go up to their crying, grieving families and claim those deaths were Saddam's fault. It seemed impolitic.


For crying out loud, why would you go up to a grieving family and even give your unwanted opinion to them? Why would you even suggest I would do that or want you to do that? What if you attended a funeral where the deceased died from lung cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes his whole life? Would you have the chutzpah to go up to the crying, grieving family and claim his death was his own fault since he smoked cigarettes his whole life? It would be true, that in this example the smoker's death was his own fault, but it certainly would be an incredibly rude and inconsiderate thing to say to the grieving family at the funeral.

How about just offering your sympathy and condolences?

Post 34

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, I sanctioned your post in reply to mine. I disagree with many of the things you said, but you have eloquently laid out coherent philosophical positions that you deeply hold, in an attempt to convince me to change what you perceive to be mistaken notions on my part, and I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me.

As a very new member to this site, and to Objectivism in general, I haven't been privy to the previous conversations about how anarcho-capitalism is, from first principles, an obviously unworkable system. I think way too many electrons have been killed by people arguing that anarcho-capitalism is this distinct philosophy from minarchism. It is not. As you pare down minarchism bit by bit, removing program after program, you approach anarcho-capitalism. If we only get to a federal government that is 1% of its current size, rather than 0% of its current size, it's arguably still minarchism, but most of the time for most people the actual experience would feel just like anarcho-capitalism. To approach anarcho-capitalism, you take the current bloated federal government, and start whacking away at the undergrowth. Get rid of everything not allowed by the Tenth Amendment? Bam, instant miniarchism. Murray Rothbard has laid out his arguments about how each of the remaining minarchist services could be eliminated. While I find many of his arguments unconvincing, that doesn't mean that someone else, more inspired, can't find a better way to do it.

I guess it boils down to this -- is it really minarchism if we have the minarchist services specified by the Constitution, but some bright person figures out a way to get all those services funded via voluntary contributions, and huge amounts of forbearance is extended to those who refuse to contribute at all, but never run afoul of the legal system because they firmly believe in the NIOF principle and thus are diligent about working out private settlements with those who take offense to their actions because they are willing to go to great lengths to not have to deal with a government employee?

In short, a really minimal minarchism can, for the overwhelming majority of people, function just like anarcho-capitalism.

Again, thanks for your well-thought out dissent to my previous post on this topic.

Post 35

Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What follows are some facts that support Ron Paul's idea that American military adventures often reflect "our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes". The phrase "submit to our wishes" implies a ruthless disregard for justice or demands imposed arbitarily on other states. Although it's true that only defensive military actions are just, sending in troops to rescue helpless foreign people from mass murder doesn't qualify for "ruthless disregard of justice" (except to those taxed, drafted and killed in the rescue). At times, the desire to rescue helpless foreigners has seemed to motivate American policy, at least partly, as in Vietnam, for example. But US bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia murdered perhaps 2 million helpless people, or so I have read. That's rather odd assistance, regardless of official intentions.

The invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001 has been sold as an outraged American response to the mass murders of 3,000 Americans in September of that year. Our bombers and troops overthrew the Taliban, but interesting facts have been discarded along the way. 

The Talliban was installed in Afghanistan with financial assistance from the CIA, working in conjunction with Pakistan's Inter-services Intellgence, with additional financial support from Saudi Arabia. One author, Amid Rashid, in his book The Taliban (which I have not read), has been quoted as stating that paving the way for building a huge transcontinental gas pipeline, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, was a major objective in bringing the Taliban to power. The goal of a consortium of big oil companies was to build a series of pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to transport oil and natural gas from Turkmenitan to the Indian Ocean. So our State Department and the ISI agreed to provide arms and money to the Taliban.

When the Taliban captured Kabal in 1996, CentGas (the consortium) announced it was "ready to proceed". (Reported in the London Telegraph, August 13, 1998). Later that year, though, Unocal pulled out of the project, because it doubted the Taliban's ability to ensure stability.

The US government held a meeting with the Taliban in July, 2001 in which it demanded a power-sharing arrangement between the Taliban and another sect, for the purpose of creating "national unity". When  the Taliban refused, threats were voiced about an impending US invasion, according to the Pakistani representative at the meeting, Niaz Naik:. "Either the Taliban behaves as they ought to...or we will use another option...a military operation.", Niak reports an American negotiator announced; "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs", another American is reported to have stated. Later, one of the Americans denied that threats of invasion were issued; but another American who attended stated that threats were made out of disgust with the uncooperative stance of the Taliban.

On September 18, 2001, Niak was quoted in a BBC news report as stating that the US government told him that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October"...."before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October, at the latest..." Note that this warning of Niak was made prior to the US invasion, on Ocotber 7th, 2001. The BBC report also quoted Niak as stating that after the September 11th attacks, he was in no doubt that this pre-existing plan would be built upon and launched in two to three weeks.

(My references to these events are taken from David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, chapter seven.)
                                   ***************************************************

In the wake of our invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush people began to ramp up propaganda for a second invasion, designed to topple Saddam Hussein. But Hussein was partly a Frankenstein monster created by the provision of American arms, funding, and active official support, by both the Reagan and the Bush I administrations.

American support for Hussein started in 1959, when the CIA retained him as a twenty-two year old assassin to shoot Iraq prime minister General Abd al-Karim Qasim. But Saddam murdered the General's driver and only wounded Qasim. (reported in UPI report of April 10, 2003 "Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot".) Over the ensuing years, the CIA used Hussein as their thug, including hiring him to assassinate communists in the Middle East in 1963. He rose to power in 1979 in a bloody and repressive coup, and precipitated an invasion of southwestern Iran, simultaneously seeking to become a regional power and to head off the radical Shiite revolution sweeping Iran in the wake of the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran, another American client.

The US government, together with the Soviets, most of Europe, and many countries in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, supported Hussein's bloodly crusade against the Iranian state. The United States sought to protect Arabian oil fields and to promote Iraq as a counter weight to Iranian influence in the region. As the war raged on, evidence surfaced of Hussein's ruthless bloodlust: massive killings and routine use of chemical warfare that decimated Iranian soldiers. This posed a delicate public relations dilemma for the Reagan administration, but as subsequent events revealed, apparently no great moral issue. Vice President George Bush and his Texas pal, James Baker, were ardent supporters of Hussein, stating in a Cabinet meeting that Israel ought to have been punished for bombing Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. So while Hussein regularly used mustard gas, sarin, VX and other toxins, senior administration officials quietly supported a covert Defense Intelligence Agency program that supported Saddam with detailed planning for air strikes, battles, and bomb damage assessments. (Patrick Tyler: "Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas" New York Times, August 18, 2002.)

In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Bagdad as a presidential envoy to meet Saddam. No mention of chemical weapons was made by Rumsfeld, contrary to his public statements, according to a declassified secret document summarizing the discussion. Rumsfeld made clear that the US supported Hussein's quest for regional power, and expressed "understanding of the importance of balance in the region and the world was similar to Iraq's." (National Security Archives, Book 82, February 25, 2003) Rumsfeld returned to Bagdad in March, 1984, to assure Saddam that Reagan administration public condemnations of Iraq's use of gas agents was detached from its support of Saddam and his war, i.e. for public consumption, only. While continuing to condemn Saddam's use of chemical and biological toxins against Iran, the administration sanctioned Center for Disease Control programs that transfered biological pathogenic materials to Hussein, including viruse and fungi, such as bubonic plague, and West Nile Viruses.

As the war dragged on, in 1985 Hezbollah captured American CIA station chief William Buckley and bombed US facilites in Beruit. To retaliate, William Casey, head of the CIA, and Saudi operatives formed a secret plan to assassinate Fadlallah, head of the Party of God, Hezbollah. The Saudi's carried out the attack using British special forces. A car bomb murdered 80 people and injured 200. After the attack, the Saudi's provided Fadlallah with evidence leading to British special forces. (Bob Woodward, Veil, page 397.)

Meanwhile, Hezbollah captured 8 American hostages. Seeking to achieve more delicate "balance" in the region, and to secure the release of the hostages, the US prevailed on Israel to sell the Iranians 500 US TOW missiles. One hostage was released, Benjamin Meir. Further offers of arms were made to Iran, but elicited no response: the Iranians didn't need more weapons. So under the guidance of William Casey and through the agency of George Bush, the Reagan administration induced Saudi Arabia to provide Saddam Hussein with more weaponry: US bombs and British Aircraft, including 1,500 MK-84 bombs, capable of maximum blast and damage. The "reasoning" for this policy was to induce ZSaddam to step up bombing against Iran, in the expectation that battle losses would induce the Iranians to accept more American arms-for-hostages! (Later, during Bush's Operation Desert Storm, US forces dropped more than 12,000 MK-84 bombs on Iraq.)

Details of the on-going double dealing by the US, seeking to arm Iran and Iraq secretly and simultaneously, are nearly endless and Byzantine. Years later, President George Bush, after contimuing his policy of accomodating and supporting Saddam Hussein, switched loyalties when Iraq massed 200,000 troops against the Kuwaiti border, plus another 40,000 troops within striking distance of Saudi Arabia. Casting around for a reason for his invasion of Iraq, Bush compared Hussein to "Hitler" and sounded ringing declarations: "This aggression shall not stand!". Very Churchillian. Of course, the actual reason for Bush's interest was securing American access to Saudi and Middle Eastern oil, an understandable source of worry for an advocate of the mixed regulatory economy, Green policy, and punitive energy regulations and taxes. (References to the history of Saddam are from House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger.

Of course, such treacherous and tragic official maneuvering has been motivated by "high ideals" and "good intentions". But Ron Paul is realsitic, in that he identifies this policy for what it is: arbitary and unjust in the extreme.


Post 36

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Armaos wrote:
I won't even get into this as anarcho-capitalism is an anti-Objectivist concept, with a just a cursory examination revealing it to be a self-refuting concept. There have been a ton of threads on RoR about this, mostly excellent ones from Bill Dwyer, here is a good one.
Yes, there have been many refutations of strawmen concocted by their authors.

It's really quite a pity that so many Objectivists are so prejudiced that they are utterly unwilling to investigate what others are actually saying.

Post 37

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 9:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One part of our compulsory taxation could be eliminated, and that is making tax evasion criminal.  Instead, it should be a civil issue, just like any other debt.

Post 38

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't even get into this as anarcho-capitalism is an anti-Objectivist concept, with a just a cursory examination revealing it to be a self-refuting concept. There have been a ton of threads on RoR about this, mostly excellent ones from Bill Dwyer, here is a good one.

Yes, darn it, we've already discussed it.  How dare people who weren't party to those discussions interject fresh thoughts and perspectives?  It's settled science -- anarcho-capitalism simply can't work.

Yes, darn it, we've already discussed it.  How dare people who weren't party to those discussions interject fresh thoughts and perspectives?  It's settled science -- global warming is a fact, and it is entirely caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions, and the only possible solution is massive govenment intervention in industry, and carbon taxes, and ...

When someone starts insisting that something they believe in isn't open to discussion, end of discussion, because it is so self-evidently true, even though intelligent and rational people are asking impertinent questions that seem to raise legitimate doubts, they holder of those self-evident truths is either holding religious rather than philosophical beliefs, or they're more than a little worried that their paradigm might unravel under scrutiny.


Post 39

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmm.....Rick and Jim, I don't see how you connect "I won't bother discussing a self-refuting concept, because other threads have discussed it at great length" to "unwilling to investigate it" or "not willing to hear people who weren't party to those discussions interject fresh thoughts and perspectives? " or "insisting what they believe in is not open to discussion"



Indeed, there actually is no connect there. It was from willful discusions and investigations at great length, that lead to me to the conclusion it is an incoherent philosophy. So I would say you have both successfully used a strawman. Why not start a new thread or continue upon one of the hundreds of already existing threads on anarcho-capitalism? Read them through, and post your fresh new thoughts on a subject matter that has in my opinion beaten that dead horse to a bloody pulp. But hey, we could also discuss UFO sightings and astrology at great length too, but I imagine at some point, we can come to some kind of judgment to the validity of such things lest we consider one can never come to such a judgment? Is that either of yours position?


(Edited by John Armaos on 2/11, 1:33pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.