U.S. Convoy in Iraq Attacked

[Praxus]

It was predicted that over 500,000 American soldiers would die and millions more Japanese would have been killed. Not to mention thoose injured, maimed, etc...

During the first Gulf War over half of the Iraqi armored force was destroyed by the US Airforce. Who knows how many American lives it saved.

[Jessie]

Old Salt,

If you would like answers that are not thought out, take a look at the posting with a picture of bombs!? In no way was I intending to agrue with you specifically, but to state some facts and arguements for those who have been writing as though "the US knows best" and will show Islam that through military action.... It is sad....

[Jessie]

Richard Halley... As a Canadian, viewing this situation from another perspective than you, the vast majority does not like what Bush is doing in Iraq... Our Prime Minister even failed to agree with Bush's intervention in Iraq. We are not alone with our dislike of the Bush's military action.

[Richard_Halley]

The opinion of the Canadian Prime Minister--or anyone else, for that matter--is irrelevant to this discussion. There are people in the Middle East right now who want every American dead, and some of them have demonstrated an ability to convert on that wish. Nobody here is saying that "America knows best," just that America has a right to prevent itself from being blown up.

Perhaps you don't realize that you are in an Objectivist forum here, Jessie, I bet the Canadian Prime Minister would disagree with just about everything said here.

[Young]

People of a dictatorship implicitly have rights if they are to be considered rational beings. One cannot simply say that because you are being held captive by a tyrant that you are not rational or of no value. What is implicitly considered is that someone who does violate another's rights is of less worth than someone who does not violate another's rights.

I misspoke in declaring an inanimate object barbaric, a moral value, but nonetheless I was trying to impress that beside the awesome destructive powers of a bomb, which are often uncontrollable, it as a display of force has more negative effects, ie rallying supporters for terrorism, than do many other means of military intervention.

We cannot simply pretend that we are only fighting a physical battle, in which we only have to consider the cost of good lives, but also the struggles in ideology which the physical is representing: If we are viewed as barbaric, we will inspire resistance and in the end we will pay with many more good lives. We must always consider the long term effects of our intervention.

[Jessie]

Richard Halley,

WHY do they want every American dead?

[Praxus]

Their ideaology is anti-thetical to ours, they support mysticism, we support reason, they support fascist dictatorships and theocracys while we support Constitutional Republics.

[Richard_Halley]

WHY do they want every American dead?

Because America is productive, and production is the Anti-Christ (or Anti-Allah as the case may be).

What is implicitly considered is that someone who does violate another's rights is of less worth than someone who does not violate another's rights.

Someone who violates anothers rights, is not only of less worth than someone who does not, they are also in rejection of the very concept of rights. As a result, they have none.

Note that worth is not the soruce of rights, but look at your logic anyway. Your claim may be translated like so: "Someone who negates mans life is of equal value to someone who lives it." Value to whom? Not me; Not any Objectivist, I promise you that.

Young, ask yourself where rights come from... and follow the logic through.

[Young]

I was making the assertion that violating another's rights denigrates the abuser, and putting it into the context of carpet bombing people who are under a tyrannical rule, some of whom would every bit like to not violate anyone's rights.

Also the reasons they hate us are much more complex than that we're productive, you would have to see it from their perspective to know that.

[AisA]

Please enlighten us, Young, with all these reasons for hating us.

[Young]

To them we are a potentially Wasteful society, Exclusion in many ways from the religious freedoms in our judeo-christian nation, Violation of their religious mores as they see them, what they see as unwarranted American Imperialism, the power of the dollar over their unit of money, anger at their country's own inefficiency misplaced towards us because of our overwhelming successes, jealousy over freedoms we have that they don't, historical traditions of hating the west and grievances passed down through the centuries...

As many people see it we are the "uglyamerican", ignorant of their culture yet awesomely powerful, to say that they hate us because we produce more than they do is not entirely true, they produce terrorists and drill for oil much better than we are willing/capable of doing

[Old Geezer]

Why all this guess work about "why they hate us"??? The terrorists that have attacked Americans directly have always been clear about the policies they dont like:

1. Support for Israel.

2. Support for Tyrannical Governments in ME

3.Iraq Sanctions

4. "infedels in Sacred Lands"

5. Occupation of Iraq

[y_feldblum]

1. Self-protection by alliance with their religious enemy.

2. Self-protection by not letting them be the dictators in power.

3. Self-protection by not letting their ally threaten us.

4. Not obeying their religious law.

5. Self-protection by crushing those that threaten us.

It's clear that they hate us precisely because we are free(-er).

[Young]

Yes, quite so, restriction of one's freedom can ultimately result in the most vile of hatreds for anyone who is not under similar restrictions, a person who is kept from the fruits of their labor (a slave) will have the deepest of emotions towards their oppressor or those who are not oppressed (blind religious hatred)

[Jessie]

I hope to God such a person as Richard halley, with such degrading and one sided thoughts never has the opportunity to become president.... haha, then America would have more enemies than they ALREADY have

peace in the middle east,

i'm outta here

Jmac

[Richard_Halley]

I was making the assertion that violating another's rights denigrates the abuser, and putting it into the context of carpet bombing people who are under a tyrannical rule, some of whom would every bit like to not violate anyone's rights.

One cannot voilate rights which do not exist. Passively supporting a middle eastern dictator equals passively supporting terrorism equals passively supporting terrorist attacks. It is not "denigrating" to stop terrorist attacks, and it is not "denigrating" to kill passive terror supporters to do so, if it makes the job safer.

Oh, and thank you Jessie, for the "one-sided" comment. "One-sided" almost always means "consistant."

[Young]

By that logic, you are not searching for Osama right now, so I might as well take your money and give it to someone who is

[Richard_Halley]

No, Young, my logic was that if my money/production supports Osama's hiding and acting than you could do that.

And besides, my work supports the search for Osama, so even if that was what I meant, your argument wouldn't apply to me.

[Young]

Well it's good of you to be uprooting militants for me, however I'd think you'd know that not everyone in Iraq was supporting Saddam just by being there. They may have had no recourse other than denouncing Saddam in the streets (suicide), so please excuse me for finding it a tragedy that even one of these people, American or Iraqi, who believed in freedom, should have died.

[Richard_Halley]

I agree that it is a shame. But when someone is trapped under a dictator, thier choices are active support, passive support, activly fighting against. Anyone doing any sort of productive work under a dictator is supporting that dictator's govenment.

And besides this, any rational individual living in such conditions will recognise that any attempt to overthrow their government will have possibilities of their own death. They should consider that possibility to be much better than living forever under dictatorship.

[Jessie]

Any irrational person would consider it their own duty to overthrow the government when they already know that the penalty for this would be death... Any rational person would realise that in putting their life in danger in order to defeat an authoritarian government, they would get nowhere, as the government is so powerful and emotionless that by killing people to avoid defeat is nothing new to authoritarians. I mean, perhaps the Iraqis would be seen as "honourable" for attempting to do this, but it is possible that many would see this as another life lost.... And the American's first priority when going into a country that is not theirs should be the preservation of civilians, and then follows the abolishment of the government.

[Richard_Halley]

And the American's first priority when going into a country that is not theirs should be the preservation of civilians, and then follows the abolishment of the government.

You are suggesting that I should place the lives of those who (albeit passively) make it possible for things like 9-11 to happen above my own. This is the most irrational thing I have heard in this forum for along time.

[Young]

Their civilians as well as ours, our soldiers have just as much a right to life as any of these ideal civilians of the foreign country who do resist. Moreover, those who understand the evilness of the regime should understand that to allow a regime to perpetuate further crimes is not an acceptable option. At this point it comes under the umbrella of what objectivism speaks of as suicide because there is no prospect of life without freedom.

To sum up, I restate that the loss of civilians is a tragedy which must be avoided if possible, but if your life would be forfeit under the heel of the dictator or in order to promote freedom (and this is the question at hand) which would you choose?

[Old Geezer]

"Moreover, those who understand the evilness of the regime should understand that to allow a regime to perpetuate further crimes is not an acceptable option"

That they can understand the evilness of the regime is certainly hindered by several factors.

1. For many people Did not have access to anything other than state run media.(perception)

2. The educational system was so fucked up that "concept formation" was certainly hindered. So too was history etc(Concept formation_)

3. Much of Saddam's wrath was directed at his perceived troublemakers and was 12 years ago, for many others he was just the "prick that is responsible for me having to bribe Dr's"(Judgement)

4. When Blatant incidents happened, Saddam actively tried to distort reality and make it appear as if others were more

Certainly there were many people that should have known that not dying was an awful evasion, that wasnt the case for all.

[y_feldblum]

Old Geezer -

[i disagree; the following is a rebuttal]

No access to media does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind.

Miseducation does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind.

Saddam's wrath does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind.

Saddam's mendacity does not prevent a person from disscovering and using his mind.