Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Seeking Peace Instead of Victory

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The surest way to victory is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. This may involve the utter devastation of the enemy by either destroying large parts of his infrastructure (Germany in WWII) or by choking off the flow of raw amterials and food he needs to sustain his war machine (Germany in WWI).

That's what makes fighting a war against terrorist groups so difficult. I deally Israel whould attack Syria and Iran in addition to Hammas and Hizbullah. That would insure a complete victory. But achieving that may be beyond Israel's means. Oh, she can strike at Iran and Syria, surely, and inflict heavy dammage. But she cannot occupy Syria or Iran (never mind both), or topple their governments, or even inflict so much damage they'd rather leave Israel alone. Unless Israel were to use nuclear weapons, but that won't happen.

So instead Israel can beat up Gaza so badly as to make Gazans unwilling to fight any further. The fanatics won't be deterred. Fanatics never are. But the populace at large might be. This sounds cruel and ugly, but that's how war is like. If Gazans elect Hammas, and support Hammas, and rally behind Hammas when it rains rockets and mortars over ISrael, then they should be given a chance to experience waht real war is like, so they can decide if that is truly what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The surest way to victory is to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. This may involve the utter devastation of the enemy by either destroying large parts of his infrastructure (Germany in WWII) or by choking off the flow of raw amterials and food he needs to sustain his war machine (Germany in WWI).

That's what makes fighting a war against terrorist groups so difficult. I deally Israel whould attack Syria and Iran in addition to Hammas and Hizbullah. That would insure a complete victory. But achieving that may be beyond Israel's means. Oh, she can strike at Iran and Syria, surely, and inflict heavy dammage. But she cannot occupy Syria or Iran (never mind both), or topple their governments, or even inflict so much damage they'd rather leave Israel alone. Unless Israel were to use nuclear weapons, but that won't happen.

So instead Israel can beat up Gaza so badly as to make Gazans unwilling to fight any further. The fanatics won't be deterred. Fanatics never are. But the populace at large might be. This sounds cruel and ugly, but that's how war is like. If Gazans elect Hammas, and support Hammas, and rally behind Hammas when it rains rockets and mortars over ISrael, then they should be given a chance to experience waht real war is like, so they can decide if that is truly what they want.

This is very similar to Peikoff's beliefs on America's War on Terror. The only way to defeat terrorism would be a WWII type war against Iran and it's Islamic extremist populace. By allowing their government to fund and support terorism, the population is just as responsible, and therefor not inoccent. Hopefully the Gazans will realize that Israel's bombings are a result of Hamas support in the region. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very similar to Peikoff's beliefs on America's War on Terror. The only way to defeat terrorism would be a WWII type war against Iran and it's Islamic extremist populace.

Iran's population is among the most (if not the most) pro-Western in Muslim world. As my generation (I'm 26) starts to get more power, there will be major changes in that country.

By allowing their government to fund and support terorism, the population is just as responsible, and therefor not inoccent. Hopefully the Gazans will realize that Israel's bombings are a result of Hamas support in the region. :)

Since overthrowing a stable government is no easy task, this is the wrong argument to make. There are many reform-minded Iranians who have tried/are trying to loosen the clerical hold over the government.

If you want to argue for attacking Iran, the proper argument would be to say "the blood of the innocent lies on the hands of the government." I would agree with this line of reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's population is among the most (if not the most) pro-Western in Muslim world. As my generation (I'm 26) starts to get more power, there will be major changes in that country.
However, Iran's population (perhaps with Lebanon's) was also relatively modern and pro-Western during the time of the Shah. Thirty years later, they aren't any closer to the west. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to argue for attacking Iran, the proper argument would be to say "the blood of the innocent lies on the hands of the government." I would agree with this line of reasoning.

Why? What proper function of the US Government (or any Gov.) would be fulfilled by "avenging the blood of innocents" in a country thousands of miles away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's population is among the most (if not the most) pro-Western in Muslim world.
So what? That isn't saying anything. They're anti-Western enough to support a rabidly aggressive Muslim police state. That's what counts.

As my generation (I'm 26) starts to get more power, there will be major changes in that country.
Yeah, and there's no reason to think that they'll be good changes. The philosophy of those coming into power, in both the West and the Middle East, is overwhelmingly nihilistic, collectivist, mystical, and pragmatic. It's an all out battle for the biggest gun, to be won by those with the biggest will to use it.

Since overthrowing a stable government is no easy task, this is the wrong argument to make. There are many reform-minded Iranians who have tried/are trying to loosen the clerical hold over the government.
Great... the pragmatic solution: if it's hard, it's wrong. Overthrowing Iran's government is no easy task precisely because it has the support of so many Iranians, who don't deserve our patience, sympathy, or restraint. We shouldn't even be concerned with overthrowing their government, but with annihilating their will to threaten us with force. Let them worry about how they're governed, and if they do want to live free, they can check out our founding documents.

Whatever pro-Western Iranians exist are too few and too ineffective to matter. They haven't stopped the jihad, they aren't going to stop the jihad, and they can't hold their lives as a claim against ours in the vain hope that they can stop their leaders from nuking us or Israel. As a political and cultural entity, Iran must be obliterated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's population is among the most (if not the most) pro-Western in Muslim world. As my generation (I'm 26) starts to get more power, there will be major changes in that country.

By what method did you reach this conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's population is among the most (if not the most) pro-Western in Muslim world. As my generation (I'm 26) starts to get more power, there will be major changes in that country.

How much of a consolation will that be in the event that the mullahs detonate a nuke or a dirty bomb in New York or Tel Aviv?

Since overthrowing a stable government is no easy task, this is the wrong argument to make. There are many reform-minded Iranians who have tried/are trying to loosen the clerical hold over the government.

I assume they'd have a much better chance at reforming the country if the stable, tyrannical government were taken care of first. You know, the way it happened in germany and Japan after WWII.

If you want to argue for attacking Iran, the proper argument would be to say "the blood of the innocent lies on the hands of the government." I would agree with this line of reasoning.

Let's see. Iran held a number of US diplomatic personnel and asorted others hostage for 440+ days. They were behind the groups behind the bombing os the Marine barracks in Lebanon and also assorted terrorist acts too numerous to mention. They are behind Hizbullah and Hammas, who are a threat to the existence of a staunch US ally in the region. Iran is also developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

Are those not good reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Iran's population (perhaps with Lebanon's) was also relatively modern and pro-Western during the time of the Shah. Thirty years later, they aren't any closer to the west.

The government isn't any closer...in fact, it's quite a bit further. There is a bigger distinction between "government" and "population" in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world.

Why? What proper function of the US Government (or any Gov.) would be fulfilled by "avenging the blood of innocents" in a country thousands of miles away?

He's talking about Israel, not the United States. And I wasn't saying I think we should attack Iran. I was saying that, if you're going to argue that we should, the only line of reasoning that makes sense is that the Iranian government is the culprit--not the Iranian people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government isn't any closer...in fact, it's quite a bit further. There is a bigger distinction between "government" and "population" in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world.
I was talking about the people. The western orientation that we see among jean-wearing, rap-loving Iranians is nothing new. It goes back decades (just replace jeans with mini-skirts and rap with... I don't know what). Also, be aware that this is not the culture of the majority, but the culture of the large minority of urban middle-class folk. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? That isn't saying anything. They're anti-Western enough to support a rabidly aggressive Muslim police state. That's what counts.

The Iranian population is incredibly young, due mostly to the insane amount of deaths during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. As a general principle, they are not anti-Western, and they do not support the government. They just haven't yet overthrown it or managed to moderate it. There have been attempts at moderation (i.e. the presidency of Khatami), but the religious establishment has been able to contain them.

Yeah, and there's no reason to think that they'll be good changes. The philosophy of those coming into power, in both the West and the Middle East, is overwhelmingly nihilistic, collectivist, mystical, and pragmatic. It's an all out battle for the biggest gun, to be won by those with the biggest will to use it.

The reformists are not radical Islamists. Again, I point to Khatami. He's not the kind of person I would want leading the United States, but, if his ideas had actually gained any traction, it would have been a huge step in the right direction for Iran.

Great... the pragmatic solution: if it's hard, it's wrong. Overthrowing Iran's government is no easy task precisely because it has the support of so many Iranians, who don't deserve our patience, sympathy, or restraint.

Once again, we have someone in this thread with no idea what he's talking about. The Iranian government does not have what you would call overwhelming support. At best, what it has is acquiescence. I think it's more likely that it just has a stranglehold on its population. Overthrowing a government isn't easy.

We shouldn't even be concerned with overthrowing their government, but with annihilating their will to threaten us with force. Let them worry about how they're governed, and if they do want to live free, they can check out our founding documents.

This wasn't a point I was arguing with. I only responded to the post on Iran to point out that its people are generally pro-Western (by regional standards, anyway) and that they aren't radical Islamists.

Whatever pro-Western Iranians exist are too few and too ineffective to matter.

Ineffective, certainly.

They haven't stopped the jihad, they aren't going to stop the jihad, and they can't hold their lives as a claim against ours in the vain hope that they can stop their leaders from nuking us or Israel.

It's been quite a popular hobby in this thread to put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I was pointing out a factual error regarding the political leanings of the Iranian population. Nothing more.

As a political and cultural entity, Iran must be obliterated.

Not an argument I'm picking.

How much of a consolation will that be in the event that the mullahs detonate a nuke or a dirty bomb in New York or Tel Aviv?

I assume they'd have a much better chance at reforming the country if the stable, tyrannical government were taken care of first. You know, the way it happened in germany and Japan after WWII.

Let's see. Iran held a number of US diplomatic personnel and asorted others hostage for 440+ days. They were behind the groups behind the bombing os the Marine barracks in Lebanon and also assorted terrorist acts too numerous to mention. They are behind Hizbullah and Hammas, who are a threat to the existence of a staunch US ally in the region. Iran is also developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

Are those not good reasons?

Nowhere have I said anything about my opinion regarding whether or not Iran needs to be dealt with militarily. I have only said that, if you're going to argue that it should, AndrewRyan chose the wrong argument. Arguing that Iran should be destroyed because "its people are radical Islamists" is stupid, precisely because its people are not generally radical Islamists. That's all I was saying.

I was talking about the people. The western orientation that we see among jean-wearing, rap-loving Iranians is nothing new. It goes back decades (just replace jeans with mini-skirts and rap with... I don't know what). Also, be aware that this is not the culture of the majority, but the culture of the large minority of urban middle-class folk.

Then what precisely is our disagreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? What proper function of the US Government (or any Gov.) would be fulfilled by "avenging the blood of innocents" in a country thousands of miles away?

I have to agree. In what way could there be a rational reason for a government to invade a foreign country on behalf of people that are not citizens of said government, when there is no initiation of force by the foreign country against the invading government? I find that a very altruistic view on the role of government, and if an invasion is to be made, the reasons behind it should be in self-defense against an agressor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iranian population is incredibly young, due mostly to the insane amount of deaths during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. As a general principle, they are not anti-Western, and they do not support the government. They just haven't yet overthrown it or managed to moderate it. There have been attempts at moderation (i.e. the presidency of Khatami), but the religious establishment has been able to contain them.

Why have the attempts at moderation failed?

The reformists are not radical Islamists. Again, I point to Khatami. He's not the kind of person I would want leading the United States, but, if his ideas had actually gained any traction, it would have been a huge step in the right direction for Iran.

Why hasn't that idea gained any traction?

Once again, we have someone in this thread with no idea what he's talking about. The Iranian government does not have what you would call overwhelming support. At best, what it has is acquiescence. I think it's more likely that it just has a stranglehold on its population. Overthrowing a government isn't easy.

How are they able to maintain a stranglehold on the population?

If overthrowing an unpopular government is hard, why was it possible to overthrow every single Eastern-European government (a dozen or so of them) in the course of a single year, in 1989, with minimal bloodshed?

This wasn't a point I was arguing with. I only responded to the post on Iran to point out that its people are generally pro-Western (by regional standards, anyway) and that they aren't radical Islamists.

If by regional standars, the people in Iran are more pro-West than others, then why is the country they form the most anti-West in the region? Is it the landscape? An act of God?

Nowhere have I said anything about my opinion regarding whether or not Iran needs to be dealt with militarily. I have only said that, if you're going to argue that it should, AndrewRyan chose the wrong argument. Arguing that Iran should be destroyed because "its people are radical Islamists" is stupid, precisely because its people are not generally radical Islamists. That's all I was saying.

That wasn't all you were saying. You also said this:

If you want to argue for attacking Iran, the proper argument would be to say "the blood of the innocent lies on the hands of the government."

Why is it proper for a government to attack a country for the reason you consider proper, above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's talking about Israel, not the United States. And I wasn't saying I think we should attack Iran. I was saying that, if you're going to argue that we should, the only line of reasoning that makes sense is that the Iranian government is the culprit--not the Iranian people.

You were engaged in a conversation with AndrewRyan, and the subject was Dr. Peikoff's opinion on America's war on terror. He (Dr. Peikoff) holds that the only way to win that war would be through defeating Iran, at which you replied that the only proper argument for attacking Iran would be that "the blood of the innocent lies on their hands".

So I repeat the question: Why is it the proper role of the U.S. government to provide justice/retribution for the "blood if the innocents" in another country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nowhere have I said anything about my opinion regarding whether or not Iran needs to be dealt with militarily. I have only said that, if you're going to argue that it should, AndrewRyan chose the wrong argument. Arguing that Iran should be destroyed because "its people are radical Islamists" is stupid, precisely because its people are not generally radical Islamists. That's all I was saying."--The Wrath

I never said that Iran should be destroyed because "its people are radical Islamists." I said that there is a moral right for Iran to be attacked, and that the citizens of Iran are not inoccent and should not be considered in a military action due to the fact that the Iran government exists. It is the responsibility of the governed to destroy the tyrrants, and not doing so shows either a) acceptance of the tyrrants, <_< apathy towards the tyrrants, or c) inability to deal with the tyrrants. I find c to be difficult to believe as no population has ever been unable to throw off the shackles of tyrrany.

I never claimed that Iran's people were or should be destroyed because of them being radical Islamists, and to say I did when there is written evidence to the contrary is twisting my words to fit your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only way to decide upon a course of action in any matter is by analyzing the available information. In matters such as war our main source of information is history.

What, in human history, leads you to believe that appeasement or restraint against an enemy who is ideologically conditioned to attack you (and is in fact attacking you at the present time), is the right course of action? When has such an enemy been stopped, unless they were facing the certain knowledge that any attack would mean their total destruction?

These calls for restraint, coming from Europe and America are completely baseless. Not a single western politician has offered a single rational argument to why preserving the status-quo is in Israel's best interest. Their only argument is the threat of withholding aid (from America), and cutting off trade (from Europe), and that may work to convince Israel, but it is the most vile tactic to use against an ally (to protect an enemy), the most self-defeating act they could perform. I'd say it is time for Israel to call their bluff, and prove once and for all that both the Europeans bureaucrats and the American politicians are powerless to carry out such absurd threats.

As far as the Arabs are concerned, what they think is completely irrelevant: they live in dictatorships, and their dictators are fully aware of the consequences of attacking Israel, so they will never do it.

Jaek

One rational argument would be that stability and not instability is in the interests of the United States (but not necessarily in the interests of Israel). Of course no politician in America is going to say "he it's all about us, so cut that out".

How is this bombing solving the problem again? Because i think you are correct, in the world view of kill or be killed, elimination (and not suppression) of your enemy is the only logical conclusion one can reach. Worked for the US via an few atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. What do you say Jake - it's only 1.5 million people?

Amos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have the attempts at moderation failed?

Why hasn't that idea gained any traction?

How are they able to maintain a stranglehold on the population?

If overthrowing an unpopular government is hard, why was it possible to overthrow every single Eastern-European government (a dozen or so of them) in the course of a single year, in 1989, with minimal bloodshed?

If by regional standars, the people in Iran are more pro-West than others, then why is the country they form the most anti-West in the region? Is it the landscape? An act of God?

Quit asking me "why" for everything I say. Every answer I give you, you come up with a "why" question. If I were to answer these, you'd do the same. Not only do I not know the answer to all of these questions but, if I did, it wouldn't be my responsibility to educate you. I was pointing out an objective fact. That's it.

That wasn't all you were saying. You also said this:

Why is it proper for a government to attack a country for the reason you consider proper, above?

Perhaps I mis-described it as the reason for attacking. It is better described as a reason why civilian deaths would be acceptable, should someone decide to attack. If you argue that it's okay to kill civilians because most of them are radical Islamists then, well...that argument is wrong on its face, because most of them aren't radical Islamists. It makes more sense if you want to say that attacking Iran is morally necessary and that Iran should carry the blame for innocents who die in the process, since the Iranian government made the use of force necessary.

You were engaged in a conversation with AndrewRyan, and the subject was Dr. Peikoff's opinion on America's war on terror. He (Dr. Peikoff) holds that the only way to win that war would be through defeating Iran, at which you replied that the only proper argument for attacking Iran would be that "the blood of the innocent lies on their hands".

So I repeat the question: Why is it the proper role of the U.S. government to provide justice/retribution for the "blood if the innocents" in another country?

You're misreading what I said. It isn't the US government's job to provide retribution for anyone. My argument, as I already stated above, is this:

If we (or Israel) decide to attack Iran, innocents will die. The blood of these innocents are on the hands of the Iranian government.

AndrewRyan was trying to come up with an excuse to kill Iranian civilians by painting them with a broad brush as being overwhelmingly Islamist. I'm saying that--not only is that not true--but that you don't need that excuse, even if it is true.

Edited by The Wrath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Iran should be destroyed because "its people are radical Islamists." I said that there is a moral right for Iran to be attacked, and that the citizens of Iran are not inoccent and should not be considered in a military action due to the fact that the Iran government exists.

I've seen this argument in so many threads on this board, that it grows very tiresome. Are you really going to argue that there are no innocents in the nation of Iran?

It is the responsibility of the governed to destroy the tyrrants, and not doing so shows either a) acceptance of the tyrrants, :lol: apathy towards the tyrrants, or c) inability to deal with the tyrrants. I find c to be difficult to believe as no population has ever been unable to throw off the shackles of tyrrany.

This discussion has already been had in the "why we should nuke Tehran" thread from a while back. In a nutshell, my argument in that thread is that it isn't anyones "responsibility" to join a resistance against a tyrannical government. A rational person might not like his government but, if he is able to maintain a generally happy life, he may not want to risk being killed. If a war comes that attempts to overthrow the government, then that person doesn't have the right to be a roadblock to regime change, but that doesn't mean it is his responsibility to take part.

I never claimed that Iran's people were or should be destroyed because of them being radical Islamists, and to say I did when there is written evidence to the contrary is twisting my words to fit your argument.

"The only way to defeat terrorism would be a WWII type war against Iran and it's Islamic extremist populace."

That's sure what it sounds like. But, once again, I digress. That isn't the point. The main poitn I was making is that you are wrong in your pereception that Iran has an extremist Islamist population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit asking me "why" for everything I say. Every answer I give you, you come up with a "why" question. If I were to answer these, you'd do the same. Not only do I not know the answer to all of these questions but, if I did, it wouldn't be my responsibility to educate you. I was pointing out an objective fact. That's it.

How do you know what I would do if you were to answer something? You haven't answered anything. As far as not knowing the answer to why, then how 'bout just answering the "Why do you think so?" or "Why are you saying that?. Surely there's a reason why you are stating all these (as of yet) unfounded claims.

Sure, it's not your responsibility to educate anyone, unless of course you have a purpose in posting on this forum. Then, you may need allies to carry out that purpose, and it becomes your responsibility to educate (or enlighten) those potential allies to the best of your ability, when you have the time. Since you're posting, I assumed you do have the time, but that's of course for you to decide.

Or at least that (and the fact that it is challenging) is the reason why I post here. What is your reason?

One distinction I'd like to make is that I'm clearly not looking to be educated. I'm looking to show that you are unable to defend your position, because you chose it arbitrarily, as a poll on the opinions of the majority of people you heard speak on the issue.

That's of course a very Kantian approach.

This discussion has already been had in the "why we should nuke Tehran" thread from a while back. In a nutshell, my argument in that thread is that it isn't anyones "responsibility" to join a resistance against a tyrannical government. A rational person might not like his government but, if he is able to maintain a generally happy life, he may not want to risk being killed. If a war comes that attempts to overthrow the government, then that person doesn't have the right to be a roadblock to regime change, but that doesn't mean it is his responsibility to take part.

If he decides not to act to establish a peaceful government (when there's an opportunity), then he is assuming responsibility for the consequences of that decision, whatever it may entail. (for instance, he is risking getting killed in the subsequent war)

If, for instance, those consequences mean that I am forced to go to war against that government, then he is not innocent: he has a choice to make, and staying neutral still leaves him in the middle of a war caused by his refusal to act. I have every right to treat him in a manner that is expedient (for my purpose of winning the war). I have no responsibility to protect him from that war, unless he chooses to become a useful ally.

But that's of course not the main reason why an attack on Iran is justified even if it involves a large number of civilian casualties. Given Iran's association with terrorist groups, and their ambition to build nuclear weapons, they pose a huge threat to the United States (and Israel). As a result, the government has a responsibility to declare war on Iran, and do whatever it takes to win that war, in a decisive manner, as fast as possible, with as few American casualties as possible. That use of force, in defense of American citizens, is justified by the magnitude of the threat: I don't mean just the force that kills those who are guilty, but the force that eliminates the threat, no matter who dies in the process.

Obviously, in a world without tyranny such a use of force would not be necessary.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sure what it sounds like. But, once again, I digress. That isn't the point. The main poitn I was making is that you are wrong in your pereception that Iran has an extremist Islamist population.

The majority of Iran's population recently elected a president who wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, is denying the Holocaust and risking a war with a superpower by building nuclear weapons.

I know you hate these questions, but why did they do that, if they're not Islamist extremists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know what I would do if you were to answer something? You haven't answered anything. As far as not knowing the answer to why, then how 'bout just answering the "Why do you think so?" or "Why are you saying that?. Surely there's a reason why you are stating all these (as of yet) unfounded claims.

How do I know? Because you've done it to all my posts. What is unfounded about saying "the Iranian population is not generally radical Islamist?" It is a generally agreed-upon fact by Middle East experts. It has been amply demonstrated in the past, with Khatami's victories in presidential elections. He is certainly no Islamist, and won both terms with 70%+ of the vote...and voter turnout was in the 80s. Ahmadinejad never came close to that kind of mandate, and he may very well lose the next election.

Sure, it's not your responsibility to educate anyone, unless of course you have a purpose in posting on this forum. Then, you may need allies to carry out that purpose, and it becomes your responsibility to educate (or enlighten) those potential allies to the best of your ability, when you have the time. Since you're posting, I assumed you do have the time, but that's of course for you to decide.

Or at least that (and the fact that it is challenging) is the reason why I post here. What is your reason?

My point was to correct a factual error. Quit reading more into my posts than is there to be read.

One distinction I'd like to make is that I'm clearly not looking to be educated. I'm looking to show that you are unable to defend your position, because you chose it arbitrarily, as a poll on the opinions of the majority of people you heard speak on the issue.

That's of course a very Kantian approach.

Jesus Christ. My guess is you've never heard of the authors I've quoted, with the possible exception of Alan Dershowitz, much less actually heard anything that they have to say.

Oh, by the way, the authors I quoted represent a wide variety of viewpoints. There is no consensus among them.

My position that the Iranian population is not Islamist is anything but indefensible. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, then shut up.

If he decides not to act to establish a peaceful government (when there's an opportunity), then he is assuming responsibility for the consequences of that decision, whatever it may entail. (for instance, he is risking getting killed in the subsequent war)

If, for instance, those consequences mean that I am forced to go to war against that government, then he is not innocent: he has a choice to make, and staying neutral still leaves him in the middle of a war caused by his refusal to act. I have every right to treat him in a manner that is expedient (for my purpose of winning the war). I have no responsibility to protect him from that war, unless he chooses to become a useful ally.

QUIT PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. MY POSITION IS: "THE IRANIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT RADICAL ISLAMISTS." I HAVE NOT TAKEN A GODDAMN POSITION ON THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTRIBUTE TO ME.

But that's of course not the main reason why an attack on Iran is justified even if it involves a large number of civilian casualties. Given Iran's association with terrorist groups, and their ambition to build nuclear weapons, they pose a huge threat to the United States (and Israel). As a result, the government has a responsibility to declare war on Iran, and do whatever it takes to win that war, in a decisive manner, as fast as possible, with as few American casualties as possible. That use of force, in defense of American citizens, is justified by the magnitude of the threat: I don't mean just the force that kills those who are guilty, but the force that eliminates the threat, no matter who dies in the process.

Obviously, in a world without tyranny such a use of force would not be necessary.

I don't disagree with anything you said in this quote. Your inability to understand the point I am trying to make is truly staggering. In fact, I think you have officially taken Inspector's place as my least favorite poster on this board.

The majority of Iran's population recently elected a president who wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, is denying the Holocaust and risking a war with a superpower by building nuclear weapons.

I know you hate these questions, but why did they do that, if they're not Islamist extremists?

Ahmadinejad's rhetoric leans towards being nationalistic, rather than Islamist. He's certainly an Islamist, but that isn't how he panders to the population.

Also, he never got support from the majority of the electorate, because the runoff election in which he was elected had less than 50% turnout. The same is not true of the reformist Khatami.

I think I'm going to block you now. I will not respond to anymore of your posts, in any capacity. You have shown yourself to be completely uneducated about this topic, your arguments consist of strawmen and attributing to me ideas that I did not express. You are a religious fanatic and a Randroid. It is people like you who give other admirers of Ayn Rand a bad name.

Edited by The Wrath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is unfounded about saying "the Iranian population is not generally radical Islamist?" [...] with Khatami's victories in presidential elections. He is certainly no Islamist, [...]

These threads do seem to generate much emotion.

Why don't we all take a breath.

Let me ask you a question about the above TW: does Khatami or the vast majority of the Iranian population believe that the basis of all law ought to be anything other than the Koran? If not, then they are Islamist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is unfounded about saying "the Iranian population is not generally radical Islamist?" It is a generally agreed-upon fact by Middle East experts.

What has been agreed upon by self-appointed experts has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. The truth is that which is proven by means of observation and logic.

This sentence might as well have read: Iranians are not generally Islamists because I like turtles. It would've been just as valid an argument.

I don't disagree with anything you said in this quote. Your inability to understand the point I am trying to make is truly staggering. In fact, I think you have officially taken Inspector's place as my least favorite poster on this board.

Ad hominem arguments are not valid proof. You exhibited no rational thoguht, while stating the series of arbitrary statements you are coming up with, and I have nothing to do with that.

QUIT PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. MY POSITION IS: "THE IRANIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT RADICAL ISLAMISTS." I HAVE NOT TAKEN A GODDAMN POSITION ON THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTRIBUTE TO ME.

You write this:

In a nutshell, my argument in that thread is that it isn't anyones "responsibility" to join a resistance against a tyrannical government.

I am directly contradicting that statement.

I think I'm going to block you now.

Block me how? You can't.

Just stop posting baseless nonsense, and I won't engage you. However, until you continue to post, I intend to ridicule you every time you post something you can't back up with logical arguments, until you quit posting. I have every right to ask questions, and I will do so. Unless you can come up with answers, you will continue to look like an idiot until you learn to think or stop posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TW,

It might be a good idea to view some of these so called mid-east experts with the same skepticism as you might view, say, a climate change expert. I havent read any of the books you listed, but the Israeli/Palestinian issue is hardly new. From what I have seen, it is always Israel that is told to sacrifice; it is always Israel that is told to show restraint; it is always Israel that overreacts; it is always Israel who perpetuates the so called 'cycle of violence.' Israels strength, its wealth, its territory, its sovereignty and its liberty must always be sacrificed to the poverty stricken, slum bound refugee. I rarely, if ever, hear an 'expert' stand up and say what is so often said here--that Israel has a moral right to defend itself. Now, I know you agree with that and are only criticizing tactics, but neither you nor these so-called experts have put forth another option other than appeasement and sacrifice to those forces that seek the destruction of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These threads do seem to generate much emotion.

Why don't we all take a breath.

Let me ask you a question about the above TW: does Khatami or the vast majority of the Iranian population believe that the basis of all law ought to be anything other than the Koran? If not, then they are Islamist.

I don't know that a poll has ever been done on this issue, but when I use the term "radical Islamist," I am talking about people who wish to use violence to subjugate other populations. The Iranian government certainly supports this. To whatever extent the public wants the Koran to be the supreme law of the land, past trends indicate they do not think their government should be using military force to conquer the rest of the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...