RoR: Forum

Is the Bush administration bungling this war now?

Post 21

Monday, April 28, 2008 - 2:10pm

Dennis:

Bill does not say “powerless to stop” the government; he asks about people who are “powerless to actively oppose it.”...

If I do not qualify as a dissident with respect to the war in Iraq, I have no idea how you would define the word “dissident.”

I see, so any kind of dissidence is good to you even if it makes no difference to actually accomplishing anything? So your standard is not if the dissidence is actually fruitful, only that you make it. So is this just something that eases your conscious and makes you feel good? So now you think you are morally absolved by your standard for evaluating moral innocence because you are speaking out? Here on RoR too I see. How brave of you Dennis! How do you do it? Living in fear from retaliation by your government, you are a courageous individual indeed!

Give me a fucking break.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/28, 2:11pm)

Post 22

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:21pm

Ted,

Dennis, it looks like we agree in essence.

Yes, from your comments it appears we agree on the basic fact that the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq on fundamentally altruistic principles, and that this has resulted in the sacrifice of countless American lives and caused thousands of needless, debilitating injuries. That is the bottom line.

I commend you for the clarity you have helped bring to this vitally important issue.

Kurt,

I am not advocating a third position. I totally agree with the Objectivist position as articulated by Brook and Epstein.

Post 23

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:24pm

John,

...So is this just something that eases your conscious and makes you feel good? So now you think you are morally absolved by your standard for evaluating moral innocence because you are speaking out?

As of March, 2008, the Iraq war has cost the lives of roughly 4000 Americans. In addition, there have been over 50,000 injuries to American troops. I have taken advantage of every opportunity available to me to speak out against this senseless carnage and the ideas that make it possible. I believe in the power of ideas. I do not believe in self-sacrifice. My mind and my words are the only practical means of protest available to me. I have a clear conscience.

Since you do not even know how to spell conscience, I can understand how you might think that words are impotent and meaningless. Your words, even when spelled correctly, most certainly are.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 4/29, 11:26pm)

Post 24

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 - 9:36am

I have taken advantage of every opportunity available to me to speak out against this senseless carnage...As of March, 2008, the Iraq war has cost the lives of roughly 4000 Americans. In addition, there have been over 50,000 injuries to American troops. I can understand how you might think that words are impotent and meaningless.

Well, clearly yours are, but you can never the less give yourself a big ol pat on the back.

Post 25

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 2:13am

Well, clearly [your words are impotent and meaningless], but you can never the less give yourself a big ol pat on the back.

Such wit and insight. Thank you so much for your invaluable contribution.

Post 26

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 8:08am

Dennis,
Michael has a point. Based on your own statistics, your protests have been impotent and, therefore, have not had much meaning. BTW, do you think that if the US bombs Iran, they should make a special effort to spare the "innocents" who have posted anti-government slogans on the internet?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 27

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 12:00pm

Glenn,

Based on your own statistics, your protests have been impotent and, therefore, have not had much meaning.

Do you not understand how ideas work? The Bush administration and the Iraq war are both by-products of longstanding cultural-ideological traditions.

Speaking out in favor of Objectivist moral principles and applying those principles to specific events such as the Iraq war is obviously intended to have a long-range ripple effect. Only a naive fool would expect such change to happen overnight. Philosophical and cultural shifts do not happen that fast. All any of us can do is try to reach as many rational minds as possible, in the hope of achieving long-term success. By your standard, Atlas Shrugged would have to be considered impotent and meaningless.

Quoting Victor Hugo: ‘Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.’ And the more we speak out—using whatever forums may be available to us--the sooner that day will come. The war on terror provides Objectivists with an issue where we can clearly and easily demonstrate the extraordinary pro-life utility of rational egoism. (And that, incidentally, is why The Ayn Rand Institute is infinitely superior to the morally timid, vacillant Atlas Society.)

...do you think that if the US bombs Iran, they should make a special effort to spare the "innocents" who have posted anti-government slogans on the internet?

Once again, you are confusing the issue of moral innocence and the right of self-defense. They are entirely separate. We retain the right of taking preemptive action against a foreign threat, even if it means potentially killing those (e.g., dissidents) who may be morally innocent.

We should only spare innocents where they can be isolated and where doing so would involve no military cost. It is absurd to suggest that it might be practical to isolate “innocent” web-posters in a bombing campaign.

Post 28

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 3:01pm

Dennis:

As of March, 2008, the Iraq war has cost the lives of roughly 4000 Americans. In addition, there have been over 50,000 injuries to American troops.

As of December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was captured and subsequently brought to justice. Iraq is now no longer in a position to acquire or reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction program. Iraq today is far more stable than it was only a year ago. Today the Kurds have a flourishing democracy with a liberalized market based economy. I also, do not believe in self-sacrifice, but I also don't believe it is possible to have a Platonic Ideal of the perfect war as you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking. I believe reasonable means should be used to minimize civilian casualties while not needlessly jeopardizing our military assets. But you seem to substitute knowledge for empirical data with philosophical standards. You say: "We should only spare innocents where they can be isolated and where doing so would involve no military cost." Why not annihilate the entire nation with nuclear weapons? That would be far cheaper, and no Americans would die from that choice, at least not in the short-term and definitely not from any Iraqis. You may say well it's up to military strategists to determine what are the costs and benefits of a military action. So what are you saying? That you, Dennis Hardin, know better than anyone else what military costs and assets are? That there are no ramifications at all to annihilating vast swaths of a population because we didn't want to spare any more money or jeopardize the lives of anymore military personnel?

I have taken advantage of every opportunity available to me to speak out against this senseless carnage and the ideas that make it possible. I believe in the power of ideas. I do not believe in self-sacrifice. My mind and my words are the only practical means of protest available to me.

Say the government you were speaking out against took away your freedom to keep and bear arms? You speak out, trying to persuade your government to restore the recognition of that right. But you're in the minority, and your voice falls on deaf ears. What can you do? Well it's not bad enough you may say, you still have the freedom to speak out, and you continue your advocacy and try to persuade your fellow citizens to see your point of view. Your mind and your words are the most practical means of protest. Then through a slow process, the government takes away even more freedoms, starting with the freedom of action, the freedom from unreasonable searches into your life and property, with the last one finally being your freedom to speak and seek redress from your government. Up until that last freedom you still had the only practical means to you to protest what you thought was wrong. But the only practical means of protest that you once had are now gone. If you speak out you will be either executed or thrown into a prison. You may take your chances and say you'd rather die than live in a totalitarian hell hole. But the tyranny you live under is far more evil than you realized and won't stop at just killing you, they would drag your entire family, your closest friends, your wife, your children into the street and execute them all. You've seen it happen to your fellow neighbors, and think about what you should do. So you refrain, you're not sure if it's worth the cost and hope someone, some other country may one day topple your government and kill your captors. But according to your standards, you didn't do enough to prevent your government from becoming a belligerent aggressor, you are morally guilty of allowing a nation to become an aggressor nation that threatens the lives and freedoms of a free society. Your death from a free nation retaliating against your government was not an unfortunate consequence of the right to self-defense, according to Dennis Hardin, this was your fair punishment for bad deeds.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/01, 3:32pm)

Post 29

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 5:11pm

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 1024).

If a slave under a totalitarian system doesn't actively oppose it, how is he guilty of starting the use of force? And if he isn't guilty of starting the use of force, then how is it that, according to Rand, force may be used against him?

- Bill

Post 30

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 10:48pm

Such wit and insight. Thank you so much for your invaluable contribution.

Do you not understand how ideas work? The Bush administration and the Iraq war are both by-products of longstanding cultural-ideological traditions.

Rand said "Any idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy" And while 'talking' is technically an 'action' I hardly think that is the action she was talking about.

Post 31

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 10:55pm

If a slave under a totalitarian system doesn't actively oppose it, how is he guilty of starting the use of force? And if he isn't guilty of starting the use of force, then how is it that, according to Rand, force may be used against him?

I have never advocating using force against the slave of a totalitarian despot. Force is being advocated in use against the totalitarian despot and those who seek to setup their own totalitarian hell holes. It is those who suggest that we should just drop nuclear bombs who hold slaves under despots as equally accountable for their slavery as the despot.

One need not wait until they themselves are attacked in order to act in self defense, any assault on any persons freedoms any where in the world is an assault on the very concept of that freedom. Letting a rapist go because he attacked my neighbor and not my wife is foolish, similarly turning a blind eye to a murderous despot who wantonly crushes the freedoms of millions of people, breeds global instability and murderous terrorism, is equally suicidal in the long term.

Post 32

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 11:26pm

John,

... Iraq today is far more stable than it was only a year ago. Today the Kurds have a flourishing democracy with a liberalized market based economy. I also, do not believe in self-sacrifice, but I also don't believe it is possible to have a Platonic Ideal of the perfect war as you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking.

If you think that 4000 plus American deaths and 50,000 seriously wounded military personnel was a price worth paying for the current situation in Iraq, you really shouldn’t be accusing anyone else of being delusional about anything.

Why not annihilate the entire nation with nuclear weapons? That would be far cheaper, and no Americans would die from that choice, at least not in the short-term and definitely not from any Iraqis…

That is a typical straw man argument—“annihilate the entire nation.” I am for using nuclear weapons to the extent needed to bring the enemy to its knees and no more. Of course that is an issue of military expertise and strategy—guided by the principle of doing sufficient damage to make the question of further reprisal non-negotiable and absolutely minimizing our own losses. That is the only principle consistent with rational self-interest. How many innocent American soldiers are you willing to kill for the sake of their civilians?

In World War II, we had the moral courage to “annihilate vast swaths of a population” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than risk massive losses on our side. We should follow the exact same principle today, to the extent that it is necessary to eliminate the terrorist threat.

But the tyranny you live under is far more evil than you realized …according to your standards, you didn't do enough to prevent your government from becoming a belligerent aggressor, you are morally guilty of allowing a nation to become an aggressor nation that threatens the lives and freedoms of a free society. Your death from a free nation retaliating against your government was not an unfortunate consequence of the right to self-defense, according to Dennis Hardin, this was your fair punishment for bad deeds.

You might choose to just tolerate such a situation and live passively with the status quo, but anyone with a shred of self-esteem would do whatever they could to put an end to the tyranny, despite the obvious risks. They would not accept an inhuman existence. That means having the courage to find others to join with you in working underground to either overturn the government or escape its tentacles. To the extent that citizens give aid and support to such a government and do not make some (however modest) effort to work against it, they are cowards who have lost their humanity and all claim to moral innocence.

Post 33

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 11:30pm

Bill,

If a slave under a totalitarian system doesn't actively oppose it, how is he guilty of starting the use of force? And if he isn't guilty of starting the use of force, then how is it that, according to Rand, force may be used against him?

The force that is being used against him has been initiated by his own government, by its aggression against another nation, giving that nation no option but to retaliate in self-defense. The situation is exactly parallel to that of a hostage situation, where the victim is being used as a shield. The blame for the initiation of force belongs entirely to the hostage-taker. The others who are being threatened have no option but to act in self-defense.

When another party’s initiation of force has made your own survival dependent on a certain course of action, you cannot be accused of violating the victim’s rights. The bullet that kills the victim may come from another person’s gun, but it was the hostage-taker who made it necessary for him to fire it, in his own self-defense.

Post 34

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 12:06am

MFD,

Rand said "Any idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy" And while 'talking' is technically an 'action' I hardly think that is the action she was talking about.

The passage you are quoting is from Francisco’s money speech. Here is the full quote:

"Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values . . ".

She is speaking of the importance of living with integrity, of using your principles and your rational effort to guide your actions and your value choices. And, in productive work, of “shaping matter to the purpose of your mind.” In her own case, her work consisted primarily of transforming her thinking into the material form of novels and nonfiction.

That is what she was talking about.

What did you think she meant, genius? Disrupting congressional committees? Throwing pies into the faces of speakers you don’t happen to like?

Try posting something that isn't a waste of bandwidth.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 5/02, 12:09am)

Post 35

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 7:27am

John: "Iraq is now no longer in a position to acquire or reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction program. Iraq today is far more stable than it was only a year ago."

John, you seem like a decent guy. But this is so NOT reality. Even leaving aside the now well-known fact that whatever WMDs that Saddam Hussein had were given to him by the US government, the notion that Iraqis can't get WMDs from Iranians or Saudi Arabians or others now is just plain wrong. As for the country being "far more stable" than it was only a year ago, it's still a violent disaster zone that will collapse into civil war whenever (if ever) the US military leaves. You don't need to see into the future to realize that.

Post 36

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 8:49am

John,

... Iraq today is far more stable than it was only a year ago. Today the Kurds have a flourishing democracy with a liberalized market based economy. I also, do not believe in self-sacrifice, but I also don't believe it is possible to have a Platonic Ideal of the perfect war as you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking.

If you think that 4000 plus American deaths and 50,000 seriously wounded military personnel was a price worth paying for the current situation in Iraq, you really shouldn’t be accusing anyone else of being delusional about anything

Yeah because the situation RIGHT NOW, at this EXACT moment, is what the Iraq War was all about? Was John saying it was worth the price now, at 11:00 am EST, or was that yesterday, when you posted?? Talk about Delusional. Talk about not thinking in the long term, it amazes me how people who take 5 years to buy a car and 30 years to buy a house expect a progressive democracy which protects individual civil liberties to spring forth from a rotting cess pool in a mere few years. It took almost forty years in South Korea.

The price of casualties of American soldiers and the material and economic costs are not paid for the CURRENT SITUATION in Iraq, and surely you realize this, and are just being intellectually dishonest and pandering - it is the price paid for the spring board of democratic freedom, and ultimately the end of murderous fundamentalist terrorism (at least of the Islamofacism type) and the end of the reign of murderous despotic tyrants that hold hundreds of millions of people hostage, breed all the world's terrorists, cause all the worlds' famines, and start all the worlds wars.

I understand that whole libertarian "I've got mine now screw you" isolationist attitude, and that might have been sensible when it took 3 months to cross the Atlantic, but in the current age of nuclear proliferation, bioterrorism, globalization and rapid transworld aviation, and the coming age of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and synthetic life, it is absolutely suicidal and short sighted.
Better to incur the wrath of the maniacs who seek to promulgate their murderous ideologies now, when it takes tremendous wealth and perseverance to kill thousands of people, and not 10 or 20 years from now when a single intelligent and motivated individual might be able to wipe out half the worlds population.

Promulgating the growth of free nations with free markets is absolutely in our long term rational self interest, we live on the same planet as these murderous slave states and the threat individual nations pose now have global consequences and the threat from malicious individuals in the future may very well have global consequences as well. At all times we must deal the best blow we can against the worst enemy we face with our limited resources.

Post 37

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 8:55am

In World War II, we had the moral courage to "annihilate vast swaths of a population" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than risk massive losses on our side. We should follow the exact same principle today, to the extent that it is necessary to eliminate the terrorist threat.

I expect comments like this from Mr. Kolker, who admits he is physically incapable of the emotion of empathy, but am sad to see yet another person advocating killing millions of people just to get at a handfull.

Post 38

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 9:04am

You might choose to just tolerate such a situation and live passively with the status quo, but anyone with a shred of self-esteem would do whatever they could to put an end to the tyranny, despite the obvious risks. They would not accept an inhuman existence. That means having the courage to find others to join with you in working underground to either overturn the government or escape its tentacles. To the extent that citizens give aid and support to such a government and do not make some (however modest) effort to work against it, they are cowards who have lost their humanity and all claim to moral innocence.

Strong words coming from a coffee shop warrior in one of the worlds freest nations. There are clearly many strands of tyranny in our nation, one of the least unfree, most decidedly in the realm of economic controll - and yet what are you doing? Besides yapping on a forum with a bunch of other forum yappers, to put an end to this tyranny? Really now, "anyone with a shred of self-esteem would do whatever they could to put an end to the tyranny" Do you mean any tyranny, anywhere? or just the tryanny that happens to assault you personally? Or perhaps the tyranny that hits your family? Or maybe your family and friends? People within an arbitrary geographic boundary you share? or all people everywhere? ANY ASSAULT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES on ANYONE IN THE WORLD is an Assault on the very concept of individual freedom. Where is your Galt's Gulch? Where are your underground movements for a seperation of business and state? All I see is yap yap yap just to make yourself feel morally superior. In reality you are a coward who has lost your humanity and all claim to moral innocence.
(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 5/02, 9:19am)

(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 5/02, 9:24am)

Post 39

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 9:08am