RoR: Forum

Andrew wrote:

Foreign Policy: Objectivism is based on the trader principle that preemptive coercive force is not acceptable. Iraq did not attack the United State!

So are you saying a threat of attack is not enough to warrant retaliatory force? If a nation's stated policy is the destruction of the United States and Israel, and it is on a path (or at least widely accepted to be on that path) to gaining weapons of mass destruction, that to you is not a threat to your own personal safety and welfare that requires action?

Post 21

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 2:19pm

but I don't think Rand would have voted for anybody in this field

BINGO!!

Post 22

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 2:31pm

I think we aren't looking at the proble of Islamofasicism objectively (pun intended).

"Those who do not learn the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them"

I mean let's look at Iran and why we are in a mess with them. In 1953, the United State, being pressured by Britain, overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and installed the Shah, a brutal dictator. In 1979, the Iranians properly revolted but for the wrong thing (Sharia Law not freedom). Their hatred of US policies was peronsified when they took our hostages. They eventually let them go, but the hate is still there.

Then Saddam Hussein, scarred the Islamic Revolution would spread into the mostly Shitte Iraq launched a bloody war of agression. It was the first war since World War 1 that chemical weapons were used. Sadly we gave them the gas and supported Saddam. Afterward when Saddam invaded Kuwait, we properly turned on him. But the second war was wholley unneccesary.

So Iran wouldn't even be an Islamofascist nation if we minded our own business. But it gets worse! We are the reason that Mahmoud Ajmendajad(?) can consolidate so much power. We have invaded the country directly to the west (Iraq) the country directly to the east (Afghanistan) and have a carrier group in the Gulf to the south. Iran is surrounded. This gives Mahmoud a great rallying cry to suppress dissent and rally the nation against a common enemy; the nation who put the Shah into power. There is a large group of dissatisfied Iranians fighting for democracy, but we have given the powers at be the best excuse in the world to suppress them! It's all blowback, it's all unintended consequences, interventionism just doesn't work! I mean what would we think if a country invaded Canada and Mexico and had a carrier group in the Atlantic and was threatening to attack us? How would we feel if they overthrew our President? Islamofascism is surely a dangerous ideology and there are a bunch of terrorist thugs out there that want us dead, but our foreign policy is helping those thugs, not stifling them!

Finally, it should be remembered that the United States isn't a great country because we won World War 2 or defeated communism. That's just collectivist propaganda. The United States is great because it allows it's citizens to be FREE! Unfortunately this freedom is fading into a welfare/warfare peusdo socialist state. Ron Paul is the only canidate willing to put a stop to it!

Post 23

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 2:58pm

Andrew:

"Those who do not learn the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them"

In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might. .

-Winston Churchill

So what your saying Andrew, is because there may have been some foreign policy failures in the past, that it should mean we should sit idly be, and let a tyrant threaten our safety and well being?

Had Winston Churchill said "Well if that damn Chamberlain didn't appease Hitler he wouldn't be bombing us right now, so to hell with it let's not do anything!" Do you think that would be sufficient? That we just sit around and debate what should've or could've happened and in the mean time who cares what will happen if we don't react?

I don't want to get into a history debate with you as it would be useless, suffice it to say it is not all our fault that Iran is a militant anti-west state. They are not children you know, whatever actions the West has done in the past doesn't absolve Iran from behaving rationally.

(Edited by John Armaos on 10/22, 3:01pm)

Post 24

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 3:15pm

As long as we're bringing out the quotes, how about this one:

"Premptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would never seriously listen to anyone who proposed such a thing."

- Dwight Eisenhower

No, it is most definitely not all our fault. Mahmoud is a brutal dictator, Osama Bin Laden is an unforgivable thug, Sharia Law is undefensable and Islamofasiscm is a serious and dangerous concern. However, we have to look at history to guide our actions. History shows that when we intervene we radicalize our enemies. Hell, we intentionally radicalized the Mujadin(?) and their leader, Osama Bin Laden, in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. More blowback!

In truth, Iran can be dealt with diplomatically. The Soviet Union had 40,000 nukes and we resolved that peacefully (well mostly). Tyrannies always eventually implode. And if Iran got a nuke, even they know not to give it to terrorists because if a nuke went off in Isreal or the US, we would make damn certain Iran would no longer exist. They know this. We are even giving them an incentive to get a nuclear weapon! Compare how we treat them with how we treat North Korea, an equally dangerous regime with an even more insane leader. Sanctions, incentives and aggressive diplomacy can solve this mess. Even if we wanted to go to war, we don't have the troops (would we consider a coersive draft), we don't have the money (we have a 300 billion dollar deficit, more if you include what we borrow against social security and a 9 trillion dollar debt) and a war tired country surely doesn't have the resolve. War with Iran will simply lead to another quagmire like Iraq.

Post 25

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 3:39pm

"In truth, Iran can be dealt with diplomatically."

40 more years of the Iranian regime vs. knocking them over militarily when they have infinitesimal firepower compared to the Soviets (or the U.S.), but will have the capacity within the next few years to give a nuke to jihadists?

No thanks.

Post 26

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 3:48pm

Operation Iraqi Freedom Part 2?

No thanks.

Post 27

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 3:54pm

Andrew:

As long as we're bringing out the quotes, how about this one:

"Premptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would never seriously listen to anyone who proposed such a thing."

- Dwight Eisenhower

Touche! But....your premise is wrong.

There is no such thing as preemptively responding to an already existing threat to your safety and well being. If a thug comes to your house, and yells to you from outside your door "Open your door or I will kill you", to which you respond with violent force, are you "preemptive" in your actions? No, the thug has clearly initiated force by threatening to kill you. No preemption there.

History shows that when we intervene we radicalize our enemies.

United States intervened in WW2, lead to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

United States intervened in Korea, lead to the freedom and economic prosperity of South Korea.

United States intervened in Western Europe during the Cold War, lead to the continued freedom and economic prosperity of hundreds of millions of free individuals.

Sorry, but history has shown in many instances intervening was the only thing that stopped the spread of totalitarianism.

And if Iran got a nuke, even they know not to give it to terrorists because if a nuke went off in Isreal or the US, we would make damn certain Iran would no longer exist.

Since when do nuclear weapons have a return address? The awful truth is if a terrorist smuggled in a nuke and detonated it in a Western country, we would not know which country gave it to them.

They know this. We are even giving them an incentive to get a nuclear weapon!

It is any two-bit dictator's dream to own an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Let's get real here, we didn't need to give them any incentive to do that!

Post 28

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:04pm

Let's also revisit that Churchill/Chamberlain analogy. First of all, Germany annexing Chzec and Austria and invading Poland was much more aggressive than Iran sending support and insurgents into Iraq. The difference in scale and ability (Germany was a an industrial superpower, Iran is a 3rd world country) is what calls for the difference in response. Secondly, let's analyze how World War 2 even started. World War 2 is named very appropriately, it was the sequel to World War 1.

The harsh Treaty of Versailles imposed enormous financial burdens on Germany as well as "the guilt for the entire war". This made them very bitter and when the Depression hit the US, Germany couldn't count on our loans to repay the reparations. They were plunged into an even worse Depression than we were. This was the circumstance that allowed Hitler to trick the German people.

So World War 2 was caused by World War 1. How did World War 1 start? Well it started as a war between Austria and Serbia. How on Earth did that become a war between France and Germany? Well, Russia was allied with Serbia, so they declared war on Austria, Germany was allied with Austria so they declared war on Russia. France was also allied with Russia, so Germany declared war on them. Eventually Britain, who was allied with France and the Ottoman Empire, which became allied with Germany entered the war. And what did we see, the bloodiest most pointless war this world has ever known until of course it's sequel. This is what intervention and entangling alliances gets you; death and destruction. This is why the founding fathers advised against both. This is why we shouldn't start another needless war against Iran.

Post 29

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:12pm

Andrew, it seems I'm not getting through to you. When you say:

So World War 2 was caused by World War 1. How did World War 1 start?

That matters how to a free nation after WW 1 has already come and passed? Do you just wallow in misery in the mistakes of the past or do you react to the tyrant threatening to kill you?

Let's also revisit that Churchill/Chamberlain analogy. First of all, Germany annexing Chzec and Austria and invading Poland was much more aggressive than Iran sending support and insurgents into Iraq. The difference in scale and ability....

Is this big enough in scale and ability?:

Post 30

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:16pm

There is no such thing as preemptively responding to an already existing threat to your safety and well being. If a thug comes to your house, and yells to you from outside your door "Open your door or I will kill you", to which you respond with violent force, are you "preemptive" in your actions? No, the thug has clearly initiated force by threatening to kill you. No preemption there.

Osama Bin Laden came to our door, not Iran. He's in Pakistan, a totalitarian military dictatorship we're currently supporting. Iran has made threats to us and Isreal, true, but so has North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, etc. Where do we draw the line?

United States intervened in WW2, lead to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

United States intervened in Korea, lead to the freedom and economic prosperity of South Korea.

United States intervened in Western Europe during the Cold War, lead to the continued freedom and economic prosperity of hundreds of millions of free individuals.

These are very different situations then attacking Iran. We were directly attacked in World War 2 at Pearl Harbour. South Korea was invaded, we came to defend them and there was never a war in Western Europe during the Cold War, we simply put troops there and sent support. While their appropriateness is debatable, these instances of intervention were in defense, not aggression.

Since when do nuclear weapons have a return address? The awful truth is if a terrorist smuggled in a nuke and detonated it in a Western country, we would not know which country gave it to them.

Like the Bush administration has ever had a hard time making a link between an act of terror and a supposed terrorist country. Even if another country sponsored the attack, Iran would likely get blamed and they have to know this. In addition, if we're really nervous about a nuclear weapon falling into terrorist hands, our biggest concern has to be Russia and their very poor protection of those 40,000 nukes we talked our way out of getting bombed with.

It is any two-bit dictator's dream to own an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Let's get real here, we didn't need to give them any incentive to do that!

True, dictators want nukes, but would they be so willing to fight through sanctions and international pressure and turn down incentives if they didn't see the difference in how they and North Korea are treated?

Post 31

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:19pm

John, what I'm saying is that we are in a situation that resembles World War 1 much more closely than it resembles World War 2. And if we aren't careful, we may have World War 3.

Post 32

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:28pm

Andrew:

Osama Bin Laden came to our door, not Iran. He's in Pakistan, a totalitarian military dictatorship we're currently supporting. Iran has made threats to us and Isreal, true, but so has North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, etc. Where do we draw the line?

You deal the best blow that you can against the worst enemy that is out there. It's not a zero-sum game.

These are very different situations then attacking Iran. We were directly attacked in World War 2 at Pearl Harbour. South Korea was invaded, we came to defend them and there was never a war in Western Europe during the Cold War, we simply put troops there and sent support. While their appropriateness is debatable, these instances of intervention were in defense, not aggression.

So how is reacting to Iran not in defense? Is this not a good enough incentive to defend yourself?

Like the Bush administration has ever had a hard time making a link between an act of terror and a supposed terrorist country.

Meaning what? I don't follow you. It is not a given we would know which country gave a nuke to a terrorist. It is far easier to know which countries have explicitly stated they want to destroy the West and are actively seeking nuclear weapons.

True, dictators want nukes, but would they be so willing to fight through sanctions and international pressure and turn down incentives...

You mean blackmail? Give me money and food or I'll make a nuke? We're right back to that ol' thug at your door threatening to kill you stuff. I guess I could just give the thug my house and my wife and say "phew, boy did I just avert disaster there!"

Post 33

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:31pm

To elaborate; here are the alliances as they stand now:

United States is allied with the Iraqi, Afghanistan and Pakistan governments, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Britain and to a lesser degree Japan, Jordan and Australia

Iran is allied with the Iraqi, Afghanistan and Pakistan insurgencies, Syria and has growing relationships with Venezuela, North Korea and Russia. We can only hope China won't take sides, but if they do, they are much more likely to side with Russia than us.

Now I don't think an all out war would ever start, nuclear war is too big a detterent. But I can see wide spread instability, insurgencies, coups, localized wars and general unrest. We are contributing to this and we need to step back and look at the results of history and the advice of our founding fathers.

Post 34

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:39pm

Andrew:

We can only hope China won't take sides, but if they do, they are much more likely to side with Russia than us.

Highly doubtful. We're their best customers.

Now I don't think an all out war would ever start, nuclear war is too big a detterent. But I can see wide spread instability, insurgencies, coups, localized wars and general unrest. We are contributing to this......

You mean thugs and tyrants are contributing to this. You can either react to the threats made against you, or you can sit idly by and let tyrants blackmail you and give in to their demands. Certainly mistakes can and have been made, but to do nothing is far worse.

...we need to step back and look at the results of history and the advice of our founding fathers.

The founding fathers were not infallible beings. I certainly admire them a great deal but appeals to authority don't mean a whole lot to me.

Post 35

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:40pm

You deal the best blow that you can against the worst enemy that is out there. It's not a zero-sum game.

But when does it stop? Do we attack North Korea next? Then Cuba, then Venezuela, then Syria, then Russia? It's just never ending war. This idea isn't new, Woodrow Wilson really started it with his "make the world safe for democracy". Well it hasn't worked and trying the same thing over and over again isn't going to change it.

So how is reacting to Iran not in defense? Is this not a good enough incentive to defend yourself?

Iran is attacking our occupying force. Why are we even occupying Iraq? There are no WMD, there was no connection to Al Queda, there was no threat to us. Attacking Iran would be like attacking the Soviet Union. Diplomacy worked then, it can work now.

Meaning what? I don't follow you. It is not a given we would know which country gave a nuke to a terrorist. It is far easier to know which countries have explicitly stated they want to destroy the West and are actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Bush connected 9-11 to Iraq when there was no connection. Iran knows there national security relies on a nuke not going off in the US.

You mean blackmail? Give me money and food or I'll make a nuke? We're right back to that ol' thug at your door threatening to kill you stuff. I guess I could just give the thug my house and my wife and say "phew, boy did I just avert disaster there!"

If we're putting sanctions on them then we're blackmailing them! Anyways, the worlds not perfect, we have to be pragmatic about this.

Post 36

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 4:45pm

China will likely not get involved, but we may very well allienate them like we're doing with Russia and almost all of our allies. Just because a bully tries to intimate us doesn't mean we need to fight him. There are more mature ways of dealing with the situation. And while yes, appealing to the founding fathers is an appeal to authority, appealing to history and showing the effects of policies in the past that are quite similar to those we are enacting now is an appeal to reason.

Post 37

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:06pm

Andrew:

You deal the best blow that you can against the worst enemy that is out there. It's not a zero-sum game.

But when does it stop? Do we attack North Korea next? Then Cuba, then Venezuela, then Syria, then Russia? It's just never ending war...

Does that mean you advocate we do nothing instead of something? That it is all or nothing? Either we simultaneously attack every tyrant on this planet or shrivel up into our shells and not respond to ANY threats made against us?

There are more free nations on this planet now because the United States and the west intervened than ever before. How about this analogy, when do we stop pursuing murderers in this country? How much resources are we willing to spend to track down rapists, child molesters and murderers? When does it stop? Because we can't stop all murders, we should do nothing to mitigate them? I'll tell you what kind of mentality makes it worse, those who seek to appease evil, thereby sanctioning evil and allowing it to fester and grow like a cancer. If you're happy with that, then vote for Ron Paul.

Iran is attacking our occupying force. Why are we even occupying Iraq? There are no WMD, there was no connection to Al Queda, there was no threat to us. Attacking Iran would be like attacking the Soviet Union. Diplomacy worked then, it can work now.

As bizarre as your statement is, we didn't just respond to the Soviet Union with "diplomacy". We responded by stopping them spread their influence into more proxies around the world and threatening them with retaliation. We didn't just invite them over for tea and crumpets. We actively fought them in several proxy wars and lined up our military and pointed weapons at them in response to their aggression. Greece, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, all were proxy wars against the Soviet Union.

Bush connected 9-11 to Iraq when there was no connection. Iran knows there national security relies on a nuke not going off in the US.

They are sending in insurgents and training them to kill Americans to kill our will to fight. They are actively seeking nuclear weapons while speaking of annihilating Israel from the face of the planet. That to me doesn't strike me as a country acting to prevent retaliation from the West or behaving in a rational manner.

If we're putting sanctions on them then we're blackmailing them!

No totalitarian nation can make any legitimate claim to being blackmailed. They are the ones who strip the freedom from their citizens and behave like animals. The same as no child molester convicted and sent to prison can make any legitimate claim he is being blackmailed.

Post 38

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:07pm

Andrew:

China will likely not get involved, but we may very well allienate them like we're doing with Russia...

Or Russia is alienating us. Why is it in your eyes the United States is always the great Satan?

Post 39

Monday, October 22, 2007 - 5:08pm