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 1


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The upper floors (but not the topmost) should be used to house the U.N. and the consulates of Russia, China, France, the muslim and Arab states and our other 'friends.'" Ted Keer

(http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0944_2.shtml#43)

Priceless. Now that's the first truly original suggestion I've heard that I can endorse. (Except we really should just kick the UN out of the U.S. entirely, but if it remains that's the second best option. It has the added avantage of freeing up a very nice building on the East River for productive use.)

Bravo, Ted.





Post 21

Monday, September 18, 2006 - 5:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Have a nice life, Ted.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, September 18, 2006 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about a compromise? We bomb the crap out of its military, invade but only take a small part. Then we fill it with troops and create a “wall of steel” (or depleted uranium) and just let them come at us. Of course if they have a nuke this is absolutely the last thing we should do but like they say, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

If they do have and use a nuke against us then...well maybe in a couple hundred years when the land is habitable again they can go back to calling it Persia.


Post 23

Monday, September 18, 2006 - 11:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Considering the failure of American military adventures in smaller countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), I naturally wonder what makes you people think attacking Iran can accomplish. I also don't find any evidence of Iran attacking the US, so this will be yet another unprovoked attack. It violates the non-agression principle.


Post 24

Monday, September 18, 2006 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff -- Iran does not directly threaten us at this time and as abhorrent as its government is, it hasn't attacked America or Americans yet. There's no reason to attack it at this time when other methods might be less costly and avoid the consequences outlined by Krauthammer. We keep preemption as an option.

But more important than the opinions of armchair generals are the problems that Phil and others raise and the errors of Objectivists who have little appreciation for how principles must be applied in context and how the all the purposes of actions must be carefully defined and considered in context. These are major reasons for the juvenile ranting of too many Rand fans, for example, over on SOLOPassion. That's why I suggest checking out my discussions of these issues on earlier threads linked above. And I'll have a piece posted soon on our website on "The Challenge of Mature Objectivism," based on my Summer Seminar talk.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 9/18, 6:12pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 2:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Hudgins writes:

Iran does not directly threaten us at this time and as abhorrent as its government is, it hasn't attacked America or Americans yet. There's no reason to attack it at this time when other methods might be less costly and avoid the consequences outlined by Krauthammer.
I agree that Krauthammer is relatively terrific, and that he makes many good and important practical points in his article. But I wonder: What are the "other methods" being alluded to? America seems to have been hugely patient for decades, and tried just about everything. Hasn't Iran implicitly been asking for an immense airstrike for 2 or 5 or 10 or 25 years now? Hasn't the West's evident lack of certainty, lack of confidence, weakness, timidity, confusion, quietism, passivism, and defeatism -- all in the face of a pure and blatant enemy -- directly and indirectly encouraged jihadis, tyrants, and evil-doers massively, and for a long time now?  

And is it really true that manifestly-jihadist Iran hasn't threatened or attacked America? They've been openly calling us "the Great Satan" for 27 years now! This seems like a huge implied threat. The also have an official "Death to America!" Day. And right off the bat, the Islamic State took 56 or so hostages for 444 days and paid virtually no price. They created and funded Hezbollah which killed 231 marines in 1983. For many years now Iran seems to have been copiously aiding American-murdering jihadis in Iraq. And these Khomeini-lovers seem to be aiding and abetting jihadis, tyrants, mass-murderers, and general Western enemies around the world as much as they can -- but just below our nitwit threshold of notice and reaction. 

I think Iran's top thousand or so government, military, police, and religious officials and leaders should have been targeted a long time ago. They seem like pure evil and pretty formidable opponents. They seem like the utter enemies of almost all Iranians, Americans, and good people everywhere. Idealistically, pragmatically, and symbolically, I say: Attack!   

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 9/19, 3:03am)


Post 26

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 6:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They've been openly calling us "the Great Satan" for 27 years now! This seems like a huge implied threat. The also have an official "Death to America!"
Is there anything that you don't consider a threat?


Post 27

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Iran does not directly threaten us at this time and as abhorrent as its government is, it hasn't attacked America or Americans yet."

So the fact that they did a good deal more than threaten 27 years ago doesn't count? We should just let bygones be bygones?

So, I kidnapped your daughter 27 years ago. I kept her for a year and a half, then let her go. Statute of limitations?

After I let her go, for years, I pay all kinds of bad people money, give them sanction and support, they run guns across the border into your state, etc. But I never personally squeeze the trigger on anybody. I just send you emails saying I'm going to kill you unless you become my slave.

I shouldn't be arrested? That would be 'pre-emptive'?



Post 28

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If the CIA had not interfered in Iran back in the 1950's (installing the Shah), it's a safe bet that things would be different now.


Post 29

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the CIA had not interfered in Iran back in the 1950's (installing the Shah), it's a safe bet that things would be different now.
 
Well of course, in that case... Yeah Jeff, you see if your uncle had not helped his rival, he wouldn't be mad at you now.  You should know it is all your fault, you brought it on yourself.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff, what about bombing and killing the kidnapper's friends and family who didn't take part in the crime? Therein lies the problem with your analogy. I get what your digging at it, but it needs some work.

Kurt, I can't speak for Chris, but the fact that the US may have contributed in some way to the situation in Iran doesn't mean that we shouldn't act preemptively in the face of an immediate threat, but it does mean that we should be hesitant to get involved when we are still unsure.


Post 31

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah well - where is uncle Joe when we need him, huh...

[Joe Bonano - old "Friend" of long ago]

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/19, 6:52pm)


Post 32

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 6:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
we shouldn't act preemptively in the face of an immediate threat
What justified pre-emptive action? It seems to be based on the theory: "He is going to hit me, so I better hit him first." How do you know this? How do you know it's immediate?

Do you really believe everything that George Bush and the CIA tell you? If you do, I have a used car I am happy to sell you.

This pre-emptive action bull manure is a blank check. It is going to be abused. It's like saying that all men are "potential rapists." There is no rational justification for it. It's created by the hammer psychology--"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."


Post 33

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, with your psychology, you could impale yourself on a nail and not see it.  I am not for an attack on Iran because we can win by co-opting them - at least for now, it is still possible and the best strategy.  This is something that cannot be done with North Korea, however.

Post 34

Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

Some of the pacifists I know seem to agree that North Korea is the biggest threat out there. There seems to be a lot that we just don't know about North Korea at all. Bryan Caplan complains about this on his "Holocausts of Communism" quiz.

It seems that socialism hasn't inspired the type of suicide bombing that exists in the Islamic world. We will see.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 9/21, 8:54am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.