Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff For Kerry?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Islamic terrorism has been around for decades. Tiny Israel has yet to be defeated by terrorists, and look how long they have had to deal with it. America is in no immediate danger of being defeated by militant Islam (though we are losing this war). We will suffer attacks, like Israel has, for perhaps decades. But we will continue to defend ourselves to some extent.

Just because Israel has survived up to now doesn't mean they will survive beyond tomorrow, let alone next year. Terrorists are using Western technology better than ever before, and inflicting greater destruction than ever before. And they are hell bent to acquire WMD, (with Iran, North Korea, and others more than willing to help them) which changes the equation completely. Do you think we can survive decades of nuclear attacks? President Kerry, the archetype of the anti-military, anti-defense leftist, makes such attacks far more likely than President Bush.

But the terrorist attacks will continue as long as we maintain the foreign policy of self-sacrifice which Bush is firmly and steadily implanting into our system. With flip-flop Kerry in office we would get a flip-flopping foreign policy, and this would provide an opportunity for reason to be heard in between the uncertainty and wavering in policy.
Kerry's foreign policy would take self-sacrifice to a suicidal level. Bush will not.

The more immediate threat is someone like Bush, who is backed up and surrounded by the Neo-Conservative Christian movement, and looks for every opportunity to inject force and religion into politics.

I have not seen "Neo-Conservative" associated with the Christian movement before. In fact, most commentators I have read say that Neo-Conservative is a thinly veiled euphemism for Jewish Conservatives. Men like Wolfowitz and Richard Perle---precisely the most rational, hawkish men in the Administration. The more he associates with Neo-Conservatives, the better his foreign policy will be. John Kerry, on the other hand, will be advised by appeasers and compromisers and UN-first types.

Most disconcerting is his recent action (I just heard this on the radio today) to suppress the free speech of 527 groups like moveon.org and the swift boat veterans. Apparently, he doesn't like people using their own money to run political ads of any kind. This is a dangerous man.

And John Kerry is different in what respect on this issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't fully endorse all of MisterSwig's statements, I don't understand how you can so flippantly disregard the threat of religious fundamentalism.

Perhaps your difficulty in understanding lies in the fact that I do not "flippantly disregard the threat of religious fundamentalism." If they represent a physical threat then I say that we wipe them out. If it is a matter of ideas then I vociferously object. But I do not see religious bogeymen hiding under my bed. Some pessimistic Objectivists have been predicting collapse for many decades. I am not one of them. I look at the facts and I judge accordingly. There is nothing "flippant" about that.

Maybe you should look beyond the past decades of your life and read a history book.
Thank you for the patronizing remark. :angry: I suspect that I have already read more books and scholarly papers in journals on history than you will in several of your lifetimes.

The Ominous Parallels isn't a bad place to start.

Thanks for the recommendation, but he first time I read it you were not yet one year old and still needed someone to change your diapers. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
To sum up [Mr. Swig's] point, while the left have been more destructive in the past at implementing the morality of Altruism, the Right is transforming into an organization that will steal the mojo of the left and take it to depths of Alruistic destruction the likes of which we haven't ever seen in this country.

I think everyone here accepts this premise.

I do not.

Contrast this to the "Hurd" camp, which asserts that the Left most certainly could mess up the war a whole lot worse than Bush could, evidenced by the actions of Kerry in Vietnam and Clinton in Mogadishu/Bosnia. To this camp, conservatives are "basically sane" enough as to not permit a full socialism to be implemented. The left has implemented slow death by socialism in the past and it will continue to do so if encouraged. This side asserts that the Religious Right does not in fact speak for the Right, and will not be able to control Bush into making things that much worse. To this side the war is critically important and the threat to political freedoms is minimal.

That is an accurate description of my view, except for the latter half of the last sentence. I'm with Mark Twain on that: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." That said, the threat from Washington isn't nearly as grave and immediate as the threat from Teheran.

Both sides acknowledge that both the left and the right WANT to mess up the economy

Again, I do not think so. The Left wants to mess up the economy all right (as far as "mess up" is an accurate way to describe complete destruction!) but I don't know that any modern conservative wants to intentionally hurt the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Capitalism,

Do you read The Intellectual Activist?  The answer to your question can be found in the dozens superb strategic political essays my good friend Rob Tracinski wrote in 2001 and 2002.  In those essays, he and I were of one mind (sometime during 2002, the depth and quality of Rob's analysis of the Bush presidency took off and left me in the dust...not much better than a fan).

It started in the last three weeks of September of 2001.  Rob and I spent a LOT of time on the phone talking about what the hell the U.S. can do to protect our skyscrapers, our cities, our civilization, and our lives.

I was especially worried about the idea that destroying two of the world's most gigantic buildings -- and killing thousands of people -- was the greatest possible advertisement for a nuclear terrorist attack.  "If you give us the bomb, we'll deliver," the al Qaeda billboard seemed to say.

Of course, one thought going around among our acquaintances was that the United States could fire a couple dozen of our 135 kT warheads -- killing a few million Muslims where THEY work and live.  We'd terrorize all 1,000 million of them and put them in awe of ever daring to raise a hand against us again.

"...and then what?" was the question I asked.

Wouldn't some of our Muslim opponents, headless of the danger, rise up against us and renew their little war again?  (And there’s the problem of explaining why we killed 1 million friendlies -- fellow victims of Islamic tyranny – along with 1 or 2 million potential hostiles.)

So we came up with a colonial solution.

-- Jack

_______________________

I think that if you want to know how to defeat the islamist all you need to do is look at this:

PEOPLE, IDEAS, HARDWARE(resources), IMPORTANT IN THAT ORDER.

Now, i dont have to tell you that we should think of this war as attacking the enemy in the long term(his People, ideas) and attacking short term (his People, Hardware).

People, Hardware(resources): If we somehow got every ak-47,RPG, money supply and iranian nuclear sight to dissapear off the planet would that end islamic terrorism? NO, DUH thats the equivelent of gun control.

And if by magic we could make Usama bin laden and every terrorist on earth disappear or we nuked them off the planet do you think the war on terror would end? NO, why? becuase the ideas and culture that spawn these terrorist would still be around and in the long run little kids would grow up with the same ideas that spawend the terrorists. Attacking the terrorirst and their resources only eliminates the short term threats not the future threats.

War is fought at three levels, the physical, the mental, and the moral level(i say this is cultural, but thats just my assertion not any military theorists assertion). The physical is the least important so hunting islamists down would just destroy the immediate threat, nothing else.

But our problem is the Moral level, the post powerful,and as americans we are screwd becuase as you all know the world is full of altruists and in the public relations arena america will always look bad. Becuase since we are the strongest nation on eath we will always be seen is the bully nomatter what we do.

Read this to see what I mean:Power of Weakness

People, Ideas: Of course this is the target if we want to make any long term changes against the PEOPLE of the middle east. Remember , the 1960's counter culture did more lont term damage to america than any soviet army invasion could have ever done, as we all know ideas are powerful. But how do we do this?

How do make this massive cultural change in the Middle east?

After all, we arent Neo-Cons who think who thinkt hat just becuase we put up a democracy in the mid east everything will change, we all know that wont happen.

In order to undesrtand what im saying PLEASE read this:Neo-Cons Vs. Reality

How do we make such a long term change on the middle east? And it has to be LONG term if we want to win this war since the terrorist have the greatest weapon of all, TIME, William Lind said:

"In fact, in Iraq and in Fourth Generation war elsewhere, we are the weaker party. The most important reason this is so is time.

For every other party, the distinguishing characteristic of the American intervention force is that it, and it alone, will go away. At some point, sooner or later, we will go home. Everyone else stays, because they live there.

This has many implications, none of them good from our perspective. Local allies know they will at some time face their local enemies without us there to support them. French collaborators with the Germans, and there were many, can tell us what happens then. Local enemies know they can outlast us. Neutrals make their calculations on the same basis. As my neighbor back in Cleveland said, one of the Arabs’ few military virtues is that they are always on the winning side.

All our technology, all our training, all our superiority in techniques (like being able to hit what we shoot at) put together are less powerful than the fact that time is against us. More, we tend to accelerate the time disadvantage. American election cycles play a role here—clearly, that is what lies behind the June 30 deadline for handing Iraq over to some kind of Iraqi government. So does a central feature of American culture, the desire for quick results and “closure.” Whether we are talking about wars or diets, Americans want action now and results fast. In places like Fallujah, that leads us to prefer assaults to talks. Our opponents, in contrast, have all the time in the world, and in the next world for that matter.

Time is not the only factor that renders us the weaker party. So does our lack of understanding of local cultures and languages. So also do our reliance on massive firepower, our dependence on a secure logistics train (we are now experiencing that vulnerability in Iraq, where our supply lines are being cut), and our insistence on living apart from and much better than the local population. But time still overshadows all of these. Worse, we can do nothing about it, unless, like the Romans, we plan to stay for three hundred years.

Until we accept the counterintuitive fact that in Fourth Generation interventions we are and always will be the weaker party, our decisions will continue to be consistently wrong. The decisions will be wrong because the assumption that lies behind them is wrong. We will remain trapped by our own false pride.

What if we do come to understand our own inherent weakness in places like Iraq? Might we then come up with some more productive approaches? Well, the Byzantines might have something to teach us on that score. Greek fire notwithstanding, what kept the Eastern Roman Empire alive for a thousand years after Rome fell was knowing how to play weak hands brilliantly."

http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/lind_4_21_04.htm

So are prepared to be like the Easter Roman Empire? Jake wakeland said that the solution is the colonial solution, well that may be the case, i dont know.

But if it is,What do we have to do in order to succed?

I think this si what we ma need to do.

Forth Generation War

4GW continued

Eastern Roman Empire

Power of Weakness

I Hope you all take the time to read them and comment on what they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add another outrage to Kerry's resumé, one that people seem to glide over (when they speak of it at all).

In 1973, while on his honeymoon in Paris, Mr. Kerry used his father's diplomatic connections to meet with the representatives of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong at the peace talks. Upon his return to the states, he explicitly endorsed their "peace" proposals.

John Kerry enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served on active duty in Viet Nam from November 1968-March 1969. From 1970-1978, Kerry served in the U.S. Navy Reserves (inactive). So in 1973, Mr. Kerry was still on the Navy rolls as a Lt.

From the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Article 104: Aiding the enemy:

Text: "Any person who

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money or other things, or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or hold any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

Under the explanation: "Nature of the offense:

(6) Communicating with the enemy

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly."

It speaks volumes about the turmoil this country was experiencing that John Kerry was not tried for treason. By his own words, he is guilty.

This is in addition to the war crimes he claimed to have committed.

I submit that this man hasn't got the right to hold the office of dog catcher, much less the highest office in the land. Regardless of your views on the Viet Nam war, or on the Christian/Marxist debate, no one with this man's history ought to be president of this country. To vote for him is to spit in the face of every honest man and woman who ever fought for our freedom, beginning with the revolution.

Burgess: That there are atrocities committed during war is nothing new. To claim, as Kerry did while under oath, that My Lai was an everyday occurrance and Lt. Calley was merely the representative of our forces in Viet Nam, was to tar every single sailor, soldier, and Marine who fought in that war with the same criminal brush. To say that this was condoned, and indeed ordered by the entire chain of command, is to undermine the very defense of this country -- which was exactly the consequence of his actions, a consequence which is still playing out today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that if you want to know how to defeat the islamist all you need to do is look at this:

...

I Hope you all take the time to read them and comment on what they say.

I have read none of the links. I did not understand most of what you wrote here.

Could you essentialize your message? What one, two, or three essential points do you want to make?

P. S. -- Your screen name, al-Kufr, means "The Unbeliever" or "The Godless One," doesn't it?

My Arabic dictionary skills are primitive, but that seems to be what my Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary is saying. Is that correct? The name comes from the root kafara, the verb meaning "to cover," I see. I wonder if the English word cover is derived from the Arabic term kafara, or if that is only a coincidence of sounds. A surprising number of Arabic words have passed into English: algorithm, algebra, zenith, admiral, arsenal, chasm, and zero are examples, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Kufr:

I second Burgess's question. Could you please clarify your main contention. What is the strategy you are reccommending? It sounds like what you mean by '4th generation' warfare is a total immersion into the Arab/Moslem population. If this is true, then you are suggesting a type of colonialism even more invasive than Jack Wakeland's proposal. I'm not saying this is wrong. I just would like you to flesh things out more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that I have already read more books and scholarly papers in journals on history than you will in several of your lifetimes.

No doubt. :)

Look, Stephen, I am sure you are a very well-read man, and I have a lot of respect for you based on many of your posts in other threads in this forum. I apologize for my previous remark, it was a little over-the-top (though not as much so as your retorts). I am just upset because it seems like most of the people participating in this thread are not even trying to consider any points that differ from their own opinion. In several cases, it seems that these people have gone so far as to construct straw men to avoid dealing with the issue.

...If it is a matter of ideas then I vociferously object. But I do not see religious bogeymen hiding under my bed...

These kinds of "religious bogeyman" remarks are also arguments from intimidation, as far as I can tell, ridiculing anyone who holds the position that religious ideas and the people who advocate them are dangerous, without actually arguing for the opposite conclusion. And it is a straw man in that it attributes a much stronger position to your opponents than they have actually stated. I do not think there is a "religious bogeyman" or that religious fundamentalists are going to stage a violent revolution in this country or anything like that, so I'd appreciate it if you would cut the hyperbolic misattributions. My point is simply that, in the long run, religious fundamentalist ideas are at least as dangerous to this country as are the stale socialist slogans spouted by the left these days--and that we should therefore actively oppose those ideas now. Now, do you disagree with that? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And while you say that you "vociferously object" if it is a matter of ideas, I certainly do not see you doing so in this thread. What I see in this thread is quite the opposite--most posters are glossing over the distructiveness of those ideas and going so far as to suggest or insist that the people who hold and even advocate them are our allies (sort of like how Saudi Arabia is our "ally" in the war on terror, I guess). My whole point in this thread is that most of you aren't "vociferously objecting" to those ideas, and you ought to be.

That said, I want nothing more to do with this thread. I am tired of having my statements ignored, ridiculed, and distorted and thrown back at me as sneering straw men. So the rest of you can carry on, but I am done with this b.s. And I am going to talk to David about having this thread closed, although that probably won't happen.

But let me reiterate that, aside from what I regard to be the nearly inexplicable behavior I have observed in this thread (and you are not the main offender in that regard, Stephen), I do appreciate your often insightful posts elsewhere on the board and respect you greatly--and that goes for most of the other people in this thread with whom I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first I posted on the wrong thread, and now I realize that I made a factual mistake in that post. I said that Kerry went to Paris on his honeymoon in 1973. The correct date is 1970. Sorry for all the flubs.

I promise to use the bandwidth more efficiently in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But let me reiterate that, aside from what I regard to be the nearly inexplicable behavior I have observed in this thread

I don't think this thread is that 'inexplicable.' I do think that this thread has proven very valuable. It has shown how difficult it is to evaluate such complicated phenomena as cultural movements, political candidates, historical trends, etc.. As I have been writing in threads regarding the evaluation of art and movies, it is so difficult to accurately weigh all the various elements and reach a fully integrated evalution. This is further compounded by the fact that in trying to determine which candidate is going to do the least harm and the most good requires one to forecast for at least the next four years accross a wide spectrum of political, economic and social activity. I am a professional speculator. Accurate forecasting 6 months out is incredibly difficult, let alone four years.

The people who have contributed to this thread have each displayed how they weighed and evaluated the various pieces of the puzzle. Some have been extremely unforgiving in their evaluation of Bush and see him and the cultural phenomena he represents as presenting a grave, immediate danger. Others have been more forgiving and see in him at least some positve value as well as feeling greater sympathy to the better conservatives despite their religiosity. I feel most of the responses in this thread have been well reasoned and have made good points even if I don't agree with all of the conclusions. Some of the attitudes may be poor, but the thread has been very helpful. At least to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Kufr:

I second Burgess's question. Could you please clarify your main contention. What is the strategy you are reccommending? It sounds like what you mean by '4th generation' warfare is a total immersion into the Arab/Moslem population. If this is true, then you are suggesting a type of colonialism even more invasive than Jack Wakeland's proposal. I'm not saying this is wrong. I just would like you to flesh things out more.

Actually 4th Generation Warfareas a generational change of war in responce to ideas and technology, not some tactic

These are all the Generations if you have time to read it

Fourth Generation Warfare

I think we should fight this war on two levels, on the ideological level and on the ground. That means killing the terrorist and the states who harbor them andtrying to change the culture of the middle east so more terrorist arent created.

As for my opinion as HOW we should do it,well thats a lot harder question, i have possible ideas and alternatives(i may post later), but nothing specific this is VERY complicated and im no great expert on Military theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who have contributed to this thread have each displayed how they weighed and evaluated the various pieces of the puzzle. Some have been extremely unforgiving in their evaluation of Bush and see him and the cultural phenomena he represents as presenting a grave, immediate danger. Others have been more forgiving and see in him at least some positve value as well as feeling greater sympathy to the better conservatives despite their religiosity. I feel most of the responses in this thread have been well reasoned and have made good points even if I don't agree with all of the conclusions. Some of the attitudes may be poor, but the thread has been very helpful. At least to me.

You are right that this thread has been helpful, and many responses have contained good points--at least when people are offering their own, positive position. It is when they are responding to others' positions that I think the quality of reasoning has degenerated into embarrassing fallacies. But since much of the discussion is good, I retract my statement about having this thread closed. I was considering that out of frustration, as I was getting angry again as I wrote my last post, and I apologize for that. I can see now how petulant that made me sound (thanks Janet :) ).

But I still intend to drop out of this thread to avoid future frustration about it. As I've stated elsewhere, I am simply astonished that several people are not content just to blast Kerry and the left, but also try to whitewash Bush and the religious conservatives in the process. In all reason and justice, both deserve our contempt. And that is the last I have to say on the matter for the time being.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for my opinion as HOW we should do it,well thats a lot harder question, i have possible ideas and alternatives(i may post later), but nothing specific this is VERY complicated and im no great expert on Military theory.

Jack Wakeland stated in one of his brilliant posts (the one where he outlined his colonial solution) that the basic goal would be the 'forced reform of Islam' by military occupation. I agree with this although how to actually do it is as you said very complicated. I think many Objectivists are wrong to treat it as if it were immediately apparent. Its not as simple as just nuking the middle east.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But I still intend to drop out of this thread to avoid future frustration about it.  As I've stated elsewhere, I am simply astonished that several people are not content just to blast Kerry and the left, but also try to whitewash Bush and the religious conservatives in the process.  In all reason and justice, both deserve our contempt.  And that is the last I have to say on the matter for the time being.

That's a fair point and a legitimate concern. For the record, I found many of your posts very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just upset because it seems like most of the people participating in this thread are not even trying to consider any points that differ from their own opinion.  In several cases, it seems that these people have gone so far as to construct straw men to avoid dealing with the issue.

I have read only a small percentage of postings in this thread, but it is interesting to note that some of those whom you oppose seem to think the Peikoff-for-Kerry side here is guilty of just what you are accusing the other side of.

My point is simply that, in the long run, religious fundamentalist ideas are at least as dangerous to this country as are the stale socialist slogans spouted by the left these days--and that we should therefore actively oppose those ideas now.  Now, do you disagree with that?
If that is simply your point, them I am truly perplexed. As far as I know it is rather uncontroversial among Objectivists to oppose religion in a fundamental way, recognizing that faith is the destroyer of the mind. Certainly to the degree that such evil infects our culture it represents a danger, both short- and long-term, that must be dealt with accordingly.

But it is also interesting to note that, as Ayn Rand pointed out, she is basically one who is fighting for reason, not against religion. Did you know that she had originally included a priest as a member of the strike in Atlas Shrugged? The priest was to be of the best that religion had to offer, a Thomist philosopher. He was cut because his inclusion added confusion, a sort of sanction of religion among the more rational strikers that had proper professions.

And while you say that you "vociferously object" if it is a matter of ideas, I certainly do not see you doing so in this thread.

Well, as I admitted before, I have only read a small portion of posts in this huge thread, but has someone here advocated faith and mysticism such that I would vociferously object to?

What I see in this thread is quite the opposite--most posters are glossing over the distructiveness of those ideas and going so far as to suggest or insist that the people who hold and even advocate them are our allies (sort of like how Saudi Arabia is our "ally" in the war on terror, I guess).  My whole point in this thread is that most of you aren't "vociferously objecting" to those ideas, and you ought to be.

Well, just speaking for myself, I have felt little need to have to vociferously object to religion in this thread. As I said above, that is a rather uncontroversial subject as far as I am concerned. But, I have felt the need to point out that there is an immediate physical threat to us in the form of terrorism, and I prioritize that as being the most important criterion in this election. Hence I am an Anti-Bushian for Bush, and would never do anything as horrendous as vote for a man like Kerry who would enable the enemies who physically threaten us at this very moment.

That said, I want nothing more to do with this thread.  I am tired of having my statements ignored, ridiculed, and distorted and thrown back at me as sneering straw men.  So the rest of you can carry on, but I am done with this b.s.
The more that I see of the attitude you express the more I understand why others feel towards the side you are on just as you seem to feel towards them.

And I am going to talk to David about having this thread closed, although that probably won't happen.

I certainly hope that that will not happen, since this thread is not about satisfying you, but rather about people discussing their views about an important issue of practical concern to them. Why would you ever want to use the power of moderation as apparent retribution for your own frustration? All you need do is stay out the thread and let others pursue their ideas and debate on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, just speaking for myself, I have felt little need to have to vociferously object to religion in this thread. As I said above, that is a rather uncontroversial subject as far as I am concerned. But, I have felt the need to point out that there is an immediate physical threat to us in the form of terrorism, and I prioritize that as being the most important criterion in this election. Hence I am an Anti-Bushian for Bush, and would never do anything as horrendous as vote for a man like Kerry who would enable the enemies who physically threaten us at this very moment.

Fair enough. (Although it is still questionable whether Bush will do enough to protect American interests in that regard to make him worth re-electing on those grounds.)

The more that I see of the attitude you express the more I understand why others feel towards the side you are on just as you seem to feel towards them.
I suppose it's easier to say something like this than actually address my points.

I certainly hope that that will not happen, since this thread is not about satisfying you, but rather about people discussing their views about an important issue of practical concern to them. Why would you ever want to use the power of moderation as apparent retribution for your own frustration? All you need do is stay out the thread and let others pursue their ideas and debate on their own.

This has already been addressed, and if you'd seen fit to read my last post there would have been no need for you to sneak in this little jab.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has already been addressed, and if you'd seen fit to read my last post there would have been no need for you to sneak in this little jab.

Nothing is quite as revealing of your real underlying attitude then these unwarranted and thoughtless remarks you make here. Evidently it is not enough that you have accused several posters of nefarious deeds in how they addressed your posts, but now you are so quick to accuse me personally of something that is patently absurd. Did it even occur to you that I read your posting and responded to it before ever seeing any other postings in the thread? Did it even occur to you that your other posting (which I have now read) did not even appear to me until after I was finished writing my response to you?

I receive email notifications of postings to threads that I am active in, and when I read what is in the email then if I care to respond I often click on the pointer in the email, which takes me directly to the post I just read. I finish my response before seeing any other emails that have subsequently come in, often arriving during the time that I am composing my response.

But the chip on your shoulder and your quickness to judge seems to have stopped you from you ever considering reasonable behavior on my part, and instead you scold me for not doing what you unreasonably feel should have been done, and accuse me of sneaking something in. I submit this unwarranted attack you have made on me as further evidence of the attitude that you have brought to this thread, an attitude that you unjustly accuse others of having, the same as you unjustly accused me now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing is quite as revealing of your real underlying attitude then these unwarranted and thoughtless remarks you make here...

Look back at some of your own remarks and then talk to me about my "real underlying attitude."

But the chip on your shoulder and your quickness to judge seems to have stopped you from you ever considering reasonable behavior on my part, and instead you scold me for not doing what you unreasonably feel should have been done, and accuse me of sneaking something in. I submit this unwarranted attack you have made on me as further evidence of the attitude that you have brought to this thread, an attitude that you unjustly accuse others of having, the same as you unjustly accused me now.

There is no chip on my shoulder. I have nothing personal against most of the posters here. I simply pointed out some fallacious reasoning on the part of some of them, and was met by some of those with personal attacks. (Others responded much more reasonably.) It is true that after many many pages of this, I allowed my frustration to get the better of me and made a few inappropriate comments. But I have already apologized for those, so I don't know what more you want from me. I am not sure what your problem is with me, or why you have decided to base your judgment of me and my "attitude" on a minor disagreement in this one thread (while telling me that I'm too quick to judge). But frankly, I don't give a damn what you think of me. Not only will I not discuss the topic of this thread with you any further, I will also no longer publicly respond to personal attacks here. But I will start giving warnings for them. That is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure what your problem is with me

I just told you, and you have not acknowledged it at all. You unjustly scolded me for unreasonably expecting me to read your future posts while I was in the process of responding to an earlier one, and you wildly accused me of being devious by sneaking something in. I consider such actions and accusations to be unreasonable, unwarranted, and unjust.

But frankly, I don't give a damn what you think of me.  Not only will I not discuss the topic of this thread with you any further, I will also no longer publicly respond to personal attacks here.  But I will start giving warnings for them.  That is all.

A question to the moderators: Are "Admins" immune from "warnings" or are other moderators authorized to give them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Wakeland stated in one of his brilliant posts (the one where he outlined his colonial solution) that the basic goal would be the 'forced reform of Islam' by military occupation. I agree with this although how to actually do it is as you said very complicated. I think many Objectivists are wrong to treat it as if it were immediately apparent. Its not as simple as just nuking the middle east.

Yeah, here are some good quotes from those articles i posted on how this could be done .

-"state militaries may not be able to come to grips with Fourth Generation enemies no matter what they do. But for what they are worth, here are our thoughts to date:

If America had some Third Generation ground forces, capable of maneuver warfare, we might be able to fight battles of encirclement. The inability to fight battles of encirclement is what led to the failure of Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda stood, fought us, and got away with few casualties. To fight such battles we need some true light infantry, infantry that can move farther and faster on its feet than the enemy, has a full tactical repertoire (not just bumping into the enemy and calling for fire) and can fight with its own weapons instead of depending on supporting arms. We estimate that U.S. Marine infantry today has a sustained march rate of only 10-15 kilometers per day; German World War II line, not light, infantry could sustain 40 kilometers. "

-"Fourth Generation opponents will not sign up to the Geneva Conventions, but might some be open to a chivalric code governing how our war with them would be fought? It’s worth exploring. "

Now i think this one is just insane, i told you Lind is a Pragmatist

-"How U.S. forces conduct themselves after the battle may be as important in 4GW as how they fight the battle.

What the Marine Corps calls “cultural intelligence” is of vital importance in 4GW, and it must go down to the lowest rank. In Iraq, the Marines seemed to grasp this much better than the U.S. Army. "

-One key to success is integrating our troops as much as possible with the local people.

-Unfortunately, the American doctrine of “force protection” works against integration and generally hurts us badly. Here’s a quote from the minutes of the seminar:

There are two ways to deal with the issue of force protection. One way is the way we are currently doing it, which is to separate ourselves from the population and to intimidate them with our firepower. A more viable alternative might be to take the opposite approach and integrate with the community. That way you find out more of what is going on and the population protects you. The British approach of getting the helmets off as soon as possible may actually be saving lives.

What “wins” at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.

We must recognize that in 4GW situations, we are the weaker, not the stronger party, despite all our firepower and technology.

What can the U.S. military learn from cops? Our reserve and National Guard units include lots of cops; are we taking advantage of what they know? "

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190..._120503,00.html

-"* One key to success in 4GW may be "losing to win." Part of the reason the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not succeeding is that our initial invasion destroyed the state, creating a happy hunting ground for Fourth Generation forces. In a world where the state is in decline, if you destroy a state, it is very difficult to recreate it. Here's another quote from the minutes of the seminar:

"The discussion concluded that while war against another state may be necessary one should seek to preserve that state even as one defeats it. Grant the opposing armies the 'honors of war,' tell them what a fine job they did, make their defeat 'civilized' so they can survive the war institutionally intact and then work for your side. This would be similar to 18th century notions of civilized war and contribute greatly to propping up a fragile state. Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make. This is because the 'football mentality' we have developed since World War II works against us." "

-In the Axis occupation of the Balkans during World War II, the Italians in many ways were more effective than the Germans. The key to their success is that they did not want to fight. On Cyprus, the U.N. commander rated the Argentine battalion as more effective than the British or the Austrians because the Argentines did not want to fight. What lessons can U.S. forces draw from this? "

-How would the Mafia do an occupation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...