RoR: Forum

Sorry. I'm only willing to attribute morality and rationality to individual humans.

And that means what exactly? That nations' governments are not run by humans? Or that these humans don't represent the interests of themselves and other humans that chose to represent them?

Good luck with your quest in understanding what rationality means.

Post 21

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 6:35pm

How Hitler Started WWII on Bicycle, and the French, Facing an Election, Stayed Home

In violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the spirit of the Locarno Pact, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland on Saturday, March 7, 1936. The occupation was done with very little military force, the troops entering on bicycles, [just a "pissing match"?] and no effort was made to stop it (See Appeasement of Hitler). France could not act due to political instability at the time, and, since the remilitarisation occurred at a weekend, [during the Summer Congressional Recess?] the British Government could not find out or discuss actions to be taken until the following Monday. As a result of this, the governments were inclined to see the remilitarisation as a fait accompli.

Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to 'turn back and not to resist' if they were stopped by the French Army. The French did not try to stop them because they were currently holding elections [Obama had just spoken in Paris?] and no president wanted to start a war with Germany.

The British government agreed with the act in principle, "The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden" Lord Lothian, but rejected the Nazi manner of accomplishing said act. [Let them hold a referendum!] Winston Churchill, however, advocated military action through cooperation by the British and the French. [He was refused, as it would interrupt the Olympics.]

Putin knows his history.

Do you know yours?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/18, 7:38pm)

Post 22

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:25pm

Jeff I completely missed your post and it seems you have some thoughtful responses. I will attempt to address them:

[referring to my empirical analysis of Iraq] John, this is a much clearer and concise statement of why we should intervene in Iraq than anything I have ever heard from our government. It speaks to actual facts and discusses the need for regime change. However, I do not remember any mention of the necessity and moral right for pursuing regime change was ever clearly articulated by our government and instead, we were promised documented evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction - something that turned out to be completely false.

I sympathize with this because it is true the Bush administration did a horrible job of communicating their rationale for regime change in Iraq. It promised it would find weapons of mass destruction when it didn't need to make such a promise, the fact that Saddam Hussein had a track record of obtaining, using and seeking WMD was good enough, and that he routinely violated UN resolutions where the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate he had gotten rid of them (while funding his jihadi proxies killing Westerners). We don't really know why he couldn't account for stockpiles of weapons we knew he had in the past and had no record of their disposal, so the question is what happened to that WMD? Did he get rid of them? And if so why did he do is best to conceal that? Or did he give them to another country? Or was he trying to prop up his image in the Arab world as the lone Arab leader taking a stand against the evil American empire? Who really knows. As time passes we may get more information to explain the behavior.

But, I don't believe that poorly communicating a rationale for war must mean that the war is unjustified. Nor do I think its fair to say the evidence did not support the accusation Saddam had WMD before the invasion. I believe it would have been careless to come to any other conclusion. For example, suppose you had a pedophile that left prison but on the condition he wore an ankle bracelet tracker and had to promise he didn't get on the internet and that parole officers had the right to inspect his computer at any time to make sure he was complying with the agreement. Then suppose the police come, and the pedophile refuses the parole officer access to the computer. It immediately raises suspicions, "why isn't he letting me in?" The officer thinks. So he gets a court order demanding he have access to the pedophile's computer. The pedophile grudgingly agrees to access, but on a limited basis (for a few minutes), the parole officer comes in and sees on the computer evidence someone accessed a web browser program, then the pedophile immediately grabs the keyboard and says "ok that's enough, get out". At that point, there's just too much circumstantial evidence to ignore. This is what similarly happened to Iraq before the invasion. Weapons inspectors were stonewalled by Iraqi authorities, they had evidence of past Iraqi WMD programs and now the Iraqi's behavior was suspicious, leading them to believe they were hiding something they didn't want the inspectors to see. I think you might see how someone can reasonably come to the conclusion "hey these bastards are hiding WMD from us"

If reasonable people end up formulating what you call "conspiracy theories" for the actions of our government, there is no need to look further than the misdirection our government creates in its attempt to pursue its course. The government shows time and time again that it neither respects the intelligence of its citizenry nor the members in other branches of government. If the government made a statement like the above and followed it up with a clearly articulated plan of how it would prosecute its interests (again, not something that we were given), then people could still agree or disagree about that course, but there would be none of this subterfuge and manipulation that we actually get.

And I believe that's a fair criticism.

What you call "conspiracy theories" are typically just attempts by people to reconcile what the government says with what it actually does.

I agree that a lack of transparency, or making what are seemingly bogus arguments can lead some to leap towards conspiracy theories, but that does not justify the leap. Conspiracy theories themselves are seemingly bogus arguments, with just a cursory glance at them they reveal to be easily falsified by a few salient facts. But again even if the Bush administration made promises it couldn't keep, or promises it didn't need to make for the justification for war, it doesn't mean there is no legitimate rationale for the war.

Hamas i[s] funded primarily by Saudi Arabia with significant funds from Iran [...] And Iran is the only government that supports Hezbollah.

I don't think these are inconsequential observations. If the real aim for invasion in the Middle East was to end Islamic terrorism, why didn't we do something about Saudi Arabia or Iran? Was it a mater of expedience or something else?

I believe the conditions made it easier to justify war with Iraq given its history with the UN than it would have for war against Saudi Arabia. I think there was a better opportunity with Iraq to try and turn it into a democratic republic (whether that is a realistic goal is for another thread), which would have made it the only Arab democracy. That would make a profound impact on the culture in the middle east. Terrorists are fueled by a hatred for Western values, and what better way to take that fuel away then to help a large Arab nation become a democracy with at least a partial recognition of western values? We could have just taken the ridiculous "nuke em all" approach that I've heard some Objectivists use, or we could take progressive steps that could help change the culture of the Middle East rather than take an unrealistic and barbaric strategy of total annihilation. Steps like replacing a large Arab dictatorship with a pro-western government.

Steve raises concerns about the cost-benefit results of the war, is this prima facie unreasonable? I do not think so.

No it's not but that's not why he objects to it. It's not for a benefit-cost reason he objects to war in Iraq, it's because according to his intrincisist view of what constitutes self-defense, Iraq would have literally had to have a standing army ready to storm the shores of America. A completely moronic approach to self-defense. A threat to our interests does not require it be just a threat to American soil (Thomas Jefferson didn't think so either and used the Navy to attack the Barbary Pirates of Africa after they had blackmailed American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean, demanding money in exchange for not seizing commercial American ships and turning their crews into slaves, something that Steve would according to his moral code would have objected to) a threat to our interests could also be a threat to shipping lanes that we depend on for trade, it could be a threat from a proxy (Saddam supporting Hamas, Hezbollah), etc.

While historically interesting, I do not think that the positions of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson with respect to foreign policy in the 17th century is relevant to today's world. John is correct that it requires a different strategy completely when a nuclear bomb can be smuggled into the US in a cargo container or launched from a rocket and delivered in minutes, instead of having to deal with a two-month long transit of the Atlantic ocean and the destructive might of a musket. We now live in an international age and the interests of people in various countries are becoming entwined in numerous ways. Just as businesses in a given industry tend to consolidate due to natural forces as the scope, reach and complexity of that industry expands, so too will government policies between nations continue to become interrelated and merge towards a common structure as peaceful trade expands across the globe. The ideal of isolationism is dead in the 21st century and the US needs to formulate a rational foreign policy that clearly announces to the world that we do not seek to build an empire but instead are interested in voluntary free trade with any and all people. We should announce the terms under which the US is willing to work together with others and what sort of treatment we expect from others in return. We should clearly articulate exactly how we then intend to protect our interests at home and abroad so that our position is clear to all people. And finally, we should act in a wholly consistent manner in support of our stated goals and policies.

Jeff I agree with this. And might I point out that the greatest economic interdependence that exists for the US and the most peaceful and stable relationships are those with other democracies. In fact no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/18, 9:30pm)

Post 23

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:35pm

Michael,

You definitely deserve a gold star for your post #17. You identified the problem immediately! The problem is that to me "reasonable" might mean 'Nuke them' and to you "reasonable" might mean "total pacifism," or visa versa.

That was my reason for using the extreme example of nuclear war. You say, "We are talking about, fundamentally, whether it is right to act militarily outside of the confines of your nation first and foremost." That is correct - we are talking about whether it is right to act militarily outside of the country and that is what a prinicple is needed for. Military use is the projection of force - that is killing - that is why it is really important to have a principle that lets one make an objective judgment on any set of facts. That is why the prinicple of self-defense is absolutely necessary. Without it, all we have are wildly different solutions each clamoring that they are the most reasonable. By what standard?

You said, "Apparently you associate ANY adovcation of the us of force in self defense with some kind of murderous blood thirsty rage." No, I'm taking the gold star back. I have said repeatedly that use of force as self-defense is moral - it is the principle of self-defense that makes it so. I've got lots of posts out there their with me saying I support the use of force, for example, in WW II - so, you just made a statement that is stupid.

The equation is simple: The initiation of force is justified by self-defense. Use of deadly force in the absence of self-defense is not. The principle of self-defense allows us to judge when it is proper to use force. Claims that being "reasonable" provide justification in the absence of self-defense are not "reasonable" they are just rationalizations and methods of evading what is really happening.

Post 24

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:50pm

So just answer this simple question Steve, when Thomas Jefferson waged war and used the US Navy against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa that were raiding American commercial ships in the Mediterranean and demanding bribes, was that self-defense? Wasn't that protecting the trade interests of American businessmen and thus in their self-defense? Or do you still hold a moronic view that self defense can only mean literally a standing army storming the shores of American soil? What exactly constitutes "self-defense" Steve?

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/18, 10:10pm)

Post 25

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 10:26pm

Ted,

You said, "I am tired of hearing the false assertion that going to war to help another country is necessarily altruistic:"

And then you quote me, "And a convergence of interests between nations can NOT morally include making their citizens the subject of a sacrifice for the sake of the other nation."

I notice that in your statement you have the prepositional phrase, "to help another country" which acts to supply motive for going to war. That is what I've been saying, that if we go to war for the purpose of helping another war, that purpose is altruistic. Now, if we end up helping another nation when we go to war out of self-defense that is different, it is not altruistic. So, your form of stating my position shows it not to be false.

In my quote, which is taken from John's article, I'm addressing the switching of some form of 'common interests' to take the place of self-defense as the justification for war. Your objection to that statement is puzzling to me (but not because I don't understand your position in these on-going threads). This statement just says that alliances or treaties (the context of the quote makes it clear that this is what is implied by convergence of interests in John's article) can not call for an action by our country that would be sacrificial (benefits to another nation at the net expense of our losses) moral. Let me put that another way. Any treaty or agreement between nations that reasonably results in a sacrifice by America to another nation is not moral.

You put a value on stopping Putin - and I agree that there is a value there, but it is hard to estimate its magnitude without claiming to be able to see into the future. But yes there is a value. But to go to war without the justification of self-defense is what permits any politician who is in power to assign any magnitude to that value. Self-defense is the principle that cuts that Gordian knot.

You say, They look at the balance sheet on lives lost and Billions spent. Yes, it is necessary to look at the costs, which are actually trillions and those lives are hundreds of thousands. You give the hypothetical of Saddam actually having WMD - well, my argument all along has been that self-defense IS a justification for the use of military force - for war itself. I have no objection to your creating any hypothetical you want that takes my side, because the argument I've been making, like with Georgia, or Vietnam or Korea is that our self-defense wasn't an issue. The minute that Osama engaged in terrorist actions against us (which was way before 9/11) it became just fine (self-defense) to take him out.

You say, "The benefit is never surely known, because when we do act, we can't point to disasters that didn't happen, and claim the dividend. But we know that disasters do happen." My point is that we should only act when our best estimate of the net benefit is in our self-interest and if by 'act' we mean the use of force, then we also need to act in self-defense if we care about being moral. And that approach says we don't enter into treaties that might put us in that immoral position. Some of our disagreements would evaporate with an examination of self-defense, which opponents try to paint as only being when foreign troops land on our soil - that's nonsense. But other facts would still leave us in disagreement and my claim is that self-defense is the principle that lets people come to a rational understanding of where force is moral and where it is not.

If we could agree that individual rights and self-defense are the only ways to justify the use of force and thereby the only way to make the decision to use military force then we could move on to addressing the ways we could form moral alliances, moral treaties, actually confront common enemies in ways that don't violate the very principles that our system is founded on. There are many forms of agreements and alliances that would be a valid extensions of jurisdiction. But they can't even be talked about until the more basic principle of self-defense is acknowledged and agreed upon.

Post 26

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 10:27pm

Entangling Alliances are not All Alliances

It should be kept in mind that the sort of entangling alliances of which Washington and Jefferson spoke were partisan alliances such as, for example, US and France against Britain or US & Britain versus France. Historically, Braitain and France had fought and traded colonies, most recently in the Seven Year's War. Spain too was a possible intriguer. America was not seeking conquests, and so thefre was no need for her to alivn with any Eduropean power in ordrer to plunder some other power. There were no defensive alliances at that time. There was no NATO ands no threat to the US for which such a defensive alliance would be necessary or useful Modern US alliances are ones of mutual defense, and defense alone, and would not be necessary if not for the bad actors which isolationists seem to be unable to tell from small nations in large mountain ranges.

The "entangling" alliances were alliances for adventurism and intrigue, not self defence. There is no need to qualify alliances as entangling if all alliances are to be shunned. They were not to be shunned, and interventionists should in no way concede this point to isolationists.

Post 27

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 10:44pm

Bridget:

John, I think you're making a false dichotomy when mentioning people's dislike for the invasion of Iraq as isolationists. Are the NATO members that did approve of the invasion yet have a presence in Afghanistan or certain nations in Africa as part of UN relief missions isolationists?

I am not attacking any reason given for disliking the war in Iraq, I am attacking isolationist reasons for disliking the war on Iraq. I think that is a crucial difference. There are non-isolationist reasons for disliking the war on Iraq, namely the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Isolationists think it's never in our interests to use our military outside of American soil unless American soil is directly attacked.

I think in this regard, your definition of interventionism and isolationism are pretty weak in that they're not rigorously defined as total isolationism or total interventionism. For me, I do believe in avoiding alliances with nations of the military sort when they are unneeded, not because of fear of getting into a protracted war or because I "hate" America, but because it costs my money in taxes. And there better be a damn good reason to make a military alliance with some other nation, instead of phantasmal fears of men speaking strange sounding languages.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by phantasmal fears of men speaking strange sounding languages. But there are threats that the West faces, one of them is the growing threat of rogue nations like Iran developing nuclear weapons and a means of delivering them, as a precautionary defensive measure, NATO is installing a missile defense system throughout NATO countries that include early detection radar and missile interceptor technologies. I would hardly call that a waste of money or a needless alliance (have you seen how close together these countries in Europe are? If one is attacked the whole continent suffers). If that alliance is needless, why do you think that? Is our military itself needless because no one poses a credible threat of taking and occupying American soil?

Plus, on the Iraq invasion itself, why didn't we just let those people depose Saddam themselves? Sure, he was a monster, no doubt, but is it our moral 'duty' to fight others battles?

Well no, it is not our moral duty. And I never made the implication it was. But I'm not sure how you would propose the Iraqi people depose a dictator who has a military that has squashed all freedom in that country and has turned it into a prison? How do the Iraqis in this condition depose Saddam?

The last time I checked Saddam had no WMDs per the reports given, and all claims to either him having the components for WMDs or supposedly funding a terrorist organization were found to be fraudulent.

That's simply not true. Iraq had them in the past (they found WMD stockpiles in the 90's) and they kicked out all UN weapons inspectors in 1998 (Clinton bombed Iraq as retaliation for breaking the agreement) then they never came back to that country until 2003 when the American military was parked outside of Iraqi borders, and even then Iraqi authorities stonewalled UN inspectors and denied them access to sites and refused to account for stockpiles they knew he had in the past. (see my post to Jeff on that)

Also, while there was no evidence that Saddam funded al-Qaeda, he did fund Hamas and Hezbollah who were killing Americans, Israelis and Europeans. These are jihadist terrorists with a shared hatred of the west with al-Qaeda. This is similar to the shared interests of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Were they the same nation? No but they both had murderous aspirations and a common enemy. To not recognize them as existential threats is dangerous.

In the end, any attempt to justify the Iraq invasion is hypocritical and nonsensical.

I think if you haven't looked at it empirically enough I can understand this snap judgment. But I don't agree at all. I would ask you take a closer look at the details. I would suggest reading Christopher Hitchens for that.

Post 28

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 10:52pm

I would like to see a response to post 24.

Post 29

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:17pm

When it is pointed out that Saudi Arabia was a more logical target than Iraq following 9/11 (see post #22 ), John states "I believe the conditions made it easier to justify war with Iraq given its history with the UN than it would have for war against Saudi Arabia. I think there was a better opportunity with Iraq to try and turn it into a democratic republic..." So, 'conditions' related to the UN allow the rationalization for what has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, so that interventionists can attempt to build a democratic republic. I'll keep typing it the ends of my fingers are bloody - Without the principle of self-defense there are all kinds of absurd 'reasons' that stand as 'justifications' for death and destruction. They just aren't rational or moral.

John was asked if looking at the cost-benefit analysis (as per my suggestion) is unreasonable. He says, "No it's not but that's not why he [Steve] objects to it. It's not for a benefit-cost reason he objects to war in Iraq, it's because according to his intrincisist view of what constitutes self-defense, Iraq would have literally had to have a standing army ready to storm the shores of America. A completely moronic approach to self-defense." John shouldn't attempt to read my mind or, based upon past behaviors, attempt to state my position - he keeps getting them wrong. His statement of what I believe to be self-defense is totally wrong. And I do demand that the cost-benefit be looked at. We are talking about thousands of young Americans in body bags, trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dead all together. Why doesn't he want to analyze that? (Notice that he never has, not in this post nor any other) Is it because he is either being dishonest and wants to avoid acknowledging the result of interventionist policy, or because he doesn't consider that a bad cost-benefit result or that he thinks that magnitude of cost isn't important enough to weigh?

And he thinks he can read minds he goes on to say that I would not agree to Jefferson's use of military force against the Barbary pirates. Wrong again! Those are attacks on America - hence self-defense. And if I wanted to be technical, which there is no need to in this case, I could point out that ships registered under the American flag are legally recognized as American soil for purposes of jurisdiction when in international waters.

John goes on to talk about terrorists acting as a proxy for a nation and gives this example, "...Saddam supporting Hamas, Hezbollah..." and this is in the same post where he quotes my statement that neither Hamas nor Hezbolla were supported by Iraq!

Post 30

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:24pm

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/18, 11:25pm)

Post 31

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:27pm

Ted,

You say, "There is no need to qualify alliances as entangling if all alliances are to be shunned. They were not to be shunned, and interventionists should in no way concede this point to isolationists."

I don't claim all alliances are entangling and I am happy to understand the concept of "entangling" as having more than one form of entanglement. I advocate that any alliance that obligates us to use military force in a situation where our self-defense isn't at issue be shunned. I advocate that alliances that are at the root altruistic be shunned. I'm all in favor of alliances that respect that self-defense is the proper measure of moral use of military force and are alliances that are based upon the self-interest of our nation.

The context of John's article and of my response was about using 'common interests' to form alliances and then to use those alliances and shared interests as justification for use of military force even if no self-defense issue exists.

Post 32

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:55pm

Jon,

Here is my response to post #24.

John asks, "...when Thomas Jefferson waged war and used the US Navy against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa that were raiding American commercial ships in the Mediterranean and demanding bribes, was that self-defense?",/i> Yes, those are attacks on America - hence self-defense. And if I wanted to be technical, which there is no need to in this case, I could point out that ships registered under the American flag are legally recognized as American soil for purposes of jurisdiction when in international waters.

John asks, "Wasn't that protecting the trade interests of American businessmen and thus in their self-defense?" I've already stated that the action was one of self-defense (because we were attacked). But, no, it wasn't to "protect trade interests" - that kind of awful, fuzzy logic has no place in determining when to unleash military force. Going to war requires self-defense, not fuzzy ideas like "trade protection." All of these fuzzy concepts of shared interests, trade protection, common enemy, alliances - notice that they could be used just as accurately by a totalitarian nation to initiate violence. That can't be done with self-defense.

John says, "Or do you still hold a moronic view that self defense can only mean literally a standing army storming the shores of American soil?" Clearly that is not my view, it is a view that exists in John's head (or how else did it get into these posts) and so that leaves the question of who is holding the "moronic view."

John asks, "What exactly constitutes "self-defense" Steve?" The use of military force in response to an attack or immanent threat of attack on America - that is in the context of war. In the context of police actions in, say, Los Angeles, it would be the use of police force in response to an attack or immanent threat of attack on an individual. In all cases the rights held are individual and any individual that is attacked or so threatened has the right to defend themselves - what is so difficult about that? Or, is it that some interventionists want to wage war that is not morally accountable?

Post 33

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:09am

Here we go with more of Steve's asinine comments that twist everything I say:

When it is pointed out that Saudi Arabia was a more logical target than Iraq following 9/11 (see post #22 ), John states "I believe the conditions made it easier to justify war with Iraq given its history with the UN than it would have for war against Saudi Arabia. I think there was a better opportunity with Iraq to try and turn it into a democratic republic..." So, 'conditions' related to the UN allow the rationalization for what has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, so that interventionists can attempt to build a democratic republic. I'll keep typing it the ends of my fingers are bloody - Without the principle of self-defense there are all kinds of absurd 'reasons' that stand as 'justifications' for death and destruction. They just aren't rational or moral.

This is called EMOTIONALISM. Steve's argument against war in Iraq is because people die. Well no shit, wars tend to do that. I guess that would mean you are against ALL WARS since people tend to die in them.

John was asked if looking at the cost-benefit analysis (as per my suggestion) is unreasonable. He says, "No it's not but that's not why he [Steve] objects to it. It's not for a benefit-cost reason he objects to war in Iraq, it's because according to his intrincisist view of what constitutes self-defense, Iraq would have literally had to have a standing army ready to storm the shores of America. A completely moronic approach to self-defense." John shouldn't attempt to read my mind or, based upon past behaviors, attempt to state my position - he keeps getting them wrong. His statement of what I believe to be self-defense is totally wrong. And I do demand that the cost-benefit be looked at. We are talking about thousands of young Americans in body bags, trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dead all together. Why doesn't he want to analyze that? (Notice that he never has, not in this post nor any other) Is it because he is either being dishonest and wants to avoid acknowledging the result of interventionist policy, or because he doesn't consider that a bad cost-benefit result or that he thinks that magnitude of cost isn't important enough to weigh?

If you have any integrity, which you don't, you would understand I have continuously argued any foreign policy should take into account a benefit-cost analysis. But NOOO, let's not bother listening to what I say. That would require honesty on your part, can't have that can we? Yes of course the loss of life is never desirable, but this begs the question how many more people would die in the absence of Iraqi intervention? How many people's lives would have been saved with a Nazi Germany intervention? How many millions would have been saved if Europe didn't appease Hitler while America stood idly by? We saw what inaction lead to, what a denial of existential threats lead to, the most catastrophic war the world had ever seen.

You can't morally justify inaction when historically it has shown inaction can lead to so much death and destruction. Where's your benefit-cost analysis for American and European isolationism pre-WW2?

And he thinks he can read minds he goes on to say that I would not agree to Jefferson's use of military force against the Barbary pirates. Wrong again! Those are attacks on America - hence self-defense. And if I wanted to be technical, which there is no need to in this case, I could point out that ships registered under the American flag are legally recognized as American soil for purposes of jurisdiction when in international waters.

Well how convenient is that! Uh...no. American commercial ships are not technically "American soil", they are technically "American commercial ships". Soil means land, not a ship floating in water. When I travel to Europe, is my suitcase "American soil"?

The fact is you obviously support AMERICAN INTERVENTION in DEFENDING TRADE INTERESTS, particularly DEFENDING AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIPS FROM PIRACY. But now you don't defend an alliance with our economic trading partners in Europe through alliances like NATO, because that's altruism, and not the self-defense of American businessmen having a relationship with them. No that can't possibly be for American self-defense.

I advocate that any alliance that obligates us to use military force in a situation where our self-defense isn't at issue be shunned.

Well that's the problem Steve, I don't think we should be in alliances either where our self-defense isn't at issue, I guess you're just too obtuse to understand what a "convergence of interests" means. That would mean it is possible the defense of another nation to be also the defense of ours. That would be called, DUH! a CONVERGENCE OF INTERESTS. Wow, really hard to grasp isn't it? And that's the problem, you have a moronic criteria for what is self-defense. Only if American soil is directly attacked or, now you extend that to American commercial ships in international waters, is when America can go to war, and in no other context can there possibly be any defense for our nation by helping another nation defend itself from an aggressor.

Saddam supporting Hamas, Hezbollah..." and this is in the same post where he quotes my statement that neither Hamas nor Hezbolla were supported by Iraq!

Yes they were.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/19, 12:34am)

Post 34

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:13am

John asks, "Wasn't that protecting the trade interests of American businessmen and thus in their self-defense?" I've already stated that the action was one of self-defense (because we were attacked). But, no, it wasn't to "protect trade interests" - that kind of awful, fuzzy logic has no place in determining when to unleash military force. Going to war requires self-defense, not fuzzy ideas like "trade protection." All of these fuzzy concepts

This is absolutely ridiculous. I've clearly stated what defending our trade interests means in the context of my posts. DEFENDING THEM FROM AN AGGRESSOR NATION.

There's nothing fuzzy about that.

Post 35

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:07am

Ships owned by Americans are�American soil, John!

That is, for purposes of jurisdiction under�wait for it�international law!

Steve has come a long way! Now all we have to do is convince him that if Tom Jefferson gets a pass for projecting deadly force across the globe in self-defense of American-owned ships then perhaps it makes sense to stay in NATO in defense of American-owned factories in Poland.

Post 36

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:43am

As I point out the problems in John's arguments, he gets more and more abusive in his name calling and less and less rational in his responses.

I point out that the interventionist attack on Iraq had horrendous costs and that the costs should be a consideration, a point also made by Jeff, but John calls that request "emotionalism."

I point out that Saudi Arabia would be a more logical target after 9/11, which he acknowledged, and that it leaves us with a legitimate reason to question the intervention into Iraq. No response.

I point out that HIS rationalization for Iraq was that 'conditions' related to the UN made it more logical to target Iraq rather than whoever might have been guilty. No response.

I point out that the principle of self-defense should be used to determine when to go to war. John responds by saying, "Steve's argument against war in Iraq is because people die. Well no shit sherlock, wars tend to do that. I guess that would mean you are against ALL WARS since people tend to die in them." I am on record all over the place as being favor of war as a moral response when self-defense is the issue. John ignores that.

John states, "I have continuously argued any foreign policy should take into account a benefit-cost analysis." That's true, but he leaves out two important points - 1) He has yet to actually do that... I mean, come on, John - explain the cost/benefits for Iraq. 2) My point has been all along that cost-benefits matter, but that the moral justification has to start with self-defense. John ignores that and says that I have no integrity or honesty.

John keeps using the examples from WW II - what is his problem? I've said again and again that WW II was a justified war because we were attacked.

I've registered three boats that I've owned as sailing under the American flag. I chose that form of registration, which isn't required, because of the differences in maritime law. They are treated as American soil when in international waters for considerations of jurisdiction (don't he understand what "as" means in this simple context?) How hilarious is it when he asks, "When I travel to Europe, is my suitcase "American soil"?" John, if you pack yourself into the suitcase and then attempt to float or paddle your way to Europe, then, yes, your suit case would be considered AS American soil for purposes of jurisdiction when your paddling or floating had taken you into international waters, if you registered your 'ship' as sailing under the American flag.

John says, "The fact is you obviously support AMERICAN INTERVENTION in DEFENDING TRADE INTERESTS, particularly DEFENDING AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIPS FROM PIRACY." Wrong. Read what I wrote. Defense is based upon self-defense not trade interests - read my remarks on fuzzy logic.

John says, "But now you don't defend an alliance with our economic trading partners in Europe through alliances like NATO, because that's altruism, and not the self-defense of American businessmen having a relationship with them." I said again and again that I don't support continuing with NATO or expanding it because it doesn't rest on rational self-interest or self-defense - not now, we are no longer in a cold war (but I'm sure John can get us into if his policies are pursued).

John says, "Well that's the problem Steve, I don't think we should be in alliances either where our self-defense isn't at issue, I guess you're just too obtuse to understand what a "convergence of interests" means. That would mean it is possible the defense of another nation to be also the defense of ours. That would be called, DUH! a CONVERGENCE OF INTERESTS." Actually, John, you have called for alliances without a mention of self-defense - again and again. A convergence of interests covers an enormous range of things, including a cultural exchange of ballet companies, and self-defense is only one of the possible interests that might converge. It is the one you want to leave out because you want to be able to use military power even if we are not under attack or a threat of attack.

John just doesn't get it... he sarcastically tries to put these words in my mouth: "...in no other context can there possibly be any defense for our nation by helping another nation defend itself from an aggressor." What do you want John, some magical dispensation to use force against people that does not involve self-defense (not a defense of others at our expense - that is altruism)? You can't have your cake and eat it too. In other posts I've pointed out that alliances are possible and desirable when they are based upon self-defense and rational self-interest. NATO during the cold war days for example.

I pointed out that Iraq was not the supporter of Hamas or Hezbolla and that stands. The link that John supplied is about a one-time donation by Saddam to the ALF which is not listed as a terrorist front by the U.S. - the money went to the family of suicide bombers and not to Hamas or Hezbolla. Yes, I would still call that a form of support for terrorism - even though indirect. But the fact is that it was a one time donation that did not go to Hamas or Hezbolla.

John is still trying, after the fact, to justify the costs of the war in Iraq and apparently because he wants to have wars that fight evil as he sees it, even if it is done at the expense of the deaths of others, the costs of others, and to be freed from any constraints of moral justification that self-defense requires.

Post 37

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:59am

Jon,

I was concerned with both international law and American Maritime Law, since I was sailing in ports outside of the States and in international waters - wouldn't you prefer to under American jurisdiction? Or is taking cheap pot shots to much fun to pass up?

I could have just said, Jon, take the factory and float it into international water and register it. But, I'll tell you what, lets propose that we enter into arrangements with nations where they agree to let the soil under American owned factories be treated for purposes of jurisdiction AS American - and we will grant those factories tax reductions (I'm always in favor of reducing any tax I get a chance to). They get a way to encourage increased economic activity for their development, and we get our sovereignty extended in a legitimate fashion, through an alliance that lets us treat that AS American soil for purposes of jurisdiction and then any attempt to take it over would be a case of self-defense to defend - moral justification of military force.

I've just created that idea on the fly, and it may have lots of problems I'm not seeing, and there are problems about borders and the local administrative laws, and so forth, but if we could ever get past the evasions that one can kill people, morally, over interests or alliances, or whatever, WHERE THERE IS NO SELF-DEFENSE INVOLVED, then we could work on alliances that suited Objectivist principles.

Post 38

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 6:21am

JL in 35: "... then perhaps it makes sense to stay in NATO in defense of American-owned factories in Poland."

Schweppes, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota, Kawasaki, Honda, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Carl Zeiss, Unilever, Deutsche Telekom, DHL ...

A little old now, from 1992...
Foreign direct-investment in the United States.
3 million workers... $200 billion investments.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/92/05/Foreign_May_Jun1992.pdf

THE 25 largest foreign companies with U.S. headquarters in L.A. County had combined revenues of $450 billion for the 2007 fiscal year.
Many foreign companies saw revenues increase as a result of the weak U.S. dollar. In comparison with Japanese yen, the dollar
Great Britain's largest retailer, Tesco PLC, made its initial move into L.A. County two years ago by launching El Segundo-based Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market. The British retailer plans to invest $2 billion in the chain, giving it a significant presence in North America.
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/11469611-1.html

Global 2000
The Largest Foreign Investments In The U.S.
Deborah Orr 04.10.08, 4:00 PM ET
When the U.S. Air Force chose Airbus, a French company, to build $40 billion worth of jet refuelers, Congress fired back that thousands of valuable jobs would be lost to the French.
That must be news to the hundreds of Airbus employees in the U.S. ...
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/10/foreign-investment-stocks-2000global08-biz-cx_do_0410investments.html

I mean, if you want a world in which all the different little pieces are controlled by different laws, well, that's fine with me, I guess, but my advice to you is to think this through a bit.

(For one thing, it means that when a Japanese company (in the USA), buys from a German supplier (in the USA), then someone is going to have to decide whose laws to use as the standard for interpreting the contracts., German? Japanese? American? Swiss?)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/19, 6:26am)

Post 39

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 6:28am