[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the President of Iran said that, then no further justification is needed to take whatever military action is needed to wipe him and his unspeakable regime off the face of the earth. I am not a military strategist, so don't know what that action is, but decisive steps should be taken as a matter of urgency. Saddamites will wail, cheek-turning "Objectivists" will wail also. We'll all be wailing if this blight isn't removed promptly.

Linz



Post 1

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well said.

- Jason



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've seen the light. Clearly the only solution is to deal with this threat as violently as possible. There's no other way. Either we kill them or they kill us. Black and white as can be. Yep. More violence will actually make us better, I now understand.

Seeing as how there are only two choices here, if this is Objectivism then I'm damn proud to call myself a Saddamite.

Sarah



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please remember Sarah, that Iran is attempting to build an atomic bomb.

Pakistani Nuclear phyisicists have already given them help with the warhead and there are many states who are willing to sell them the ICBM technology they need to loft the bloody thing clear across the world.

This is the same government that refers to America as "The great Satan."

So are you seriously telling me that you'd feel safe with this nut-job and his cleric puppet masters in control of a nuclear bomb?

And if not, how do you propose to deal with this threat? Let the UN monitor their nuclear facilities to see that they are abiding by their previous non-proliferation agreements?

Or perhaps we just let them build as many bombs as they like and rebuild the West's Strategic Nuclear forces so that we can rely on the Mutually Assured Destruction strategy to keep the ICBMs from flying.

It worked before why wouldn't it work again? Well for one thing, Islamists like the President of Iran - and his country's guest, Osama Bin Laden - have already declared that they value a martyr's death more than they value life.




(Edited by Robert Winefield
on 10/27, 9:10pm)




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 9:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Sarcasm aside, can you not at least consider that sometimes, in the real world we inhabit, there is no better way?  A country, which for over 25 years has been ideologically committed to the destruction of U.S. and other citizens, who sponsors real terrorists killing real, innocent people -- and whose leaders are now poised to acquire nuclear weapons... At what point, and in what circumstances, do you think it's both moral and practical to take military action? None?  Ten minutes before the suitcase weapons are sold to Al Qaeda?  Five minutes before the Iranians launch a nuclear attack on London?  After they succeed in killing Salmon Rushdie?  Or you?

Sometimes there simply is no more moral and practical way to deal with evil men who have the power to do great harm to innocents.  Diplomacy certainly can only work so long.  Sometimes a little saber rattling is exactly the moral choice. And sometimes the saber must do more than rattle.

I'm open to some creative, practical alternatives. War, even when it's moral, is costly in many undesirable ways.





Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,
So are you seriously telling me that you'd feel safe with this nut-job and his cleric puppet masters in control of a nuclear bomb?
Not at all, but us wiping them off the face of the planet because they want to wipe us of the face of the planet makes me feel no safer with us behind the nukes. You think using their argument substituting fundamentalist secular aspects for fundamentalist theist ones makes the action any more justifiable? I don't.

Jeff,

Yes, I can concede that some times there is no practical way to deal with such threats other than violence, but saber rattling? Eagerness to destroy the enemy? No, this is a result of the delusion that war is anything but a failure of human intellect. It is so very easy to destroy and so difficult to create. Why should destruction be celebrated? One should seek a solution that disarms the threat without appeasing it. I sure as hell can't always find one and I don't know near enough about this situation to formulate a practical, peaceful solution, but that does not mean that I support the slaughter of anyone. If it comes down to a numbers game of destroying a country to save a dozen countries, it is only with a heavy heart that I feel the action is necessary. This... tribalism I do not support. I never will.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 10/27, 9:39pm)




Post 6

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Who said anything about invading or wiping them off the face of the Earth?

In the short term, the US could flatten their nuclear reactor & their government with an airstrike or three.

Long term, I would build a sodding great radio-transmitter - one so powerful that you can pick up it's broadcasts on your fillings - and blasting Iran with subversive things like Voltaire, Bastiat, Locke, Rand et al. in arabic, and on every radio frequency.

The plan would be to foment a revolution in the heads of your Abdul-average Iranian similar to the intellectual revolution that pre-dated the American revolution...

And when the people start building barricades in the streets the US should supply them with the means to overthrow their government on their own.

If the business in Iraq has shown anything, it is the folly of trying to change a regime without changing the thinking of the population first.



Post 7

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I think there was mention of it here.

Sarah



Post 8

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

By 'saber rattling' I meant merely 'the threat of force' -- sometimes that's enough.

That said, I feel no shame advocating the executions of mass murderers.  Sadness, sometimes, that it should be necessary.  Elation, occasionally, when the result is justice done and a significant threat to innocent  persons averted.  I do not evaluate all persons the same.  Some definitely deserve to be gone and I don't feel bad when they are.  On the contrary, I find it necessary to encourage that result sometimes.

What, for example, to take a real world example, would you have had Churchill do?  True, there were many 'failures of intellect' that, had things been done differently several years earlier, he might have been spared some hard decisions.  We operate, too often to be sure, in a world that presents us with less than ideal choices.  We can complain that 'they should have done better earlier or we wouldn't be in this mess'.  And our complaints would be legitimate.  Nevertheless, we must deal with reality as it is, while we work towards making reality what it should be.

That is not tribalism -- it's justice.





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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah responded to Robert W.'s question"Who said anything about wiping them off the face of the earth? " by referring to Linz's statement : "If the President of Iran said that, then no further justification is needed to take whatever military action is needed to wipe him and his unspeakable regime off the face of the earth."

Linz is advocating the destruction of a man and a regime that said "We will crush America under our feet." (Its leaders, moreover, have for years repeated the demand that "Israel must be wiped off the map.")"
Notice, also, that Linz said "IF the president of Iran said that." (And it's not hard to believe that the president did [edited from "didn't]say it.) But IF he did, then he and his regime deserve whatever they get. What is so wrong with saying that?

Should the response be "Oh, you must have some issues, let's talk about your feelings?" Or, "Go Ahead, PUNK...make my day"?




(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/27, 10:26pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/28, 6:14am)




Post 10

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The President did say it. I just saw him saying it on the news. That's a declaration of war. So yes, he & his regime should be wiped out. ASAP.



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a conflict of values. I value my life, they value my death. Why should I let their value destroy mine?
You think using their argument substituting fundamentalist secular aspects for fundamentalist theist ones makes the action any more justifiable? I don't.
Justifiable from who's perspective?
1. I want to live-- I do not want to be killed.
2. They want to kill me.
3. They are acquiring the means to kill me.
4. If they have the desire and means to kill me, they will kill me.

From the above, one can see that #4 must be prevented for me to sustain my primary want, #1. So I have 3 options, in the best order of execution:
1. Attempt to change their minds on #2 (without giving up my freedom to live my life as I choose, of course).
2. Disarm them, and prevent them from succeeding in #3.
3. End their lives, end their threat.

What do you value more? Their value, or mine? Doesn't their value of your death also conflict with your value of life?

There is no way I can prove that my value is universally more important than their value. In fact, attempting to do so would be futile, there is no universal scale of values, a value must have a value holder.

Yea, they want to kill me. Yea, I may want to kill them if I have to to be able to live like I want to. But aren't you leaving a little bit of context out?



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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with Linz on this one. Sarah: This is a declaration of war; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, has vowed to eliminate Israel. How much more explicit in intent does evil need to be?! Iran possesses Shahab-3 missiles that are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. And yet you're in the mood for diplomacy!

The West and Israel need to act now.  




Post 13

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since I've adopted the position of being Mr. Left Field lately (Michael Marotta, eat your heart out), the thoughtless thinking of Iran is illustrated by their conduct in the last Olympics: Their wrestler was told to withdraw, because he was to face an Israeli in competition (and Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a viable country, on this planet).

Also of note, was the population cited for Palestine -- at the bottom of the TV screen: Palestine, Population: 2 (presumably the 2 Palestinian athletes competing then!).

Ed
[having some fun in left field, or wherever I find myself, for that matter]



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 3:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the name of the elderly holocaust survivors living in Israel, I hope that country launches a devastating preemptive attack on Iran ruining its infrastructure and rendering it incapable of launching anything more sophisticated than a mortar shell. And this time, no f*cking Marshal Plan.




Post 15

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Carthaginian peace is what it's called, Marty.

In the name of the elderly holocaust survivors living in Israel, I hope that country launches a devastating preemptive attack on Iran ruining its infrastructure and rendering it incapable

Foreign  policy: Vengeance

It has the virtue of brevity, I'll give ya that. But I hope you wont take it amiss if those you hurt directly and indirectly adopt the same policy. One day the elderly survivors of your devastation will have their pay-back too if they don't get it sooner rather than latter.

Any other bright ideas?

 




Post 16

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 5:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just a humorous aside:

I noticed this article was published by MoveOff, LLC -- obviously a conservative counter-attack against MoveOn.org.

Awesome!




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 5:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, Robert W, and other sane SOLOists,

Objectivism is not a suicide pact.  We don't have to wait for our destruction by our enemies to determine their intent to do so.  The Islamist regime in Iran has no rational fear of an unprovoked attack by nuclear weapons.  So, if the mullahs don't need an atomic bomb for defense, there is only reason to build one:  Aggression, either through intimidation or an actual attack.  The mullahs have repeatedly vowed the destruction of the United States over the past generation.  There is no reason to not take them at their word and deny them the means to build nuclear weapons, as Linz says must be done.  Also, Robert W has the right complement to such a military campaign, a Radio Free Iran like we used to sap the moral legitimacy of the communist regimes behind the Iron Curtain.

Andy




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Go ahead Iran, make my day."

And have a strike team ready the night before. Seriously. There can be no "diplomacy" with a leader who speaks like that. Whatever happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists?"




(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/28, 6:17am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/28, 6:19am)




Post 19

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Twice Lindsay said the same thing:


If the President of Iran said that, then no further justification is needed to take whatever military action is needed to wipe him and his unspeakable regime off the face of the earth.


I don't know if Linz was speaking carefully, but he has it exactly right in my view. Israel, America, and others which are threatened need to destroy this regime and government forthwith. But not necessarily the Iranian nation and people.

We should bear in mind that most Iranians seem to loathe their government. They just lack the power to overthrow their illegitimate, unwanted, god-awful dictatorship. However, Israel, America, and many others have the power. So let's do it.

Let's target virtually the totality of their top leadership -- minus any identifiable liberals. The top 100 or 1000 leaders of the Iranian government, military, police, party, and religious establishment (which seem to work hand in glove) need to be brutally slaughtered. So too perhaps their main relevant buildings, institutions, and infrastructure. At the very least, all these fountainheads of jihadism and genocide should be openly targeted to send a strong message. The West could even send in special forces and commando units for a few days or weeks to try to hunt down the head schmuckity-mucks. As Thomas Jefferson might say, "chastise their insolence."

By fiercely going after their morally black leadership and moderately (but no more) trying to avoid hitting their morally grey citizens (who are quasi-victims, often seemingly "more sinned against than sinning") we do that which is much more unambiguously morally right.

Such a relatively small, quick, cheap, and safe "surgical attack" and "pre-emption" might well do the trick. It may even spark an indigenous libertarian revolution. Certainly there's every reason in the world to suppose that a "home-grown" "grass-roots" movement in favor of freedom will take root and endure better than the current "spreading democracy" boondoggle in Iraq.




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]