Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HaloNoble6

  1. Huh, I just checked the moderator logs, and indeed the only changes made to that topic title prior to yesterday were by me. I'm sorry about that Felix; you know I have no bone to pick with you. We were doing some house-cleaning back then and clearing up titles to make them less obscure or less general; it looks like I took too much liberty in this case. It's weird because I've never used that word in regular speech--hence why I readily admited it wasn't me (in fact I had to look the word up to see exactly what it meant). My apologies, mate.

  2. Is it just me, or does it seem like the lunatic Iranian leaders know more about America's cultural state than America leaders do? They speak clearly, smilingly, directly. American officials speak vaguely, apologetically, pleadingly. (link)

    Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

    "You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

    "The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

    The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    "I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.


    And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

    "She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

    "We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

    On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

    "There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

    I'm beginning to get very worried...
  3. ...regardless of the actual reasons for bombing the Japanese, the official justification for the acts were based on morality (e.g. the US wants to just end the conflict ASAP to avoid as little loss as possible, plus the Japanese are bad people and should be punished), and I don't think that Iran has a bad enough track record for us to use the same reasoning to bomb them.

    [...] My prediction is that we won't dare to use nukes against Iran either [because of retaliatory attacks].

    I don't understand this distinction between actual and official reasons. What, are there conspiracy theories out there saying we did it to test the bomb on actual people?

    Anyway, the point is that the principle behind the bombing of Japan can apply to bombing Iran. Japan, a proven threat, was given an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally, which it refused. The Japanese were going to fight to the death, to be 'martyrs', were we to invade. In response, the most efficient, least costly method of taking down the threat was to use nukes. Similarly, we have Iran, the heart of an Islamic culture that glorifies martyrdom, as a proven threat. Iran should be given an ultimatum: surrender unconditionally or be bombed.

    I agree with you that Iran has not committed the same injustices on the same scale as Japan. But the difference exists only because Japan was allowed to act out its ambitions, while Iran can't just yet. In principle, however, their ambitions are the same: world domination using a militant flavor of religious fanaticism. And so, in principle, the same solution applies: give up or die.

    As far as your second point, I think it's more of a tactical question, not a moral question. We must agree, however, that the most efficient, least costly option that results in the end of the threat is the moral option. If not, we can't discuss this issue. (That is, we can't discuss "containment" for the sake of preserving "economies".)

    If we have good cause to suspect that bombing of Iran would induce retaliation by it or other parties, then we cripple all capabilities for retaliation in one truly shocking and awing strike. Additionally, we may beforehand deliver an ultimatum to those who would be insane enough to think of such a notion: you make a single move toward such an act, you will be destroyed.

    It is truly a tragedy that non-freedom-loving nations were allowed to get the bomb. It is an indictment of our foreign policy. Fortunately it seems this policy is changing.

    Let me add that this is all moot anyway, since there is no way in hell a military guided by Just War Theory will ever act in a wholy selfish way by using nukes to break the will of the enemy.

  4. The will of the enemy must be utterly shattered via a nuclear bomb. To avoid American casualties and skyrocketing debt in a long drawn-out "war on terror," end it by crushing its heart, Iran. Consider the points made in this article.

  5. "HG," you make it seem as if you're dissapointed that the so-called "freedom fighters" aren't coming up with better strategies to promote their cause. What is their cause and why do you support it, if you do?

    I could think of more fundamental points to criticize these people for--like for example that they are barbarians. That seems to be overlooked in your sarcastic remarks over the way in which they are trying to promote their cause.

  6. Welcome to the forum. I can sympathize with your situation, and I hope what you're looking for can be found here.

    Can you elaborate on what you mean here:

    I hope this forum is as free as it should be. If it is I'll enjoy myself and everyone here, I'm sure.
    This forum is provided at the pleasure of its owner. So, any freedom here (or lack thereof) is rightly left to his discretion. What that freedom consists of is determined by the purpose he sets for the forum. Whether the freedom here achieves his purpose, or whether the purpose itself is worth achieving, is something we may all judge for ourselves.

    As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to provide an place of exchange for those who are interested in learning and or practicing Objectivism. As such, open antagonism to O'ism and its creator, among other things antithetical to this purpose, are not welcome.

  7. I'm posting to ask for assistance in distributing The Undercurrent's free speech flyer at Yale, NYU, Stanford, and Berkeley campuses. Kudos to anyone that's already distributed at these campuses. I will be at Yale and NYU this coming Monday, and at Stanford and Berkeley at some point between Tuesday and Friday of the coming week. I will have at least a couple of thousand copies on hand to distribute. The more people distributing on a particular campus, the faster it gets done and the easier it is to thwart those who wish to take the flyers down. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Flyer: tu_cartoon_issue.pdf

  8. Another question to ask, which I don't know the answer to, is how often are these bad laws enforced? Do people actually pay no mind to these laws? For example, here in the States, the drinking age is 21. But I read about this trendy Hollywood club where teen stars go to hang out and drink. They have been photographed going in, drinking, and coming out. Yet the local cops don't do anything. This is just one example of non-objective laws which fail to be enforced. So, unless we have that data, I don't think it's enough to have a listing of the UAE's laws as proof of its evil.

  9. Ayn Rand said that if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy then millions and billions should be poured into the space program. (Last paragraph of "Apollo 11")
    This is the context-dropping, cherry-picking technique that you continue to follow. She *qualified* this statement further with "If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad."

    You keep insisting on the "if America continues down the road of a mixed-economy" statement as if it stood alone, and means what you want it to mean. But, unfortunately for you, she meant that "if America is to committ suicide." This is a statement of *principle*. You insist, in a concrete-bound fashion, on referring to the continuance of a mixed-economy as the sanction for a NASA. No, it is not. The condition Ayn Rand *explicitly* stated for her to be able to not make a fuss over NASA is for America's death to be certain. Get that straight. Your entire argument is based on this notion of the "the continuance of a mixed-economy justifies NASA." Forget the military stuff, because that's just another rationalization you're using to justify NASA.

    Just answer this: Do you accept that Ayn Rand made a statement about how she views NASA, under the circumstances of America's death being certain? If you don't, you are building castles in the sky to satisfy your own whims.

  10. Although I've stated the case for NASA as best I could, Rand argued for it much more eloquently. It is for that reason that I've quoted from her extensively and referred readers to her "Apollo 11" essay. If you've read the essay and remain unconvinced that the space program should continue, then there is probably nothing I could say further to change your mind.
    Excuse for being late to this thread, but I must, absolutely most correct this. (Note that I am an aerospace engineer, a PhD student in the field in fact, and share excitement for space travel with those who've expressed it. Nevertheless I am opposed to almost every opinion you've expressed in this thread.)

    I'm surprised no one has corrected your misuse of Ayn Rand here, "Daedalus". You have been using the following as your "premission slip" to excuse and advocate further funding for NASA (let us set aside the fact that you seem to have not engaged in a single line of independent reasoning for your argument):

    We do not have to have a mixed economy, we still have a chance to change our course and thus to survive. But if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program. If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad. Let it not be its only epitaph that it died paying its enemies for its own destruction. Let some of its lifeblood go to the support of achievement and the progress of science. The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country.

    Yet, you completely twist it to meet your own ends. Her message is very clear and somber: If America is to die, let us, the men of the mind that are left, not fuss over NASA, because here, in this moment, it has provided America with a glorious tomb-stone--an American flag on the Moon. The significance of this message is that it is a statement of priorities, assuming America's death to be certain.

    She is not, as you have repeatedly made it seem, advocating the existence of NASA, or pushing for more funds for it, or engaging her reader in a state of glee over the prospect of America dying, just so she can see NASA get more money. She is saying, in essence, if America's death is certain, let's not make a fuss over NASA, because it is providing us with some last spurts of greatness.

    You, on the other hand, are not saying *if* America's dying, let's fund a mission to mars. You are saying, basically, "America's death *is* certain, therefore let's fund a mission to mars!" Evidently, you are using Ayn Rand to justify your twisted priorities: you are spending significant time defending the existence and furtherance of NASA, on the grounds that America's death is certain, rather than discovering whether or not this very gloomy premise is correct, and if it isn't, discovering how to bring America back to greatness. In your excitement for a mission to Mars, you pray at night that America's death continues to be certain (since you already think it *is* certain), so that you can use Ayn Rand to justify your desire to see NASA great once more. But her's was not a prayer for America's death, it was an eloquent eulogy were her death to be certain.

    Quite frankly, I am disgusted by your premise. I would rather spend all my energy fighting America's demise, until the very last second I know her death is uncertain, than spend a single ounce of it trumpeting how NASA should get more money in spite of the fact that America's death *isn't* absolutely certain.

    And, if one day I were to come to the conclusion that America's death was certain, I seriously doubt I would be on a forum gleefully advocating more money for NASA.

    In conclusion, stop making it seem like Ayn Rand advocated the existence and furtherance of NASA. She didn't. She made the following eloquent tribute to the Apollo program: If America is to die, let's not fuss over NASA, for it has shown us to be a noble beagle call at her funeral. Today NASA consists of a bunch of bungling engineers trying to appease politicians for the most part. So, not only is America's death *not* certain, but NASA today has shown that it isn't even capable of doing what it did in Ayn Rand's time.

  • Create New...