abott1776

Would it be different if the candidate was a Nazi propagandist in World War II? I can see your point about being born here, but from what I remember, a lot of these fiery Imam's in Britain were imigrants, and if that is the case in the U.S., I don't see how the first ammendment applies in those cases. If we are at war with Islamism (or whatever you want to call it) we should not permit propaganda from entering into this country. This is the incitement to violence case in the context of war.

Rand Paul seems to be earning his paycheck. Despite his flaws of his view on war, his defense of the rule of law, the constitution, and what makes America America is inspiring. To address all of these Muslim American citizen terrorists, maybe we should be more careful, thoughtful, and selective (screening your constitutional knowledge, American political philosophy, view on theocracy) in granting American citizenship. How the hell do these Muslims spewing Anti-American garbage become citizens?

First off I apologize for my assertion that you don't think it is significant. I am certain you are using the word geo-political wrong. Wikipedia talks of it as being the study of the political and diplomatic relationship between countries (meaning governments not economic interests). Friends and relatives being U.S. citizens loyal to the United States? If so, along with the consideration of economic interests, would that not be tantamount to considering the value of the enemy's civilians as rational beings willing to trade? I think you are on the track of what I have been thinking, that is that there is an acceptable level of minimal casualties that is not zero. That there are things that secondarily (as opposed to the primary of defense and minimal casualties) affect the decisions in warfare such as the potential value of the enemy's civilians. This is not addressed in the typical Objectivist statement of "do whatever is needed to win". Look at my response to ruveyn1.

Not completely true. I think altruism in warfare needs to cease. But is it not an ethical statement, upholding the value of our soldiers' lives as against committing them to being slaughtered? For example the difference between the commies in world war two and the U.S., the policy of "not one step backwards" on the commies part and our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to save millions of our soldiers' lives? I really don't think you are reading my questions and comments thoroughly. The "what will win" mentality even though sounds completely okay from an Objectivist perspective fails to address the ethical military decision of what one ought to use against threats by the enemy. For example: An egoist general surveys the battlefield that is Iran, after being given orders to destroy the Iranian regime. The U.S. is on board with the Objectivist idea of warfare, it being for the defense of its citizens, and to achieve minimal (zero?) casualties on our side. It looks at all sorts of ways of destroying the regime and its military. You can target Tehran, and all major military sites with nukes or with carpet bombing runs and a full scale invasion with boots on the ground (to ensure target success). There is an obvious tradeoff between their civilians deaths and the risk to our soldiers lives. According to many Objectivists that I speak to, they claim the general(s) will make the call on this. What other call can he make other than the nukes, according to his orders the only way to ensure minimal casualties is to not send any troops on the ground? That is the meat of my argument. Saying that we should do whatever to win and then leaving it at that, assumes pretty much total devastation of the enemy's populace and the reservation of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to being body counters. Does that make any sense? If we are to use any other means of warfare (weapons), below total devastation, then by default we are either weighing cost of weapons, potential value of the enemy's civilians, or the opinions of the rest of the world vs our soldier's lives (and our defense). Alex

Nicky, If there is credible threat to our lives in Middle Eastern countries, is it not our responsibility to destroy them? Geo-politcal strategy is another word for the opinions of other countries, if they get in the way of our defense they should be considered the enemy and be destroyed as well. When you say that we should consider geo-political strategy you are playing into the mainstream hand of political correctness applied to diplomacy. What do you mean not in our interest? Oh, you mean the politically correct backlash from other countries (France, Germany, China, Russia....) and Muslims. Again why should that stop us, that is their problem, if they don't shut up about it, before we turn on them. No way near significant? These Islamists killed nearly 3000 men and women in one day, is that not significant? We have not dealt with them, the Iranian regime, the Wahhabi supporting Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood Egyptians are still in power, spewing their garbage, creating more terrorists. I hope this does not come off as a rant. I just am trying to get my points across. I am a pretty nice guy. Alex

Marc K., The decision to nuke or not, to carpet bomb a large swath of land or not, to demolish a mosque or not, will always involve ethics, and thus philosophy. I understand and agree with Yaron Brook's criticism of Just War Theory. But what confuses me is when other Objectivists just push the policy of nuking into the realm of military strategy and be done with it. Tell me, by what principle does a general decide when to carpet bomb as opposed to nuking a city, if it is not in consideration of the enemy's civilians' lives? Is it the monetary cost? By what principle is it decided that instead of surgically bombing a country, invading it, putting our soldiers' lives at risk as opposed to laying it to waste, if not in consideration of the country's inhabitants lives? We don't owe them anything, right? Are you into math, and engineering? There is a trade off between our lives and theirs' depending on what is used to eliminate the threat. This is an optimization problem, what is the least amount of deaths that we can achieve when it comes to our soldiers' lives? Once we answer that do we take it? Or is there something else we consider, their lives, the geo-political situation (other countries opinions of us)? Is it because of what the rest of the world thinks? Is our foreign policy dictated by the whims of other countries? Alex

Nicky, Your post on the usefulness of a AR15 was very insightful. Thanks. It puts a whole new perspective on the issue. Alex

You haven't answered my questions. I understand the power of destruction. I just don't think you understand what I am trying to get at here. By the logical implications of total destruction of the enemy as you and pretty much any other Objectivist, including me, says in regards to war, the U.S. would never consider anything less than total annihilation of any city standing in our way with nukes, etc. What is the point of having a standing army, other than the possible invasion of the homeland? We would never put any troops on the ground anywhere, but simply go nuke crazy. Terrorists launch attacks from Iraq, we go nuke every major city, bomb every major military installation, wipe everybody out, and be done with it? Never, no matter what, put our troops in harms way? Look at it this way, is there a difference between bombing a mosque despite human shields to get the insurgents (like we refuse to do in many circumstances today), and nuking an entire city to get an insurgent "regiment" despite the whole cities populace being used as a human shield?

ruveyn1, Any means, at any time, and in any situation? If we were to commit ourselves to destroy in capital letters, the Iranian regime, militarily and spirtually, and taking out their government leaders would obviously be an essential, would there be any thought to how we did it, or would we just nuke Tehran perhaps several times, ensuring no one was left alive? Or would we decide that that is not necassary, despite the fact that we don't owe the Iranian people anything (self-interest and so forth), and only "tactically" bomb their government and spiritual leaders? Taking the latter choice over the former, may leave us slightely (to the extent we don't have perfect knowledge of their leaders whereabouts) in harms way, but the former may seem a bit over kill, wouldn't you say? So is it the case that if we don't have perfect knowledge of the situation, that whenever we go to war with some puny third world nation, we should nuke first, don't take the chance of leaving anyone alive, and never clean up later (which I agree with, we shouldn't clean up, unless whoever is left learns their lesson)? In reference to the Marquis of Queensbury rules, I am not saying there should be some outside rules set by polite society. I am just saying that with the might of our armed forces, we have a lot of options, not only nukes. Is there a justification of using "conventional" weapons over nukes?

Nicky, What makes an AR15 a defensive weapon? Do you think there are reasonable situations where having one, is necassary? I live in the suburbs, and for the most part I don't see any use for them, other than for keeping back a mob? Is that why, for mob like situations, perhaps after a disaster, or something like the 1992 L.A. riots? So maybe that is it, the semi-automatic rifles should be allowed for those situations whereas a RPG, a gatling gun, a belt fed "machine" gun, or a tank would have no reasonable justification outside of war. Do you think that is the line? And to keep away those Gestapo guys in the future.

The other night I happened to start watching videos about the Twin Towers being hit, falling down, the actual footage, people jumping, a guy on the phone just before it collapses, realizing he is going to die. Those things just enrage you to the point that you feel yourself sitting in disgust wondering what has happened these past, what, 11-12 years? Almost 3,000 people died that day, many knowing that it was only a matter of time before they did. Maybe its because I was young, around 11, when it happened, and that I did not really notice what was going on in the U.S., but I still think we have done very little in our own defense, let alone avenging those people's murders. I have been reading the Sword of Truth series lately, and I am on Chainfire, please no spoilers. And in the beginning Richard is speaking to the people of Altur'Rang, telling them that they need to deal with the Imperial Order proactively. He said they needed to kill those who spread the ideas, the priests and so forth. I can see that is the same thing we have to do in this case. But what would happen in the fallout if the U.S. were to destroy the leaders (military and spiritual) of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt? They would sustain moderate to heavy civilian casualties. Would limiting ourselves in any way, such as putting troops on the ground, be justified in so far as limiting these causalities? Assuming many of their people, such as the youth, are generally more secular in countries such as Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan. If according to Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook, the lives of our soldiers are worth infinitely more than the lives of those countries citizens, why not nuke them all and be done with it? Why use any "conventional weapons"? Why use troops at all? We can easily wipe them all out. If not, doesn't that mean that we value to some extent the people of those countries, and that there should be decided some line we cannot cross? How would that line be chosen? How do we decide, as a numbers game, between ours and theirs? Alex

Another Objectivist and I have been following the recent "debates" (what with all the emotionalism) about guns. I can definitely understand the knee-jerk reaction to all these shootings, even after knowing that most if not all of them were gun free zones. I don't own any guns, I've only fired one once in my life. I vaguely understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. I've been hearing these "debates" filled with proclamations of statistics on both sides, I've read that article, I believe it was from Binswanger, and am still not necessarily sure about the whole issue. I think there should be drawn a line between what are acceptable and unacceptable levels of defensive force (for example guns vs. nuclear bombs). But where does that line lay? Can a military expert tell us this? Ought we listen? Right now, machine guns, I believe, are banned. But why them and not semi-autos like these AR-15's? Which my Objectivist friend says can be used in pretty much the same fashion, if you know what you are doing. What is the principle defining the line? What about these NRA members talking about, the second amendment, and defending ourselves against tyranny? Is that legitimate? I can't see AR-15's flying in the face of our military's might, but I also cannot see our military at least near the lower ranks even think about harming U.S. citizens. I can see using them against a Gestapo or a SS like force. I do have to say that I am proud that I live in a country where it is a major issue trying to take people's guns away from them, unlike many other country's whose citizens seem to have given up their lives to their governments. From Binswanger's article and my friend, I am somewhat convinced that whatever is defined as legitimate, should not be regulated in the sense of registration, etc. But I am hesitant when it comes to the idea of people selling weapons to mentally challenged people. I've read many of the forum's posts about this but they seemed a bit inadequate addressing this thing. Please respond to my questions and not refer me to another post. Alex Bott UIC College of Engineering

I was watching Lord Monckton on you-tube, and came across this: Start watching around the 6 minute mark if you already know about Lord Monckton and his ideas. I just wanted to show what people have to face if they want to stand up to these politicians in the capitol. It is amazing what these people can get away with, treating people like that. These politicians think that they are god's gift on earth. Alex