Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Benazir Bhutto Assassination

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ironically enough, I posted a topic about this woman a month back, when islamic extremists launched a failed assassination attempt in Pakistan. Now, the former Prime Minister and Democracy advocate actually has been assassinated. This angers me deeply, because, as usual, the perpetrator took his own life via suicide bomb (while taking the lives of more than 20 bystanders as well). The reason I am discussing this is because I wonder what effect it will have on the upcoming elections, or whether or not Musharaff will even allow elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was murdered this morning at a political campaign rally. She was shot in the neck by an assassin while a suicide bomber (possibly the same person?) blew himself up to claim 20 more casualties.

I don’t know much about Mrs. Bhutto, but I do know that she was the loudest voice in Pakistan opposing Musharraf’s dictatorial military rule. The crazy thing about this is that, while there is no evidence implicating Musharraf’s government in the attack, it’s quite possible that the assassination was carried out under his direct orders. That alone tells you what kind of people are our “strong allies.” Musharraf is the Saddam Hussein of Southeast Asia. Not that I advocate his overthrow -- just a recognition of the quality of man we are dealing with over there.

If Musharraf declares martial law to combat the eruption of protests that follow the assassination, then we’ll know he probably had a part in it. How clever to murder the leader of the opposition, then use the resulting public outcry as an excuse to seize more control.

What a sad, sad country Pakistan is. And how sad it is that they are our ally.

--Dan Edge

207537134

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the former Prime Minister and Democracy advocate actually has been assassinated.

The Western media has painted this lady as the equivalent of Mother Theresa. Make no mistake about it, this woman was corrupt to the core. Read about her and her husband's Swiss corporations and bank accounts, filled with stolen funds. Her father was equally corrupt, a ruthless man who was executed after he killed off his political opponents.

Holding any type of elections in Pakistan is a joke. The people would elect Bin Laden if he ran. Musharraf is a dictator supported by the US and therefore will not be removed from office until we say so.

An interesting sidenote, Michael Savage was speaking on his radio show last night and drew the comparision to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria propelling the world into WWI. While the analogy isn't 100% equivalent, I nonethless found it an interesting comparision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Western media has painted this lady as the equivalent of Mother Theresa. Make no mistake about it, this woman was corrupt to the core. Read about her and her husband's Swiss corporations and bank accounts, filled with stolen funds. Her father was equally corrupt, a ruthless man who was executed after he killed off his political opponents.

Holding any type of elections in Pakistan is a joke. The people would elect Bin Laden if he ran. Musharraf is a dictator supported by the US and therefore will not be removed from office until we say so.

Two good points. I don't know much about her history, but yes, by the way the media is portraying her, you can't tell that she was corrupt. If she was, then no side is greatly better than the other I guess. From what I've heard, she wanted womens' rights, democratic voting, and free trade, but I'll have to look into it more.

Also, I agree that elections there are a joke, but at least if they are having elections, they have no one to blame for their leaders' faults but themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Musharraf declares martial law to combat the eruption of protests that follow the assassination, then we’ll know he probably had a part in it. How clever to murder the leader of the opposition, then use the resulting public outcry as an excuse to seize more control.

While I am definitely not a fan of General Musharraf, I think we should consider the responsibility of Islamic militants as a possible explanation for Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Taliban-sympathizing extremists on the Afghan-Pakistani border have repeatedly tried to assassinate both General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Although this does not refute your theory, there has nevertheless been a continuous threat of militant Islam in Pakistan's recent history. For example, read about the despotic regime of General Zia, a noted Islamist who had former Pakistani PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) executed. You might also be interested in reading about the former Pakistani General Hamid Gul, who was openly pro-mujahideen, pro-Taliban and instigated the Kashmiri insurgency against Hindus. Finally, you might also wish to read about the prominent 20th century Pakistani Islamist intellectual Abul Ala Maududi, who translated the Qu'ran into Urdu (the language of Pakistan) and wrote extensively about the need for a global, theocratic state governed by Sharia Law.

Given all of the chaos and possibility for disaster right now, declaring martial law in Pakistan might be understandable.

According to CNN, U.S. intelligence suspects a Taliban leader to be behind the assassination. According to that linked article, Also Friday, the state-run news agency Associated Press of Pakistan reported al Qaeda had claimed responsibility for killing Bhutto. However, no one has accepted responsibility for Bhutto's death on radical Islamist Web sites that regularly post such messages from al Qaeda and other militant groups.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Western media has painted this lady as the equivalent of Mother Theresa. Make no mistake about it, this woman was corrupt to the core. Read about her and her husband's Swiss corporations and bank accounts, filled with stolen funds. Her father was equally corrupt, a ruthless man who was executed after he killed off his political opponents.

This is probably true, but you might as well provide some respectable sources for completeness. Furthermore, I think that when assessing the Bhutto administrations, we should recognize that they were arguably a considerable improvement over the Islamists regimes that are attempting to take power.

Holding any type of elections in Pakistan is a joke. The people would elect Bin Laden if he ran.

Unfortunately possible. At the very least, a pro-Taliban leader would receive a considerable amount of votes.

Moderators, should this thread be merged with the meta-blog post created by Dan Edge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider also the possibility that radicals could assassinate someone nominally on their side (i.e., someone ALSO opposed to Musharraf) just to make everyone else mad enough to overthrow him.

There is precedent. The Narodnya Volya ("People's Will") anarchists blew Alexander II to bits the night before he was going to grant a constitution and turn Russia into a constitutional monarchy, in 1881. They knew he was going to do this and did not want it to happen--they would no longer have as much of a cause if it did. They *wanted* things to get worse in Russia so people would flock to their banner. That was Russia's last best chance to avoid the revolution of 1917, and they prevented it.

People like that make me wish there was a Hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015."

There is no doubt in my mind now that al Qaida will get a hold of nuclear material and blast dozens of cities with dirty bombs around the world on the same day in the near future.

I hate to say it, but we need to start WW3 before that happens. Pakistan should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor Iran. There can be no excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015."

There is no doubt in my mind now that al Qaida will get a hold of nuclear material and blast dozens of cities with dirty bombs around the world on the same day in the near future.

I hate to say it, but we need to start WW3 before that happens. Pakistan should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor Iran. There can be no excuses.

If simplistic bromides like the ones in this post are the extent of your though on this issue, then I'm glad you aren't in a position where you actually have the ability to start WW3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the former Prime Minister and Democracy advocate actually has been assassinated.

According to an article I'm reading in a newspaper here at work, the government there wants people to think that she died from hitting her head on the sunroof:

In an apparent attempt to deflect anger from Musharraf, who has been accused of failing to provide adequate security against bombers, the government went on to make a startling claim: that she was killed neither by gunshots nor shrapnel[...], but instead died of a skull fracture when she hit her head on her SUV's open sunroof.

Deflect anger from Musharraf? More like directs it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If simplistic bromides like the ones in this post are the extent of your though on this issue, then I'm glad you aren't in a position where you actually have the ability to start WW3.

I feel the need to expand on this comment.

People on this board are far too eager for us to start an all-out war with the whole Muslim world. It may be that there can be a case made that it is a necessary step. The issue is how people in here tend to make statements like this, seemingly without weighing the consequences.

We could easily defeat the entire Muslim world, single-handedly if needs be, but do you really think there wouldn't be any other repercussions? Assume that we turn the whole Muslim world into a parking lot and that it no longer poses a threat. Do you think the rest of the world is just going to say "okay, thanks America, let's get on with life." No. It would confirm the opinions of the left that America is the new Nazi Germany, and that opinion would spread to people who aren't left-wing wackos.

I know we're not supposed to care what the rest of the world thinks. And to that idea, I say "bullshit." It's not that I care what other countries think. But, knowing that other countries are likely to act according to their opinions, I don't want the whole world hating us in the way that they would if we actively sought another world war. We are not strong enough to take on the entire world. Period. We aren't the only country in history to have had a military that was far superior to anyone else's...so did Germany. And it thought it could defy most of the world. I think we know how that worked out. China, India, and Russia would almost certainly become outright enemies, and western Europe would completely abandon whatever remains of its friendship with us.

Would they go to war with us immediately? Probably not. But a war--at least, one like the one that this board's members seem to want--would rearrange the entire structure of international relations across the world, making it a virtual certainty that, at some point in the future, the most powerful nations in the world would unite against us and, ultimately, put an end to our ability to assert our global influence. This, in turn, would make us much less able to defend our interests both at home and abroad.

Another consideration: what do you think would happen to Pakistan's nukes if we suddenly decided to go to war with Pakistan? Do you really think we would be able to gain full, secure control of them before the resulting chaos sees a few of them go "unaccounted for?" Musharraf is an asshole, but the last thing we need to do is further destabilize a nuclear country with a serious Islamist problem.

To address your specific comments:

"In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015."

We can't predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now. Relying on a prediction like this when recommending that we start WW3 is pretty shaky. You have no idea whether or not this will come true, nor does anyone else. It's just the best estimate that someone was able to come up with, at the time. And the CIA isn't always right. I shouldn't have to sit here and list all the times it's been wrong.

There is no doubt in my mind now that al Qaida will get a hold of nuclear material and blast dozens of cities with dirty bombs around the world on the same day in the near future.

If there is no doubt in your mind, then I'm sure you have some sort of evidence. Can I see it?

I hate to say it, but we need to start WW3 before that happens. Pakistan should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor Iran. There can be no excuses.

What there can be no excuses for is this attitude towards foreign policy, which is tantamount to saying "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." Think about the consequences before you recommend rash courses of action. And please don't run for president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to expand on this comment.

People on this board are far too eager for us to start an all-out war with the whole Muslim world. It may be that there can be a case made that it is a necessary step. The issue is how people in here tend to make statements like this, seemingly without weighing the consequences.

We could easily defeat the entire Muslim world, single-handedly if needs be, but do you really think there wouldn't be any other repercussions? Assume that we turn the whole Muslim world into a parking lot and that it no longer poses a threat. Do you think the rest of the world is just going to say "okay, thanks America, let's get on with life." No. It would confirm the opinions of the left that America is the new Nazi Germany, and that opinion would spread to people who aren't left-wing wackos.

I know we're not supposed to care what the rest of the world thinks. And to that idea, I say "bullshit." It's not that I care what other countries think. But, knowing that other countries are likely to act according to their opinions, I don't want the whole world hating us in the way that they would if we actively sought another world war. We are not strong enough to take on the entire world. Period. We aren't the only country in history to have had a military that was far superior to anyone else's...so did Germany. And it thought it could defy most of the world. I think we know how that worked out. China, India, and Russia would almost certainly become outright enemies, and western Europe would completely abandon whatever remains of its friendship with us.

Would they go to war with us immediately? Probably not. But a war--at least, one like the one that this board's members seem to want--would rearrange the entire structure of international relations across the world, making it a virtual certainty that, at some point in the future, the most powerful nations in the world would unite against us and, ultimately, put an end to our ability to assert our global influence. This, in turn, would make us much less able to defend our interests both at home and abroad.

I agree. While everything about the extremist Muslim culture deeply angers and disturbs me, I could never validate using open aggression on a culture. To expand what Moose said about Nazi Germany, I think that we are on top when it comes to military might in the world, but think about what would happen if the rest of the entire free world decided to engage us in war because they viewed us as fascist basically committing, well, Genocide. (That is assuming we do like $$$ said and wage war against the muslim world.) Also, consider what it would do inside our own country. If we took that action, I cannot help but think it would ultimately result in our demise.

* Edit: by the way, you claim that the CIA and National Intelligence Agency predicted Pakistan's fate, but I'm not sure where you got that information. Anyway, assuming it is true, how many times have our national agencies been wrong? Many.

Edited by Jon Pizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's useless guys. I love ARI but I differ from them on this position.

The foreign policy of Objectvism has been stated by the ARI, which is where most people on this board get their opinions on foreign policy from. Rand clearly states that "Foreign policy is a direct consequence of domestic policy." Most ARI followers are strict believers in a non-interventionist domestic policy with a foreign policy which is interventionist when it needs to be. But Rand is correct in her assertion. The nanny welfare state at home gives rise to the interventionist state abroad, and that can be seen in history. The role of government in America has expanded domestically within the last 100 years, and the role of American government abroad has mirrored that domestic expansion. Observe that during the 19th century, America's greatest period, governmental domestic policy was relatively hands off when compared to today, and our foreign policy was also less interventionist. What ARI followers will tell you is that foreign policy needs to be thought of in contextual terms, with each decision of intervention made in the context of the situation. But it is made apparant that domestic intervention need not be thought of in terms of a given context. Strictly hands off here.

How a particular government would be able to accomplish this type of foreign policy without sacrificing liberties and freedoms at home is not made clear, either by the ARI or by the history of the world when one studies nations and empires that have attempted to pursue similiar policies abroad. Furthermore, it is not made clear how this foreign policy could be advocated when one argues for a gold standard coupled with minimal government spending and low taxation. The ability of a nation to commit to this type of foreign policy without the benefit of a central bank which prints money when needed and a government which borrows at will is difficult to conceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "interventionist" (or "non-interventionist") is non-essential, both as applied to domestic politics and foreign relations. It does not describe what Objectivism says, nor does it describe ARI's current stance on the middle-east. The term is a grab-bag of things which Objectivism and ARI would support and would reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foreign policy of Objectvism has been stated by the ARI, which is where most people on this board get their opinions on foreign policy from.
How in the world could you come to this conclusion? Do you have even a shred of evidence to support that accusation? If you conducted a secret poll, you missed me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If simplistic bromides like the ones in this post are the extent of your though on this issue, then I'm glad you aren't in a position where you actually have the ability to start WW3.

No room for exaggeration on these forums! Should have known better.

There is no need to start a full WW3. We just need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos.

Interesting that some of you decided WW3 means attacking all islamic nations.

I guess there is no reason to stop Iran from getting nuclear power either since it's obviously a peaceful venture?

I'm sure our governments know how best to deal with all these problems. <_<

well I'm off to a holiday inn apparently...

Edited by $$$
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No room for exaggeration on these forums! Should have known better.

There is no need to start a full WW3. We just need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos.

Interesting that some of you decided WW3 means attacking all islamic nations.

I guess there is no reason to stop Iran from getting nuclear power either since it's obviously a peaceful venture?

I'm sure our governments know how best to deal with all these problems. <_<

well I'm off to a holiday inn apparently...

Given posts I've seen on this topic before, you'll have to forgive me that I think someone is serious when they recommend starting WW3. And I offered no opinion on what should be done about Iran. But going to war with Iran does not equate to starting WW3.

You said Pakistan should not be allowed to have nukes. How do you propose taking them away without going to war with Pakistan? You changed your opinion to saying that "we need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos." That's different from taking away their nukes, which would necessarily involve waging war against its government.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given posts I've seen on this topic before, you'll have to forgive me that I think someone is serious when they recommend starting WW3. And I offered no opinion on what should be done about Iran. But going to war with Iran does not equate to starting WW3.

You said Pakistan should not be allowed to have nukes. How do you propose taking them away without going to war with Pakistan? You changed your opinion to saying that "we need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos." That's different from taking away their nukes, which would necessarily involve waging war against its government.

Pakistan is a failed state. At some point we are going to have to secure their nuclear weapons by force. I'm not sure if it needs to be done now, or if it is better to wait until Pakistan descends into more chaos. Probably it is better to wait a bit, there is always the chance the country could improve and if the country is chaotic it allows more of an excuse for action, and maybe even get support from other islamic nations. In either case, Pakistan as it is today, and was 10 years ago, should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. A good chunk of their military are our enemy already.

We can't predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.

uh...ok, Pakistan is going to become a first world nation by 2015 and we have nothing to worry about. All these stupid studies intelligence agencies do, totally no use...

I remember in 1996 when the taliban effectively took over Afghanistan and I told people we needed to overthrow them. I was told it would start WW3 and there was no good reason. It doesn't take rocket science to know that a religious run nation that obesseses about destroying the west would eventually do some damage. I'm pretty sure Objectivists had been saying that kind of logic long before 1996. Kind of like predicting that the USSR, with it's worldwide communist constitution, would probably try to control the world. Or Nazi Germany with it's racist anti-west doctrine would start a war. But hey, how can you know...How can we know that a nation where a good chunk of it's military support the Taliban, how can we know they will use nuclear weapons and material against the West? More likely they will see the light, or at least say to themselves, hey, using nuclear weapons against the west that just isn't nice you know. Lets just stick to regular bombs.

In 2001 I was told invading would lead to ww3, and Iraq would too. No one would support the USA. Meanwhile as a coalition of what, 30+ nations?, landed in Iraq...no peep from the militaries of any islamic nation, Iran and perhaps Syria being the exception and even then, covertly.

the most powerful nations in the world would unite against us

Russia, China and the EU and every single government would secretly breath a sign of relief if the USA took care of these problems. They'll raise a stink and people will march for anti-war and achieve the same results we see today, nothing.

the last thing we need to do is further destabilize a nuclear country with a serious Islamist problem.

Probably better to wait until they develope longer range missiles I guess.

Lets wait until they arm the nuclear launching subs they bought from France a few years ago, the Agosta 90B. They are silent runners that can sit off the coast of Asia, North America and Europe. A couple of well placed Al qaida and Taliban crew will be able to dictate their terms to us and we shall surrender our we'll be nuked.

but what do I know, I have no proof this will happen, just like I had no proof in 1996 about the taliban being able to do anything to the West. better to wait and see I guess. what can one do. nothing. defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could easily defeat the entire Muslim world, single-handedly if needs be, but do you really think there wouldn't be any other repercussions? Assume that we turn the whole Muslim world into a parking lot and that it no longer poses a threat. Do you think the rest of the world is just going to say "okay, thanks America, let's get on with life." No. It would confirm the opinions of the left that America is the new Nazi Germany, and that opinion would spread to people who aren't left-wing wackos.

I am not sure if I understand your position. Suppose that the United States waged a more aggressive war against Islamic Totalitarianism (i.e., not Islam as such). Do you perceive that the rest of the world would still react to the United States as if it was the new Nazi Germany? If so, for which of the following reasons would the reaction happen:

  1. The U.S.A. can pursue a moral foreign policy of self-interest, but would fail to properly communicate why its policy is moral, resulting in a significant military backlash from foreign powers.

  2. Most of the world powers, being guided by irrational philosophies, will respond with hostility even if the U.S. pursues its own rational self-interest and articulates it clearly.

  3. A contemporary U.S. administration, lacking proper philosophy, would not properly grasp what a moral policy of self-interest is, and would make significant errors (attacking the wrong regions, etc.) in its execution.

  4. A foreign policy of self-interest, as articulated by ARI, is immoral.

  5. None of the above.

Just for clarity, I am not insinuating that you view a foreign policy of rational self-interest as immoral. Needless to say, I endorse the principles of ARI's views on foreign policy.

I know we're not supposed to care what the rest of the world thinks. And to that idea, I say "bullshit." It's not that I care what other countries think. But, knowing that other countries are likely to act according to their opinions, I don't want the whole world hating us in the way that they would if we actively sought another world war. We are not strong enough to take on the entire world. Period.

Any foreign policy of rational self-interest would have to recognize the reality that:

  1. Other countries with considerable military power might respond irrationally to the actions of the U.S.

  2. Other nations may take not be properly informed of the reasons underlying U.S. policy and may subsequently take action that will be detrimental to U.S. interests in response to the misinformation.

The second reason above in particular emphasizes the rational advantage of maintaining clear communication with otherwise good nations if the U.S. is exerting military force. The Fountainhead would surely have been very different if Howard Roark detonated the building but then subsequently refused to explain his reasoning for doing so.

But a war--at least, one like the one that this board's members seem to want--would rearrange the entire structure of international relations across the world, making it a virtual certainty that, at some point in the future, the most powerful nations in the world would unite against us and, ultimately, put an end to our ability to assert our global influence.

I am not sure which forum members you are including here, as forum members have different levels of understanding of Objectivism and of the global political apparatus. My current perception is that the "war" you are speaking of here is not what intellectuals at ARI have in mind, but I cannot read your mind and I certainly am not an expert on Objectivist views on foreign policy. If the U.S. embraced many Objectivist principles (not going to happen anytime soon) and adopted its foreign policy according, it certainly would rearrange the entire global structure of international relations. However, this would surely be for the better. I doubt that this would lead to the other foreign powers coalescing against the United States, unless if the rest of the world was truly that committed to a vicious strain of altruism and/or nihilism.

Of course, before there can be serious political changes (i.e., fully embracing a foreign policy of rational self-interest), there needs to be a philosophical revolution.

Without commenting on anyone in specific, I can definitely share your frustration against Michael Savage types who, on angry whims, want to condemn a large portion of the Middle East population to death without bothering to educate themselves on who are enemy is, where they are and what their ideology is. However, I see this mentality as vastly different from the call from prominent Objectivist intellectuals to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pakistan is a failed state. At some point we are going to have to secure their nuclear weapons by force. I'm not sure if it needs to be done now, or if it is better to wait until Pakistan descends into more chaos. Probably it is better to wait a bit, there is always the chance the country could improve and if the country is chaotic it allows more of an excuse for action, and maybe even get support from other islamic nations. In either case, Pakistan as it is today, and was 10 years ago, should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. A good chunk of their military are our enemy already.

Pakistan is not a failed state. It is a an unstable state.

uh...ok, Pakistan is going to become a first world nation by 2015 and we have nothing to worry about. All these stupid studies intelligence agencies do, totally no use...

Who made this claim? Intel agencies are useful, but are frequently wrong...particularly with long-range estimates.

Russia, China and the EU and every single government would secretly breath a sign of relief if the USA took care of these problems. They'll raise a stink and people will march for anti-war and achieve the same results we see today, nothing.

Do you have evidence that these countries would be secretly pleased? No. There's plenty of evidence that they'd be pissed.

Probably better to wait until they develope longer range missiles I guess.

Put that strawman away.

Lets wait until they arm the nuclear launching subs they bought from France a few years ago, the Agosta 90B. They are silent runners that can sit off the coast of Asia, North America and Europe. A couple of well placed Al qaida and Taliban crew will be able to dictate their terms to us and we shall surrender our we'll be nuked.

Chicken Little and Al Gore would like a word with you.

but what do I know, I have no proof this will happen, just like I had no proof in 1996 about the taliban being able to do anything to the West. better to wait and see I guess. what can one do. nothing. defeat.

And, by 2015, Jordan could fall to Islamic radicals. I guess we'd better nuke Amman...just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if I understand your position. Suppose that the United States waged a more aggressive war against Islamic Totalitarianism (i.e., not Islam as such). Do you perceive that the rest of the world would still react to the United States as if it was the new Nazi Germany? If so, for which of the following reasons would the reaction happen:
  1. The U.S.A. can pursue a moral foreign policy of self-interest, but would fail to properly communicate why its policy is moral, resulting in a significant military backlash from foreign powers.

  2. Most of the world powers, being guided by irrational philosophies, will respond with hostility even if the U.S. pursues its own rational self-interest and articulates it clearly.

  3. A contemporary U.S. administration, lacking proper philosophy, would not properly grasp what a moral policy of self-interest is, and would make significant errors (attacking the wrong regions, etc.) in its execution.

  4. A foreign policy of self-interest, as articulated by ARI, is immoral.

  5. None of the above.

I think it is a combination of 1-3.

Any foreign policy of rational self-interest would have to recognize the reality that:
  1. Other countries with considerable military power might respond irrationally to the actions of the U.S.

  2. Other nations may take not be properly informed of the reasons underlying U.S. policy and may subsequently take action that will be detrimental to U.S. interests in response to the misinformation.

Absolutely right. This was my main point, and is the point that people in here often neglect to consider.

I am not sure which forum members you are including here, as forum members have different levels of understanding of Objectivism and of the global political apparatus. My current perception is that the "war" you are speaking of here is not what intellectuals at ARI have in mind, but I cannot read your mind and I certainly am not an expert on Objectivist views on foreign policy. If the U.S. embraced many Objectivist principles (not going to happen anytime soon) and adopted its foreign policy according, it certainly would rearrange the entire global structure of international relations. However, this would surely be for the better. I doubt that this would lead to the other foreign powers coalescing against the United States, unless if the rest of the world was truly that committed to a vicious strain of altruism and/or nihilism.

I'm not directing my comments at O'ist "intellectuals," necessarily. I don't know what the views of Peikoff and co. are on this issue. But many people on this board strike me as jingoistic. Just read the "why shouldn't we nuke Tehran" thread to see what I mean. For example:

1. A good Objectivist says it should be done.

2. A good Objectivist has weighed suggestions to the contrary and found them wanting.

3. Therefore, it should be done.

End of discussion.

Without commenting on anyone in specific, I can definitely share your frustration against Michael Savage types who, on angry whims, want to condemn a large portion of the Middle East population to death without bothering to educate themselves on who are enemy is, where they are and what their ideology is. However, I see this mentality as vastly different from the call from prominent Objectivist intellectuals to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism.

w0rd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without commenting on anyone in specific, I can definitely share your frustration against Michael Savage types who, on angry whims, want to condemn a large portion of the Middle East population to death without bothering to educate themselves on who are enemy is, where they are and what their ideology is. However, I see this mentality as vastly different from the call from prominent Objectivist intellectuals to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism.

While I am in no way defending Savage, his view on this issue, or his views on other issues, I have to state that he does not want to condemn a large portion of the Middle East to death. He has been very clear on his show about who the enemy is and where it came from. I remember some time ago a pretty good block he did in which he identified how Muslim culture was able to coexist with other cultures after the 9th century within various empires, and even contribute some thoughts to those empires (I am not sure on the truth of these statements but I am paraphrasing what he said). He then went on to point out that the enemy today is a variety of what he calls "throwbacks" who want to take the religion of Islam back to the 7th century.

Savage is a pretty well-educated individual, but I cannot speak for all of his listeners. Obviously his angry rants are done for entertainment purposes. They are entertaining but I suspect they attract a good amount of ignorant listeners.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably true, but you might as well provide some respectable sources for completeness.

HOUSE OF GRAFT: Tracing the Bhutto Millions -- A special report.; Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption

By JOHN F. BURNS

Published: January 9, 1998

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A96E958260

Here is a quick summary of the most important quotes from the 7 page article:

"In the largest single payment investigators have discovered, a gold bullion dealer in the Middle East was shown to have deposited at least $10 million into an account controlled by Mr. Zardari after the Bhutto Government gave him a monopoly on gold imports that sustained Pakistan's jewelry industry. The money was deposited into a Citibank account in the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, one of several Citibank accounts for companies owned by Mr. Zardari.

.....

Officials leading the inquiry in Pakistan say that the $100 million they have identified so far is only a small part of a windfall from corrupt activities. They maintain that an inquiry begun in Islamabad just after Ms. Bhutto's dismissal in 1996 found evidence that her family and associates generated more than $1.5 billion in illicit profits through kickbacks in virtually every sphere of government activity -- from rice deals, to the sell-off of state land, even rake-offs from state welfare schemes.

.....

Ms. Bhutto's father was an Oxford-educated landowner who became Pakistan's Prime Minister in the 1970's, only to be ousted and jailed in 1977 when his military chief, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, mounted a coup. Mr. Bhutto was hanged two years later, after he refused General Zia's offer of clemency for a murder conviction that many Pakistanis regarded as politically tainted.

.....

Similar letters, dated March and June 1994, were sent by Societe Generale de Surveillance promising ''consultancy fees'' of 6 percent and 3 percent to two other offshore companies controlled by the Bhutto family. According to Pakistani investigators, the two Swiss companies inspected more than $15.4 billion in imports into Pakistan from January 1995 to March 1997, making more than $131 million. The investigators estimated that the Bhutto family companies made $11.8 million from the deals, at least a third of which showed up in banking documents taken from the Swiss lawyer.

....

The tax returns filed by Ms. Bhutto and her husband in her years in office give no hint of the wealth uncovered by the Pakistani inquiry. Ms. Bhutto, Mr. Zardari and Nusrat Bhutto declared assets totaling $1.2 million in 1996 and never told authorities of any foreign accounts or properties, as required by law. Mr. Zardari declared no net assets at all in 1990, the year Ms. Bhutto's first term ended, and only $402,000 in 1996.

The family's income tax declarations were similarly modest. The highest income Ms. Bhutto declared was $42,200 in 1996, with $5,110 in tax.

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...