whYNOT

Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? But the "idea" lives on. When you consider what Islamic terrorism is supposed to accomplish, universal Jihad, and the methods they use to press the West into admission (if not submission) and gain sympathy and support - like now - from too many craven Western appeasers and admirers, "the war on terror" appears a misnomer--and contradiction in terms. An idea/ideology won't be defeated any time soon with military might. ( Israelis already know this and what they will be faced with afterwards in Gaza). The conquest of a regime and nation, with all its ramifications and heavy costs for the conquerors cannot be "context-dropped". Since, after a successful invasion and not too many losses (remembering, campaigns never go exactly according to plan), what's next? A large country (pop. 90m), the change of Iran's government an extended occupation and ongoing conflicts to quell splinter terror groups, etc.- all the while, support back home, decreasing - which would all be fruitless if much of the population is reluctant or resistant; just going along, lacking sincere convictions in "liberty, democracy", etc. As I suggested, the countries which sponsor and advance Jihadi groups can be cut off by many means, left alone to fester and slowly implode. Including using selective force: targets (training camps, missile bases, and so on) would be hit in retaliation for any belligerent activities. And, wherever terrorists act in the West, they and their cells and their organizers and backers (often legitimate-looking "NGO"s) should be hunted down, closed down and put away for a long time. Proposing invasion or wholesale destruction of a host terrorist country is impractical therefore, immoral, I think. It amounts to concretism (anti-intellectualism) and altruism, a "cause" separated from the realities. With better ideas: Maybe the moderate majority of Muslims, and other Arab nations would eventually shun the Jihadi fantasy and those who enact it. Perhaps a much-needed Reformation of Islam would follow.

Despicable Finkelstein with Greenwald, both in denial, trying to convince that warmongering Israel wants to "drag in" American/western forces; which Israel has never done nor asked for previously - with 3 major self-defensive wars (and intifadas) - in a war with Iran. When not even a war with Iran is likely--or desirable for Israel. The latest warning round signaled this. Israel will not escalate (unless...) but will certainly continue fighting and ridding its immediate and present threats, Hezbollah and Hamas, the Iranian Islamist regime's terror "tentacles". (Its head will eventually rot, from within and outside, if the West does not soften its stance again). Finkelstein is some sort of mad scholar, consumed with righteous hate. Hamas or Iran are clearly far more moral than Israel to his distorted mentality. I guess Greenwald has a following with the US ultra-isolationists, another one blaming Israel for being assaulted and selfishly protecting its people, come what may. . .

You know what I'm reminded of? "The operation was successful but the patient died". There's what happens when (total) context is dropped, and foreseeable consequences of actions ignored, and reality/real lives shoe-horned into pre-selected and usually inappropriate principles. I do not consider this is "acting on principles"

Subsequent to Rand, authoritarianism/intrinsicism has caused divisiveness among Objectivists. No, I don't take Brooks (or Peikoff) as 'the final word' (specifically, on applications - implementations of O'ism to reality).

Who is "allowing"? I'll first point out that Iran was not consistently, economically, financially, morally and intellectually, diplomatically and militarily isolated by the West -- as was e.g. their treatment of Russia, rightly - during - the Cold War (not after). I trust world leaders have now learned to not try to placate, bargain with and bribe ideologically-evil regimes "to be good". Nukes are out. Ground forces will not fare well invading that mountain terrain against a formidable army. . I've reminded before, that whereas Rand wrote any free nation had the right to invade a country and overturn its dictatorial regime - and also added, in effect, a "right" was not to be taken to be a (self-sacrificial) duty. The last gets forgotten. So leave it to Israel. Better (I think) the gvt. bides their time for now, and later hits a few Iranian military and nuclear installations. Israel has to live there and Israel must decide. The emphasis on ~defense~ by the US presently is the right one, I believe. (While they and their partners will have to face up to and eliminate the seaward provocations in the Gulf, this international initiation of force). For Israel: This is a long-term commitment, not about floating principles and the instant gratification of beating the foe.

The Saudis too https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/saudi-arabia-acknowledges-helping-defend-israel-against-iran-797201 "The best defense is offense", turned on its head. The exemplary manner in which the USN, USAF, the rest of the hasty coalition - and Israel's own defense systems responded, showed that robust defense plays a bigger role in modern war. The attack should have made plain Tehran's motives and methods to the world, how it operates through proxies sowing terror abroad, while playing the big innocent in diplomatic circles - and importantly, it will be less feared now by its neighbors. This stresses how swiftly the Abraham Accords must be revived. A consortium of "moderate" nations will feel more urgently empowered to escape Iran's grasp. The changes will adapt Palestinian minds to the new unity (feared by Iran) and proceed from there to serious negotiations with Israel. . ("Palestine", not the necessary *cause* and condition of M.E. peace, as Islamists and Israel-detractors have always deceitfully insisted - but an *effect* of peaceful national relations -- with Iran permanently cut out . . .

nope

https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/the-us-state-department-is-amplifying-the-smear-campaign-against-israel/ar-BB1llXph?rc=1&ocid=socialshare&cvid=bd57065849154d769b6788baae5b00ca&ei=53

"Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create "a race to the bottom." That's how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, "Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!" ---- That problem child, "globalization", would be fine and dandy when governments are barred from entry, economy and state kept strictly apart . Individuals (and companies) deal and trade with others, wherever and whenever they see opportunities and at their own risk. As it is, the large corporates operate "hand-in-glove" with their Gvt which in turn makes deals with foreign gvts. That is then, corporate-globalization, backed, and given entree by, the power of states. Corporatocracy plus statism. (which gives spurious credibilty to socialists who claim capitalism = imperialism ("/neocolonialism") As good a place for this essay by Jeffrey Tucker https://brownstone.org/articles/how-did-american-capitalism-mutate-into-american-corporatism/

I don't agree, but then I'm sure you'd not be in line with a bargain struck with the Houthis. Which will be regarded, if only at the discussion stage, as a weakening of resolve by the equivocating West, the reward for Houthis committing terror attacks by sea and Hamas in Israel, and USA making concessions to Iran. It supports my criticism of the changing Admins, in turn, obstructing or aiding Israel in finding resolution to the Palestinian/ME problems - their own way - with the moral-diplomatic (and not overtly military) assistance of the US, e.g. Trump's salutary Abraham accords (that if fast-tracked by this Administration could have thwarted Iran's and its proxies' aggressive, regional ambitions). https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/us-could-remove-houthis-from-terror-list-in-exchange-for-red-sea-quiet-report-795268

I do not even hear a desire for intervention from Israelis themselves. Rather, the country and global Jewry, also under enormous strain, should be championed morally, that's urgently needed and lacking. You know my attitude on committing American soldiers anywhere? This far, it's Israel's local fight alone, they have to deal with the consequences. The arms (they purchase by agreement out of the 3.3 billion dollars in annual aid they get from the US) must not be withheld during war. The possibility is delighting/empowering the terrorists and their genocidal supporters.

I used to use them interchangeably but was never fully satisfied. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness" - states precisely the condensed, metaphysical core of man's nature. i.e. one doesn't reason automatically, we have to raise our consciousness by choice, so conceptualizing, character forming. The "broader" sphere of free will involves ALL choices made, sourced from that original O'ist tenet. I suggest the first is absolute and necessary, free will is dependent. Snips from Branden which bears this out (I think) "Freedom [of will] does not mean causelessness; this point must be stressed. A volitional choice is not causeless. It is caused by the person who makes the choice, and the choice entails an enormity of issues: [He lists many, starting familiarly with "Focusing versus non-focusing" and ending with "Concern with congruence versus disregard of contradictions" -and- "Reason versus irrationalism; respect for logic, consistency, coherence and evidence, versus disregard"]. [Recalls "A man has free choice to the extent he is rational" by Aquinas]. and the telling point here: "Our freedom is neither absolute nor unlimited, however. There are many factors that can make the appropriate exercise of our consciousness easier or harder. Some of these factors may be genetic, biological. Others are developmental. The environment can support and encourage the healthy assertion of consciousness or it can oppose and undermine it"... Etc. (The "will" is "free", but reality ain't, to my simple mind -- one cannot *always* attain *everything* wished for by the power of will. Yet - nothing can be accomplished without it) (Excerpts from Honoring the Self).

I'd venture in keeping with both NB and AR, that Rand's "the volitional consciousness" - which would draw blank stares from most free will-ers and determinists - is the core component and principle of free will, as recognized generally. From which Branden widens his scope for his psychological purposes.

"Free will--in the widest meaning of the term--is the doctrine that human beings are capable of performing actions that are not determined by forces outside their control, that we are capable of making choices that are not necessitated by antecedent factors". N Branden HtS (His footnote, that his explanation is "...closest to the concept of volition proposed by Ayn Rand but differs from hers in that Rand identifies the choice to focus exclusively with the choice to think, to engage in a process of explicit reasoning, whereas ... my own view of the choice to focus is considerably broader").