Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush's Justification

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Defeat the ideology, and you defeat the tactic (at least, until another ideology replaces it).

Ideologies are held by people. To defeat a force-based ideology, like Islamic totalitarianism, you must convince the practitioners of this ideology that it leads to absolutely nothing but their own swift, meaningless extinction and the swift, meaningless extinction of their supporters, too.

When dealing with an enemy nation, like Iran, it is the people of that nation who must be made to see the futility of their leaders' ideology. They must watch their countrymen die swift, meaningless deaths for the sake of their leaders' ideology, and they need to be made to realize that their government must be stopped and the terms of surrender must be accepted, before the flaming winds of Hell wipe away all traces of their civilization.

It is not our citizens' nor our soldiers' duty to die for the sake of the people of an enemy nation. It is the people of the enemy nation who must die and suffer, so that the war may be ended quickly and we may live in peace once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The subject of this ObjectivismOnline thread is, in part, President Bush's justification for the invasion and attempted pacification of Iraq. The following excerpt from a recent online news article addresses this point:

God on the ballot: For Bush and Kerry, religion a powerful but tricky factor

Alex Johnson

...

In “Plan of Attack,” his examination of the Bush administration’s buildup to the war in Iraq, Bob Woodward portrays Bush as unwavering in his belief that his cause was righteous, not merely right. “I haven’t suffered any doubt,” Bush said in an interview with Woodward.

The president’s religious conviction is the defining measure of his life, and of his administration. Lest there be any doubt, Bush said in that book: “I was praying for strength to do the Lord’s will. ... I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible.”

In June 2003, Mahmoud Abbas, then the Palestinian prime minister, said that in a conversation with Bush, the president told him: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida, and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”

Does President Bush believe that God talks to him?

Does anyone in this thread have any confirming source for this? (I doubt the veracity of any statement made by a member of the Palestinian Authority on any subject.)

If the answer to either of the questions is yes, then my next question would be: Has President Bush anywhere elaborated on this communication channel -- how it works, how often he uses it, and what other sources he checks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because going to war for the sake of national security (not just to benefit Iraqis and Afghanis) is one of the few proper uses of government. How it is funded is a separate topic.

Wonderful. I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners. Agree?
You know better than that. Keep your non-funny pacifistic belittling of a great cause to yourself.

Well, apparently even hard-line Objectivists are now starting to back away from "Operation Iraqi Freedom." ARI's Mid-East expert Yaron Brook is calling the Iraq war a failure: "Dr. Brook retracts his previous, hesitant endorsement of the Iraq War. He nows argues that the way we have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is worse than doing nothing."http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopi...hl=yaron++brookSo just how great exactly is this "great cause"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole concept of national self interest is really beginning to bug me. It seems to me that "national self interest" is an extremely statist concept and it is therefore gaulling to see it used by Objectivists to defend a necessarily fluctuating set of (often short-term, always political) imperatives. :o

Brent

I'm not sure why that bothers you. One of the proper roles of government is to protect the citizens of the country from outside threats, and that is usually the context in which the term "national self interest" is used (in contrast to altruistically helping people in other countries when it is of no benefit to us to do so.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideologies are held by people. To defeat a force-based ideology, like Islamic totalitarianism, you must convince the practitioners of this ideology that it leads to absolutely nothing but their own swift, meaningless extinction and the swift, meaningless extinction of their supporters, too.

When dealing with an enemy nation, like Iran, it is the people of that nation who must be made to see the futility of their leaders' ideology. They must watch their countrymen die swift, meaningless deaths for the sake of their leaders' ideology, and they need to be made to realize that their government must be stopped and the terms of surrender must be accepted, before the flaming winds of Hell wipe away all traces of their civilization.

It is not our citizens' nor our soldiers' duty to die for the sake of the people of an enemy nation. It is the people of the enemy nation who must die and suffer, so that the war may be ended quickly and we may live in peace once again.

The problem with this is that Islamic extremists don't see their deaths in combat against the "Great Satan" as meaningless. They see it as glorious martyrdom that will be rewarded in heaven. Unless you are planning to nuke every muslim on the planet, a purely military approach is not going to work. (which is not to say we should not kill terrorists and overthrow dictatorships but it's not enough). We need to combat bad ideas with good ideas, something that we are barely attempting at all, let alone attempting correctly and effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you are dropping context here and evading facts. Gulf War 1 happened before Bush took office and many of the post Gulf War actions were taken by Clinton ( and botched I might add ). He basically did nothing while saying on record in 1998 that he "knew" Saddam had WMD's. Everyone knew he had them. Remember Gulf War 1 when all the troops went in with Chem Warfare gear on? He had used them on the Kurds and the Iranians in the past so there was every reason to expect that he still had them. Well they were never accounted for. Baghdad was never occupied we basically stopped with the agreement that he would account for all his WMD's and dispose of them. HE NEVER DID THIS! This alone is justification to FINISH THE JOB of Gulf War 1. Thats it. Nothing need more be said for the justification for the war. By the way they did find Sarin gas in some warheads. Its not been covered in the media because it was "small" amounts but it was enough to kill 500,000 people. I'm sure they will find more and there is good intel that much of it was moved to Syria along with the Republican Guard and Saddams family.

Now the actual execution of "Iraqi Freedom" and the spin that has been put on and the appeasement of Al Sadr are all very debateable points. You depose Saddam but appease Al Sadr who is just as bad if not worse. Why? To "win hearts and minds". Rubbish. Take him out! How many American soldiers do his militia have to kill before we take him out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful. I think Bush should be allowed to spend whatever he wants to on what he calls "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as long as he doesn't use funds coerced from wage earners. Agree?

Again, you're merging two different topics. You cannot say the police are wrong to arrest criminals because they are funded by coercive taxation. Their job itself is completely necessary and justified, despite side issues like how they are funded.

Well, apparently even hard-line Objectivists are now starting to back away from "Operation Iraqi Freedom." ARI's Mid-East expert Yaron Brook is calling the Iraq war a failure: "Dr. Brook retracts his previous, hesitant endorsement of the Iraq War. He nows argues that the way we have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is worse than doing nothing." http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopi...hl=yaron++brook So just how great exactly is this "great cause"?

You weren't talking about Iraq. You were making a blind statement about dropping bombs and bringing democracy to the middle east.

BTW you know full well I've criticized how the war in Iraq was conducted. I haven't gone to your link yet but based on the fact that Brook supported it initially, I am guessing he sympathizes with the overall cause but judged the way we conducted it to be worse than doing nothing at all. I might be inclined to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're merging two different topics. You cannot say the police are wrong to arrest criminals because they are funded by coercive taxation. Their job itself is completely necessary and justified, despite side issues like how they are funded.

No, I am in fact separating them. I'm stipulating (for the moment) that Bush's policy in Iraq is correct. Now the only question left is how to properly finance it. Let's look at it another way. There is, say, $10,000 in the U.S. Treasury that was forcibly taken from my income last year. Now, if we have a choice, does the money come back to me

or does it remain Bush's to spend as he pleases?

You weren't talking about Iraq. You were making a blind statement about dropping bombs and bringing democracy to the middle east.

No, if you'll look at my original statement, you'll see that it specifically responds to post #15 which argues that there is a "higher probablity than with most other similarly geographically situated countries" of coverting Iraq "to a Western-style democracy."

BTW you know full well I've criticized how the war in Iraq was conducted. I haven't gone to your link yet but based on the fact that Brook supported it initially, I am guessing he sympathizes with the overall cause but judged the way we conducted it to be worse than doing nothing at all. I might be inclined to agree.

I guess the cause ain't so great anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why that bothers you. One of the proper roles of government is to protect the citizens of the country from outside threats, and that is usually the context in which the term "national self interest" is used (in contrast to altruistically helping people in other countries when it is of no benefit to us to do so.)

I agree, BUT :lol:

First, how does a nation (which in the case of the US comprises what 250 million people) decide its one national interest? Certainly the self-interest of Joe Arms-dealer is a lot different to that of Jane Single-Working-Mom. So how does the US come up with one unified national self-interest? The term "nation self-interest" is so open to spin. As I said earlier, I really don't think that most people have a clue how to define their own self-interest, that is why the vast majority do not have goals for their lives. What is and is not "national s-i" also varies from one administration to another. It is not an objectively set concretised standard.

Secondly, Objectivism as I understand it separates altruism from benevolence. The latter is morally justifiable, the former not so (I agree) and I think that benevolence will do much more in the long term to protect America than will bombing foreign countries that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. Again as I wrote earlier Osama's benevolence, carefullt manipulated, provides him with a steady stream of volunteer suicide bombers.

Thirdly, there is no way in hell that Iraq was top of the list of targets if the US wants to preserve its national security in any logical way. I think it is just as likely that Bush (the man not the administration) chose Iraq for personal reasons as for purely political/strategic reasons.

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that Islamic extremists don't see their deaths in combat against the "Great Satan" as meaningless. They see it as glorious martyrdom that will be rewarded in heaven. Unless you are planning to nuke every muslim on the planet, a purely military approach is not going to work. (which is not to say we should not kill terrorists and overthrow dictatorships but it's not enough). We need to combat bad ideas with good ideas, something that we are barely attempting at all, let alone attempting correctly and effectively.

Godless,

EXACTLY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am in fact separating them. I'm stipulating (for the moment) that Bush's policy in Iraq is correct. Now the only question left is how to properly finance it. Let's look at it another way. There is, say, $10,000 in the U.S. Treasury that was forcibly taken from my income last year. Now, if we have a choice, does the money come back to me

or does it remain Bush's to spend as he pleases?

Of course it should come back to you. But this thread is called "Bush's Justification"; we are talking about the war in Iraq. If you have really separated these two issues, why did you even bring up the first one?

No, if you'll look at my original statement, you'll see that it specifically responds to post #15 which argues that there is a "higher probablity than with most other similarly geographically situated countries" of coverting Iraq "to a Western-style democracy."

All the same, you post was a sneer against the cause of using of force to democratize them. You criticisms are better placed on the execution of the war, not the cause itself.

I guess the cause ain't so great anymore.

Unbelievable! The cause of intervening in the middle east, punishing our enemies, and establishing free, accountable governments isn't so great anymore? Again, the cause and the way it was done are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, BUT  :lol: 

First, how does a nation (which in the case of the US comprises what 250 million people) decide its one national interest? Certainly the self-interest of Joe Arms-dealer is a lot different to that of Jane Single-Working-Mom. So how does the US come up with one unified national self-interest? The term "nation self-interest" is so open to spin. As I said earlier, I really don't think that most people have a clue how to define their own self-interest, that is why the vast majority do not have goals for their lives. What is and is not "national s-i" also varies from one administration to another. It is not an objectively set concretised standard.

The standard is whether somebody is trying to kill the nation's citizens or capture its territory. Seems pretty objective to me. Now of course there are situations that require some judgment and where there can be honest differences of opinion. such as whether a potentially threatening country should be attacked before it attacks us. That's where elections come in; you get to vote for representatives whose judgment seems closest to yours (their actions are still of course constitutionally limited).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard is whether somebody is trying to kill the nation's citizens or capture its territory. Seems pretty objective to me. Now of course there are situations that require some judgment and where there can be honest differences of opinion. such as whether a potentially threatening country should be attacked before it attacks us. That's where elections come in; you get to vote for representatives whose judgment seems closest to yours (their actions are still of course constitutionally limited).

Of course, if we were discussing your first sentance only, I would agree.

But, in reality, almost all real life situations "require some judgement", in fact a hell of a lot of judgement and consideration of inumerable variables.

In fact even Objectivism doesn't hold the answers to these questions as one can see from the diversity of opinions on this and other similar threads. :lol:

A good time to agree to disagree perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that Islamic extremists don't see their deaths in combat against the "Great Satan" as meaningless. They see it as glorious martyrdom that will be rewarded in heaven.

Only if they think they have a chance of winning.

And not always. That's why they didn't tell most of the 9/11 hijackers they were on a suicide mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they think they have a chance of winning.

And not always.  That's why they didn't tell most of the 9/11 hijackers they were on a suicide mission.

Huh?

The Islamic suicide bombers and the hijackers know damn well what their mission is, and that it involves "suicide."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "The Communists wanted to globalize, too. Remember that before you defend the mission of "globalization." "

Got it?

No.

A question arises: Globalize what?

The communists, through "international solidarity," wanted to globalize statism. That is bad.

Captialist globalization, to the extent that it exists, is an attempt to create a global free market. That is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

The Islamic suicide bombers and the hijackers know damn well what their mission is, and that it involves "suicide."

In the case of suicide bombers, by definition, you are right.

However, according to press reports that have appeared over the last couple of years, spy agencies report that only the leaders of the 9/11 attacks were informed of the full plan. Some of the followers were duped into believing that they -- like their predecessors in the last 30 years -- would be participating in a hijacking designed to obtain ransom or some other reward and they would be let go as part of a deal to save the hostages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that Islamic extremists don't see their deaths in combat against the "Great Satan" as meaningless.

The extremists are not the ones we need to convince to stop the spread of Islamic totalitarianism. We need to convince the moderates and anti-extremists. These are the people who do want to live and who will do something to change their country, if we morally support their efforts and make it clear to them that their very civilization is in danger of being exterminated, because of the extremists in power.

It is not our responsibility to change the regime of an enemy nation. That is the responsibility of the citizens of that nation.

Not one more American soldier needs to die in order to win this war, when we have such superior weaponry.

All this talk about first, second, third, and fourth generational strategic warfare is really a distraction from the entire point of war, which is to absolutely defeat the enemy with minimal cost to your own country and people. This is why we invented the nuke. The nuke allows us to keep our soldiers in relative safety while the enemy nation's lifeblood spills more prominently, causing them to think twice about fighting and supporting a war against us. Complex strategical warfare is only necessary when neither side possesses an obvious military superiority.

It is a moral crime how our leaders are conducting this war.

There is no reason why our boys should be bleeding overseas. They should be at home, defending this nation's borders and cities from attack, until we are morally ready to identify and declare formal war on the real enemy and use our air force and bombs to break the will of evil nations.

Our soldiers are dying because our leaders believe in the duty of sacrificing for other people's freedom. Plain and simple. What makes their policy doubly worse is that the "other people", for whom our soldiers are being sacrificed, are the people of the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

A question arises: Globalize what?

The communists, through "international solidarity," wanted to globalize statism. That is bad.

Captialist globalization, to the extent that it exists, is an attempt to create a global free market. That is good.

Now you got it! :)

Globalization, in itself, is neither good nor bad unless it has a specific goal to it.

A globalization based upon capitalism and free trade is ideal for the universe, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globalization, in itself, is neither good nor bad unless it has a specific goal to it.

A globalization based upon capitalism and free trade is ideal for the universe, in my opinion.

I figured it was sort of implicitly recognized that I was talking about free-market globalization, but yeah, that's what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if we were discussing your first sentance only, I would agree.

But, in reality, almost all real life situations "require some judgement", in fact a hell of a lot of judgement and consideration of inumerable variables.

In fact even Objectivism doesn't hold the answers to these questions as one can see from the diversity of opinions on this and other similar threads.  :confused:

A good time to agree to disagree perhaps?

I'm not sure we really disagree. Government is concerned with protecting the rights of citizens, which are the same for everyone. Specific interests of citizens, like selling weapons or getting little Johnny to soccer practice on time, should not be the concern of government and are not relevant in determining "national interest." There can and should be some debate about how to protect that national interest, but within fairly narrow constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they think they have a chance of winning.

Yes, but they may have a very warped view of their chances. Apperently many people in the Islamic world believe that the resistance to the USSR in Afghanistan lead directly to the collapse of communism and that the West can similarly be collapsed by destroying financial centers like the WTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extremists are not the ones we need to convince to stop the spread of Islamic totalitarianism. We need to convince the moderates and anti-extremists. These are the people who do want to live and who will do something to change their country, if we morally support their efforts and make it clear to them that their very civilization is in danger of being exterminated, because of the extremists in power.

agreed

There is no reason why our boys should be bleeding overseas. They should be at home, defending this nation's borders and cities from attack, until we are morally ready to identify and declare formal war on the real enemy and use our air force and bombs to break the will of evil nations.

How are they supposed to defend our borders when attack can come by commercial airplane, shipping container, even a letter?

What do you mean by "will of evil nations"? The problem is the will of the evil dictators, not the average person in Iran or wherever. Mass bombing of civilians, most of whom do not even support their countries' rulers, is both immoral and counterproductive. You would kill or at least alienate the very "moderates and anti-extremists" needed to change the country.

Our soldiers are dying because our leaders believe in the duty of sacrificing for other people's freedom. Plain and simple. What makes their policy doubly worse is that the "other people", for whom our soldiers are being sacrificed, are the people of the enemy.

Again, the enemy is the dictators, not the average person on the street. Now I agree we are being overcautious in avoiding civilian casualties, but I do not think there is any justification for deliberate targeting of civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are they supposed to defend our borders when attack can come by commercial airplane, shipping container, even a letter?

Our massive military can provide security and inspections at airports and on commercial flights. It can provide security and inspections at ports and on incoming vessels. And it can patrol our borders.

I'm not sure how much military help the postal service needs. But, the point is that until we are prepared to use the full force of our military against Iran, then we are merely sanctioning the daily sacrifices of our soldiers to the enemy, because for whatever reason we believe that the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq is protecting us from Islamic totalitarians.

It wasn't until we pulled out of Vietnam that we started focusing on really protecting ourselves from communism. We built up an arsenal and threatened to use it. The same can be done against Islamic totalitarians. As a nation, we are in no moral condition to defeat Islamic totalitarianism intellectually. Therefore, we must rely wholly on military superiority and bomb them into the stone age if they don't leave us alone.

There is absolutely no sense to the argument that we can defeat the enemy by spreading our corrupt concept of "democracy" around the globe. We can't even establish freedom at home. All we are doing in the Third World is proving to the enemy that we are ripe for failure.

What do you mean by "will of evil nations"? The problem is the will of the evil dictators, not the average person in Iran or wherever.

Dictators don't spring from the thigh of Zeus, you know. They are homegrown. The average person in Iran either supports or is indifferent to the actions of his government. The good Iranian tries to leave that hellhole or speaks up against his oppressors. To the extent that we can support and protect the good Iranians, let's do it. But I would not condone the sacrifice of our troops for the sake of the enemy's population. Our troops are infinitely more valuable to us.

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...