Would you shoot first?

[EC]

I asked EC -- and now ask you, Kelly -- what consequences follow upon this kind of destruction?

She answered pretty much as I would have there and I agree with everything she said. The "consequences" are irrelevant. The only consequence that matters is that all threats to the U.S. and Israel will have been eliminated and any future "threateners" of the West will be put on notice. As to what happens inside Iran during the aftermath--I don't care. As long as they don't rebuild another life threatening government.

[William Scott Scherk]

[K-Mac] answered pretty much as I would have there and I agree with everything she said. The "consequences" are irrelevant. The only consequence that matters is that all threats to the U.S. and Israel will have been eliminated and any future "threateners" of the West will be put on notice. As to what happens inside Iran during the aftermath--I don't care.

Wow . . . you don't believe that there will be any negative consequences for the US and its allies, and/or you don't care if there are negative consequences . . . and you don't see consequences as relevant to whether the US and Israel should bomb the fuck out of Iran, killing millions. As if this has no consequences for US interests in the world.

Forgive me for possibly crossing the line of OO.net rules, but I find this attitude irrational, bloodthirsty and demented.

[EC]

Forgive me for possibly crossing the line of OO.net rules, but I find this attitude irrational, bloodthirsty and demented.

You're wrong. We would do this only as a last resort to keep the "irrational, bloodthirsty and demented" from doing it to us first. We would do it out of protection of our innocent citizens in our mostly free countries, they would strike us first because they are evil, i.e., they would do it out of hatred of our moral virtues. What you are doing is equating a moral use of force with an evil use of force, that's "irrational and demented".

Edited July 31, 2008 by EC

[gags]

Wow . . . you don't believe that there will be any negative consequences for the US and its allies, and/or you don't care if there are negative consequences . . . and you don't see consequences as relevant to whether the US and Israel should bomb the fuck out of Iran, killing millions. As if this has no consequences for US interests in the world.

What are the specific conditions and circumstances under which you would support bombing Iran?

[Moebius]

I lived in Japan for years, and I saw absolutely none of this supposed "anti-American sentiment". In fact, everyone seemed very friendly toward me and my parents. I see more anti-American sentiment in the United States today than I did in Japan. It is possible that times have changed since then, but I had a Japanese friend much more recently, and he was far from anti-American. You are going to have to present some serious evidence for your claim.

Your own "evidence" is anecdotal. "I have a Japanese friend, and he doesn't seem anti-American" or "people were friendly to me when I was there".

The Japanese attitude toward the United States (and by extension, the West in general) is a complex one, with America symbolically representing many different things. I live in Asia (Taiwan) currently, and because I trade stocks for a living currently I keep a close watch on the news --opinions, political rhetorics, economics--, particularly around Asia and Japan. I also read a large amount of books written by Japanese authors. I have a half dozen Japanese friends as well. So I think I can pretty objectively state that many folks in Japan do in fact consider Americans as ambitious imperialists that use both its military and economic arms to extract resources and influences through immoral means (their version of morality usually is not the same as the Objectivist version); although at the same time many of them also embrace the values that America represents, particularly freedom, wealth, and innovation.

Total war is the only proper response to an actual attack on the United States (assuming the responsible government has been identified). In other situations, smaller campaigns could be more logical. One alternative would be the bombing of weapons facilities or the assasination of enemy leaders. However, there is absolutely no situation which would justify the altruistic campaign of suicide which is being carried out by the Bush administration. War is about victory (the swift accomplishment of well-defined goals), not about "compassion".

I agree. If you decide to fight, fight to win.

Military action against China would be immoral, but not because it would violate any "rights" of the Chinese regime to "property". After all, that regime does not even recognize the property rights of its own citizens.

Then why is it immoral? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

And why do you think that it is moral for Commodore Perry to use force to coerce a country to trade with the United States? What difference does it make that it is authoritarian? Would it be okay if we did the same thing to any authoritarian countries today?

Do you think that history is irrelevant?

History is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to making moral decisions. Only principles are relevant. What other countries with military strength did in the past should have NO EFFECT what so ever over the United State's actions.

To answer your question, yes the rest of the world most certainly should be grateful for America's dedication to freedom. Do you believe that it is acceptable to resent the good (as many foreign anti-American propagandists do)? The proper response to the good is admiration in spirit, and support in action. Is this the reason that the United States should protect freedom? No, but I never implied that.

So any time you see a bigger and stronger man, do you think to yourself, "boy I am grateful that guy is dedicated to obeying the law and not fucking me up right now"? Personally I am not grateful when someone is behaving morally, because that is what he ought to be in the first place. However it IS unfortunate that many people do not necessarily behave the same way.

I do not think that people in general resent the United States when we are unequivocally "good". No one resented us for fighting the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II, when we defended Kuwait from Iraqi invasion, or when we bombed Afghanistan. It is only when our moral positions are dubious or unclear that tend to result in resentment -- for instance Vietnam or the current Iraqi war.

[Moebius]

From a brief search, I can see that the situation has indeed changed somewhat since I lived in Japan (in the early 1990s). That is too bad. However I do not see any evidence that anti-Americanism is worse there than in, for example, most of Western Europe. Furthermore, the anti-Americanism is recent, and I would claim that it is merely a phenomenon that has been passively absorbed by the new generation. Therefore, I am not convinced that our actions in World War II (in which we fought with most of Western Europe and against Japan) have had any negative affect on the current situation.

Well that "new generation" would be my generation. So that is probably why our opinions differed. The United States had an unassailable moral position during World War II, so you are right that there aren't any negative effects.

I would like to state that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was morally right regardless of what the Japanese could have been expected to think about America decades later. In fact, however, one of the benefits of total war is convincing your enemies that their way of life is a failure and must be renounced.

Yes, when making the decision to drop an atomic weapon, the future opinion of the country you are planning to bomb is irrelevant. Although I do not think that it was the total war itself that convinced Japan that their way of life was a failure. I honestly don't think you can convince anyone of anything purely through the application of force. What convinced that Japanese was the fact that their rebuilt economy under the groundworks laid out by the United States soon became the second largest economy in the world, and they made the quantum leap from a group of angry island folks into a major international power.

Come to think of it, that is probably a much better way to "win" -- not with the complete annihilation of your enemy, but by converting them to your way of life and proving that it is indeed superior. This doesn't necessarily have to begin with force, as we can see from the slow transformation of China into a more open society (obviously they still have a long way to go). Which is indeed why I hope the situation with Iraq works out -- they could be the idealogical springboard needed for the importation of Western values.

[Mammon]

We would do this only as a last resort to keep the "irrational, bloodthirsty and demented" from doing it to us first. We would do it out of protection of our innocent citizens in our mostly free countries, they would strike us first because they are evil, i.e., they would do it out of hatred of our moral virtues. What you are doing is equating a moral use of force with an evil use of force, that's "irrational and demented".

I'm going off of this and your other posts in this thread to say my piece.

First off, there are always consequences and they are always relevant. To say otherwise is foolish. To say otherwise is to say I can do whatever I please and it would have no ill effects on me. The principle applies as rigorously to individual relationships as it does with relationships between countries.

Now for you, EC, and everyone else who supports military action against Iran*, let me ask this -- would you do it tomorrow? If the decision was in your hands, would you wipe out Iran at this moment? And what do you think would happen?

If our current leaders did, they defiantly wouldn't be able to justify the decision to the rest of the world. And I know the thought that just went through your head, you thought "who cares about the rest of the world" or "why should we care?" Well, the rest of the world has nukes too. And they hold large amounts of U.S. T-bills, like China, and are heavily invested in U.S. based assets, like Dubai. If you appear to be this evil war-mongering insane country (whether it's true or not is a different subject) the world will take action. They might decided that the U.S. must be stopped, and huge economic problems will follow for us, and maybe military retaliation; maybe even nukes.

Those are the consequences. Not all of them either, I'm sure we can think of more if you we elect to actually stop evading the issue.

Now, I don't like Iran anymore more the next forum member here. But I'd much rather wait until we have full proof, evidence, moral resolve, and support of key allies before we make a move. That's the difference between 1941 Japan and 2008 Iran... Japan attacked us with a full military force and declared war on us. It was obvious that they were a threat and full force had to be taken to stop them. Iran is still iffy... they have a lot of bark and very little bite when it comes to being a threat to the U.S. It's a dog whose fleas pose more of a problem. They are more of a threat to Israel, and if we can pin them down showing they are planning an attack or something, I'm all for military action.

As for the embassy-hostage situation, I think that proves Iran isn't our friend, but if we invaded them right now for it -- it would almost be irrelevant.

*What I mean by this is the people in this thread defending attacking Iran under the "guy making a gun" analogy.

[EC]

If we essentially wiped Iran off the map, the rest of the world would do nothing. They might "speak out", but they would also quickly realize that their whole collective David wouldn't stand a chance against our Goliath when we know we are in the moral right

By the way, if the decision was in my hands Iran, Syria, and North Korea would have all ceased to be threats years ago. And if any other nation or even all the other nations of the world became a similar threat as a result, they would be dealt with just as quickly and easily. I think you are massively over-estimating even the combined military value of the rest of the world and/or it's ability to use it from lack of any proper moral convictions. It's not who's going to let me do it--it's who's going to stop me.

Edited July 31, 2008 by EC

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Your own "evidence" is anecdotal. "I have a Japanese friend, and he doesn't seem anti-American" or "people were friendly to me when I was there".

Personal experience certainly counts as evidence, but mine was severely outdated. I agree with you that there is now anti-American sentiment in Japan. I just don't think that it is a result of our actions toward Japan in WWII (I maintain that the sentiment is relatively recent). From your posts, I take it that you agree with this?

Then why is it immoral? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Because the proper purpose of the government in war is to protect American lives and property from foreign governments. Since China has threatened neither, it would be altruistic of us to spend billions trying to liberate China. It would be a violation of the rights of Americans to have their money and lives (in the case of soldiers) spent in war only when there is actual need of this. We would not, however, be violating the "rights" of the Chinese government, since dictatorships forfeit their rights.

And why do you think that it is moral for Commodore Perry to use force to coerce a country to trade with the United States?

I don't. I don't think that trade restrictions are an act of war (assuming that would-be traders are sent away peacefully, and not harmed).

History is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to making moral decisions. Only principles are relevant. What other countries with military strength did in the past should have NO EFFECT what so ever over the United State's actions.

I don't recall trying to draw moral principles from history in any of my posts. In any case, I agree. The point is that the critics of American "imperialism" are very immoral, since they give moral defense to horrible dictatorships against the freest country on Earth. It would be moral of them to criticize the United States for fighting frivolous wars which are not in its own interest, and to urge it to be more decisive in wars. Most of these people, however, are motivated by a hatred of the good. It is a monstrous reversal to claim that the United States must not go to war, while defending the "right" of countries like Iran to threaten us constantly. They take our citizens hostage, issue death threats to people living abroad, finance terrorist groups which kill Americans, and spread explicit anti-American and anti-semitic propaganda (what they do to their own citizens is worse). A saner world would be filled with anti-Iranian sentiment.

Personally I am not grateful when someone is behaving morally, because that is what he ought to be in the first place.

Then I absolutely disagree. I quote from Dr. Leonard Peikoff's essay Fact and Value:

NOW TAKE THE CASE of Ayn Rand, who discovered true ideas on a virtually unprecedented scale. Do any of you who agree with her philosophy respond to it by saying “Yeah, it’s true”—without evaluation, emotion, passion? Not if you are moral.

The United States, as the freest country in the World, deserves the admiration and emulation of people everywhere, not the calumny it receives.

I do not think that people in general resent the United States when we are unequivocally "good". No one resented us for fighting the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II, when we defended Kuwait from Iraqi invasion, or when we bombed Afghanistan. It is only when our moral positions are dubious or unclear that tend to result in resentment -- for instance Vietnam or the current Iraqi war.

Criticism of U.S. policy is appropriate in the case of Iraq or Vietnam. But to uphold the enemies of the United States as morally superior in those cases (as many do) is an outrage.

[William Scott Scherk]

Analogies are never perfect but I find this one quite apt.

You are in a room with someone who you know to be a murderer. He says he is definitely not assembling a gun. Of course, you don't know if he is actually building a gun or not because he is a murderer. He has said that you are the equivalent of the devil and that he intends to destroy you and your kind. You know he has bullets and you know he probably has the ability to build a gun.

I can't believe you wouldn't pull the trigger.

I am in a room with a person. His name is Iran, my name is Israel. I suspect that the man intends to kill me with an atomic gun, but cannot prove he has an atomic gun, nor that he is actually building one, nor that he actually has all the parts. I don't have much time. Best estimates are seven to ten years. I call Jack Bauer and my mom.

So, after a light lunch and discussion with my family and friends, I say, hey, Iran -- I won't say whether I have an atomic gun or not, but hint hint hint. I won't confirm or deny that I have a hundred atomic guns, but guess what, Iran? I am watching you carefully.

Iran, if I receive evidence that you are putting together an atomic gun, I will blow your legs out from under you before you get a chance to test it. How's them apples? I might only have 7 people in my family to your 70 million but I am crazy enough to pound your family into donair kebab if you even so much as think about putting your own gun together. Comprende? Oh, and another thing: your fucking dog Hezbollah attacked my family. Next time it does that, I am going to fuck you up bigtime.

One last thing, Iran . . . my elder cousin Yousay has 350 family members and 50 thousand fucking atomic guns. We will fry you in your own butter if you make the wrong move, you greasy little Persian nutcase.

Edited July 31, 2008 by William Scott Scherk

[EC]

Criticism of U.S. policy is appropriate in the case of Iraq or Vietnam. But to uphold the enemies of the United States as morally superior in those cases (as many do) is an outrage.

I don't understand this statement. In the case of Iraq we destroyed an evil dictatorship, if you mean staying there now trying to rebuild you have a case. With Vietnam we were in a fight against Communism and the U.S.S.R. by proxy. In neither case is the level of "criticism" of either war appropriate or moral. In fact, it actually shows the moral bankruptcy of a rather large part of our citizens over the last thirty or forty years.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Now for you, EC, and everyone else who supports military action against Iran*, let me ask this -- would you do it tomorrow? If the decision was in your hands, would you wipe out Iran at this moment? And what do you think would happen?

I would like to clarify my own position so that it isn't misunderstood. I do not support immediate war with Iran. What I support is delivering an ultimatum to Iran to the effect that any further actions or threats against America or its allies will be considered an act of war, or at least cause for military retalliation. If Iran was to attack American land or citizens at any point, I would support immediate, total war against Iran (the same would go for an attack on Israel). In the event of an explicit verbal threat to destroy the United States or an ally, I would be more inclined to support the dismantling (via bombing and assasination) of the Iranian regime, followed by an immediate withdrawl. So, for example, the "Israel must be destroyed" propaganda would have to stop.

The reason for this is not that Iran has not provoked us in the past, but that we want to send an unequivocal message to dictatorships worldwide. An immediate war would not send such a message, given our long-standing policy of appeasement, but would only cause confusion and chaos. "Cooperate or die" is the incentive which we want to give to our enemies. Spontaneous bombing in response to nothing specific will instead give our enemies an incentive to attack. "What are the Americans doing? Are we next? Maybe we should attack while we can."

I don't understand this statement. In the case of Iraq we destroyed an evil dictatorship, if you mean staying there now trying to rebuild you have a case. With Vietnam we were in a fight against Communism and the U.S.S.R. by proxy. In neither case is the level of "criticism" of either war appropriate or moral. In fact, it actually shows the moral bankruptcy of a rather large part of our citizens over the last thirty or forty years.

I agree completely. Proper criticism would focus on the methodology of these wars (as I think I stated). I believe, for example, that the war in Iraq should have been a "hit and run" aimed at destroying the regime and the military. It is ludicrous to suggest in any way that these dictatorships have some sort of rights which the United States has violated.

*Edit: Looking back at my posts, I can see that I was less explicit about this than I intended.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[Mammon]

I don't have much time. Best estimates are seven to ten years. I call Jack Bauer and my mom.

I LOL'd.

[Mammon]

I would like to clarify my own position so that it isn't misunderstood. I do not support immediate war with Iran. What I support is delivering an ultimatum to Iran to the effect that any further actions or threats against America or its allies will be considered an act of war, or at least cause for military retalliation. If Iran was to attack American land or citizens at any point, I would support immediate, total war against Iran (the same would go for an attack on Israel). In the event of an explicit verbal threat to destroy the United States or an ally, I would be more inclined to support the dismantling (via bombing and assasination) of the Iranian regime, followed by an immediate withdrawl. So, for example, the "Israel must be destroyed" propaganda would have to stop.

If it wasn't already shown, my position is something close to this as well. But, I'm not willing to fit them on a threat alone. I need prove they weren't bluffing. If I was the President and I heard the Iranian President say "The U.S. should be destoryed" I'd be upset and concerned, but I wouldn't call for military action unless a CIA official stormed in the room with evidence that Iran was actually planning or carrying out some sort of attack.

Spontaneous bombing in response to nothing specific will instead give our enemies an incentive to attack. "What are the Americans doing? Are we next? Maybe we should attack while we can."

That's the consquence and subsequent point I'm trying to make too.

[Marc K.]

I am in a room with a person. His name is Iran, my name is Israel. I suspect that the man intends to kill me with an atomic gun, but cannot prove he has an atomic gun, nor that he is actually building one, nor that he actually has all the parts. I don't have much time. Best estimates are seven to ten years. I call Jack Bauer and my mom.

I don't think you are acknowledging the reality of the situation -- maybe its just me but I wouldn't stay in a room with a murderer for seven years accepting his word that he won't kill me. And if your only solution when threatened is to call your mommy or a fictional character you must not think very highly of yourself.

If we can't agree on the reality of the situation, and that a threat actually exists, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with a statement of principle on your part:

Do you acknowledge that once threatened with violence a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the threat?

[William Scott Scherk]

I don't think you are acknowledging the reality of the situation -- maybe its just me but I wouldn't stay in a room with a murderer for seven years accepting his word that he won't kill me. And if your only solution when threatened is to call your mommy or a fictional character you must not think very highly of yourself.

!!!

Mark, it was humour, an ironic take on the 'emergency' situation. If you accept the intelligence from the NIE I posted further up in the thread, the real world timeline -- i.e., the actual time it will take Iran to produce a bomb if she decides to recommence her programme -- does not lend itself to the analogy put forward by Kelly's boss. You wrote you did not understand how the boss's analogy could be false in post 36. My last rejoinder satirized the original analogy by changing the 'frame' -- spoofing the essential fallacy of argument-by-scenario.

If we can't agree on the reality of the situation, and that a threat actually exists,

Marc, we disagree on the appropriateness of the analogy, and likely on the level and immediacy of the threat. If you have another look at my recasting of the scenario, you will see the problem I have. I do not know with confidence that the man in the room has or is currently developing an 'atomic gun.'

You appear to think that Iran holds a sword over Israel's head at the moment -- a nuclear sword, so to speak. Thus you appear to support some kind of military attack in the near future.

I guess I'll have to be satisfied with a statement of principle on your part:

Do you acknowledge that once threatened with violence a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the threat?

I would agree that a given country will act in line with what it sees as its national interest. If we are talking about nuclear threats in the world, it might be good to see what occured in a somewhat similar situation in the last few years.

Consider the situation with one other of the three Axis of Evil countries. The US, for example, was disturbed that North Korea threatened its allies Japan and South Korea with a newly-tested atomic weapon, and the US and its allies and other interested parties (not Jack Bauer) chose from among a variety of responses.

We can even recast that real world sequence into the language of the man in the room with a partly-assembled gun.

In this situation, there was an acknowledged killer (the DPRK attacked the South in 1950), who had developed a nuclear bomb, who had tested long-range missiles, had shot down civilian aircraft, who sustained a tone of belligerence and reckless defiance, and who was a most demented one-party military autocracy commanding the fourth largest military force in the world.

The US and its allies did not, however, choose to bomb the fucking bejeesus out of North Korea's military. Somehow, a very real 'gun threat' -- more serious than that presented by Kelly's boss -- was countered, and the nuclear weapons programme was brought to an end without a shot being fired. It could be argued that the US and its allies and other interested parties (like China and Russia) did whatever was necessary . . .

That might not have satisfied precepts of 'total war' and may not have satisfied bloodlust, but the chances of the North attacking its sworn enemy were diminished. Thousands or millions did not die, and the aim of a North Korea without nuclear weapons was achieved.

To agree with your statement above is to implicitly grant its premises in regard to bombing the fuck out of Iran -- without necessary specifics -- to grant its application to any confrontation; I think you understand that military action is the last resort, rather than the first.

[Nyronus]

I think that this is a false analogy because we have looked. The best people to judge whether or not a gun is being made went and looked and came back saying that there were none. Iran's posturing strikes me more as Cold-War style arm-chair crusader-ship than deliberate threats. You can make a Hitler analogue, sure, but unless the CIA is so desperate to get back at Cheney for all of the dirty buissiness that supposedly took place around the Iraq invasion, I see no reason for them to lie. Even if you fear the gun that Iran may or may not have, there is a question of how to approach the situation. You could shoot for the head (nuke Tehran without any forewarning). You could place a gun to their head and force a confession from them (international military standoff). You could blow out the man's knee-caps, crippling him and learning the truth while he is incapacitated (surgical bomb strikes with a brief invasion). You could bribe the man (dear god, appeasement). You could threaten him to get your friends to beat him up (diplomatic sanctions). But, I suppose you could argue that since he MAY have a gun, and he MAY use it, you MAY be in danger, therefore you have the moral imperative to blow the bastard's brains out because of the potential for a possible danger. It sounds kind of... well, rash. Also considering the man who first told us about the gun has lied to us about such things in the past, while the people telling us there is no gun (The CIA, not the Media), are normally trusted, and the man who may or may not have the gun is an idiot known for babbling like a wild-man and being laughed at by college students, well...

Now, of course, if the asshole draws a gun on you, put two in chest one in the head and leave the corpse to rot.

[K-Mac]

For your sake, I hope you're a quicker draw than he is.

[EC]

If our current leaders did, they defiantly wouldn't be able to justify the decision to the rest of the world. And I know the thought that just went through your head, you thought "who cares about the rest of the world" or "why should we care?" Well, the rest of the world has nukes too. And they hold large amounts of U.S. T-bills, like China, and are heavily invested in U.S. based assets, like Dubai. If you appear to be this evil war-mongering insane country (whether it's true or not is a different subject) the world will take action. They might decided that the U.S. must be stopped, and huge economic problems will follow for us, and maybe military retaliation; maybe even nukes.

In reply:

Were it true that that total defeat creates tomorrow?s attackers, we would today be fighting Japanese suicide attackers threatening nuclear bombs, while the Middle East and North Korea would be peaceful and prosperous. The facts are otherwise.-- John Lewis

[Marc K.]

EC:

I like your quote very much, can you provide a citation please? Sounds like it was from one of his articles in The Objective Standard.

-------------------------------------------------

Marc, we disagree on the appropriateness of the analogy, and likely on the level and immediacy of the threat. If you have another look at my recasting of the scenario, you will see the problem I have. I do not know with confidence that the man in the room has or is currently developing an 'atomic gun.'

You appear to think that Iran holds a sword over Israel's head at the moment -- a nuclear sword, so to speak. Thus you appear to support some kind of military attack in the near future.

OK, let's untangle this then. First, we should drop the analogy and go right to reality. Also, I would prefer to argue from an American perspective though certainly any principle I enumerate should be applicable to Israel. If this derails the thread then I would direct you to another thread in this same forum called: "Can You List Five Reasons We Should NOT nuke Tehran?". Link.

Implicit in your argument and stated numerous times in your last post is the idea that the level of threat from Iran has not reached some sort of zenith; I disagree completely.

In fact, the reality of the situation is that Iran has gone far past just threatening violence -- they have actually committed violent, murderous acts of war against the US and Israel and we would be well within our rights to put an end to the Iranian theocracy (whether they have a nuclear weapon or not) using whatever means necessary.

"Whatever necessary" means: whatever necessary. If a hand grenade will end their aggressive behavior, I'm all for it. In the case of Iran I would say the options range from complete military blockade to dropping as many nukes as ends their aggression. And that to not answer their violence with violence would be an abdication of responsibility by our government. And diplomacy is a joke at which they laugh. Any negotiations that don't end the Iranian theocracy would be an evasion and useless.

So, with further explanation, can you now agree with my statement of principle:

Do you acknowledge that once threatened with violence a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the threat?

And certainly you would agree that this general principle is applicable to Iran since they have gone past "threatening violence"; right? When I asked about this principle before you answered with:

I would agree that a given country will act in line with what it sees as its national interest.

I guess I should have specified "moral principle" since what you have stated is based on whim.

Just as it is important for the individual to act according to what is in his rational self interest in order to live; so it is important for a nation to act in its objective national interest.

Damn what most nations believe is in their national interest, they should discover what is actually in their national interest.

That might not have satisfied precepts of 'total war' and may not have satisfied bloodlust,

OK, so you don't accept the "precepts of 'total war'"; are you saying that anyone who does is blood thirsty? Kind of insulting.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Marc K.

[Mammon]

In fact, the reality of the situation is that Iran has gone far past just threatening violence -- they have actually committed violent, murderous acts of war against the US and Israel and we would be well within our rights to put an end to the Iranian theocracy (whether they have a nuclear weapon or not) using whatever means necessary.

Care to point out examples of these acts of war?

OK, so you don't accept the "precepts of 'total war'"; are you saying that anyone who does is blood thirsty? Kind of insulting.

I think he is saying you guys would use a bazooka on a cat that hissed at you.

[EC]

EC:

I like your quote very much, can you provide a citation please? Sounds like it was from one of his articles in The Objective Standard.

I got it from the quotes here, so I really don't know where he actually said, although, I would also like to know too so that I can read the whole context and article.

[William Scott Scherk]

And certainly you would agree that this general principle is applicable to Iran since they have gone past "threatening violence"; right?

No.

I hope you will answer Mammon's question about specific acts of war. I had also hoped that you might respond to the North Korean nuclear situation, and at least engage with my questions on that issue. It looks like you write off the diplomatic success of the US and its allies and interested parties.

I guess I should have specified "moral principle" since what you have stated is based on whim.

Thanks for the clear response, Marc -- It seems to me that you don't have much interest in understanding or discussing a point of view that differs from your own.

I got [the quote from John Lewis re: total defeat] from the quotes here, so I really don't know where he actually said, although, I would also like to know too so that I can read the whole context and article.

His essay in Capitalism Magazine, The lessons of Hiroshima.

[D'kian]

I hope you will answer Mammon's question about specific acts of war.

Easy.

1) Iran invaded sovereign American territory and held hundreds of American citizens hostage for over a year.

2) Iranian-backed groups, like Hizbullah and Hammas, have commited countless acts of terrorism against Israel over the past 25 years.

3) Other Iranian-backed groups bombed a US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing many Marines.

4) The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, as well as two bombings against Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, were carried out with Iranian backing.

5) Iran slipped operatives, weapons and ammunition to Iraqi "insurgents" making war on American and Iraqi troops and civilians.

Satisfied?

[Zip]

AR said that any free nation had the right to invade any dictatorship the only question being whether it was in a nations self interest to do so.

So to me the question that remains is that. Is it in the USA's self interest?