Half-battle Vs. No Battle

[HaloNoble6]

I know there have been many discussions about this year's presidential election, so please delete this thread if you guys feel like arguments have been exhausted.

This article was posted on Cap Mag today, here's an excerpt:

[…]No other president in history was provided with the kind of perceptual evidence offered to Bush on 9/11 of the consequences of a selfless foreign policy. What has he done in response? Has he destroyed, from high altitude, the regimes that every thinking adult knows are the main sources of Islamic terrorism, as he easily could have and morally should have? He has not. He hasn’t even named them in connection with the attack.

[…]

That “a half-battle is worse than none” is not hyperbole; it is a principle. A half-battle shows that we are morally uncertain of our cause; it provides our enemies with moral confidence, time, and leeway to further theirs; it gives us a false sense of security while they orchestrate the slaughter of more Americans. That package-deals destroy crucial concepts in people’s minds—that false alternatives remove the correct alternatives from discussion—and that a commitment to religion makes one incapable of rational judgment—are principles, too. These are the relevant principles in this election.

It is an ugly situation, but there is a self-interested course of action to be taken: Vote for Kerry and try not to vomit; aim for a Republican Congress; and redouble your efforts to spread Objectivism.

What do you guys think about this argument for Kerry?

[BurgessLau]

The more arguments I read for one candidate or another -- in the U. S. elections or in any others -- the more I believe that every advocate should tell his readers not just his conclusions and key reasons for his conclusions, but also what method he used to arrive at those conclusions.

A writer's conclusions are no more objective than his methods.

What method did the writer here use? He does not tell us -- explicitly, step by step, and in easy-to-read outline -- though he does give hints:

1. Examine each candidate's political philosophy, especially on the most important issue of the day.

2. Decide which candidate's philosophy will provoke the most radical debate -- that is, debate in which Objectivists could participate with their principles.

3. Vote for that candidate.

So, if that is indeed the author's method, then my first question would be: Is that sufficient? Or should there be other steps in the method? Many other questions about method would follow.

(I have outlined -- in the "A Voter's Method?" thread -- my own initial suggestion.)

[Godless Capitalist]

With Kerry we would likely get a quarter-battle; how would that be better?

[HaloNoble6]

GC-

From the article:

...whereas Bush is willing to wage only a half-battle and will never be pressured to do more, Kerry would have to wage at least a half-battle and would constantly be pressured to do more. And regardless of what Kerry were to do—even if he somehow were to get away with doing less than Bush has done or nothing at all—at least his actions or non-actions would not be called hawkish.

I think this author is making the claim that with Kerry and a republican congress we have a chance to un-pervert our war strategy, Kerry having to be at least as "aggressive" militarily as Bush was while not being called "hawkish"--the claim that with Kerry we will have the chance to place America on a better conceptual footing, which will give us a better chance to improve America's war footing in the long run--the claim that with Kerry our military actions will be exposed for what they really are (weak) instead of being cloaked under an aura of "aggressiveness, strength, resoluteness, etc." as they are with Bush.

[noumenalself]

The more arguments I read for one candidate or another -- in the U. S. elections or in any others -- the more I believe that every advocate should tell his readers not just his conclusions and key reasons for his conclusions, but also what method he used to arrive at those conclusions.

A writer's conclusions are no more objective than his methods.

Here is the method I used to arrive at the idea that a half-battle is worse than no battle. Before the Iraq war, I thought the opposite. I thought that something was better than nothing. Then I watched the war. I noticed that the longer we stayed there, the worse the attacks against us seemed to get. Before the war, I thought that any amount of force against oppressive regimes would be a net positive. Then when it seemed that seriously threatening regimes (Iran and North Korea) were only being emboldened during the course of our war, things didn't seem right. All of these points came to a head, and I wrote a series of essays explain why I thought my original assement of Bush and the war had been wrong. I'll quote here from a passage directly relevant to the question of half-battle vs. no battle:

Basically, I think Bush will successfully kill more Muslims than Kerry. He will not take action against major state sponsors. He will therefore do little to prevent attacks on this country that Kerry would not.

Now that may sound good to some of you, but I want to challenge you. I think that simply killing more terrorists is pointless if doing so just creates more. I know, that sounds like a tiresome leftist argument about the cycle of violence. But there is a point to it. I answer the cycle of violence argument from the left by saying "oderint dum metuant"—"let them hate us so long as the fear us." And that's true. If the terrorists were afraid of us, they'd reconsider their line of work rather than sign up in droves to avenge the martyred. But they're not afraid of us, because we've pussy-footed all the way through this war. As a result the Islamoids are emboldended by our weakness, but motivated by anger over fallen martyrs.

This may sound paradoxical: why would they be emboldened if they think they may themselves be killed? No problem: they don't want to live. They're happy to martyr themselves if they know that continued martyrdom achieves something, which it does because of our appeasement. Look at the uprisings in Fallujah and Najaf, neither of which have been dealt with by Bush. The insurgents have lost thousands in both cities, no doubt. But those losses have resulted in moral victories. By holding out, the insurgents were able to force the negotiation of settlements that left their clerics and gang-lords in effective control, all because we were afraid to bomb a few sundry mosques.

So, I conclude that the left may well be right about the cycle of violence as applied to "compassionate conservative" violence (even if they don't know it). Bush may kill more terrorists, but by failing to break their will he will only create more. By failing to go after state sponsors of terrorism like Iran he will leave them with resources and further moral support. This is not a policy that will protect us from the worst case scenario. Pulling out of Iraq sooner—whether to attack Iran or simply to stop creating emboldened terrorists—may actually leave us safer!

This is from

http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/000062.html

It's part four of a four-part essay.

Only when we start bombing their mosques intentionally--and even targeting civilian populations--will we begin to rob the terrorists of their motivation. As long as they think Allah and the Ummah are on their side, they'll be more than willing to die to make sure that even more of us will go down with them.

[oldsalt]

First a technical point: I use webtv and I am not able to break up a quote to answer point by point. If I do not state a position as it was meant, please point it out politely, and I will apologize. I do not set out to deliberately misstate a position.

Re the half-fight position:

This argument assumes that Bush is fighting the war the way he is -- which I agree whole-heartedly is wrong -- merely because of his personal philosophies. The philosophical problem isn't confined to Bush, it is culture wide. We've had forty years of Marxist altruism that has infected every aspect of American life, and makes religious altruism look like childs play. (As to the concern about the religious Right, four years of Kerry's brand of International Progressivism, with all that implies, will strengthen them in ways no overt agitator for a full-blown theocracy could ever hope to accomplish. What better argument for their values-driven creed could they hope to muster than the consequences of the valueless Kerry?)

The problem doesn't lie just with Bush. He sets the goals, but the military runs it, including the rules of engagement. There are vastly different ideas about how things ought to be done within the military itself, among experienced strategists. This same problem exists at Foggy Bottom and the various intelligence services. All of these problems are the result of over 30 years worth of consequences from Viet Nam. None of these problems will be solved by electing Kerry, who is himself one of the main archetects of the situation.

These facts don't even address the question of what the population will stand for. To say that everyone will follow the leader ignores the deep division evident now in the election. Bush is presiding over a very volitile citizenry. Since he isn't a Saddam, he can't simply issue dicta and be assured that the quivering masses will obey. In fact, the country is now so deeply divided -- and Kerry has given ample justification and voice to the anti-Americans -- that we are in a whole different kind of danger. This plays no matter who is elected.

The president holds the ultimate responsibility, but that fact belies how a war is actually fought. I don't think one can drop the entire context of how the American government functions in deciding a question such as this.

I haven't even discussed what will happen to the military if Kerry is elected. Do you expect our volunteers to continue to volunteer to work for a man who obviously hates the military and has treated them with utter contempt? Our military works for the president and they must have some confidence in their CinC. I think that after four years of Kerry, we would have to reinstate the draft because you won't have enough people re-enlisting, or enlisting in the first place. A military force must believe in what they are doing. They will tolerate mistakes -- they are very used to improvising in the field when they see that some tactic isn't working. But, Kerry's "better plan," at least as far as can be discerned, consists of replaying his Viet Nam glory days of cut and run. All he talks about is bringing the boys home. If you think abandoning Falujah was bad, what do you think it will do for the cause of our enemies, and to our military force if we pull out of Iraq too soon, only to see that country devolve into slaughter?

Do you know that our military is already having to put up with being beaten up, spat at, harassed both on and off base (there are gangs of protesters outside of almost every base in this country), etc? They go in spite of this because they believe in their country and what they are doing. What do you think it will do to them if, by electing Kerry, their efforts are completely negated, and more -- rejected by the people they are striving to protect. Why would anyone continue to submit to a military life under such circumstances. This is no small thing or side issue. If you expect to fight a more aggresive war in the future, you'd better give some thought to those who will fight it.

None of this even begins to address the fact that Kerry will "shut down" crucial weapons programs. Nor does it begin to address the complexities which evolve among the people, other than the president, who are involved in the decision making.

Philosophical principles can tell us what is right, but it won't tell us everything needed to do the job. I think this is especially true in a situation as complex -- and as fraught with inherent danger -- as fighting a war. I isn't true that Bush doesn't get any criticism for this "sensitive" approach. I'm sure that the election has muted much of what many people would say, and will say when the election is over. And there are issue other than military that are drawing criticism, such as the lack of action at our borders, the failure to shake up the imigration process, the issue of profiling, etc. It isn't just Bush, it is much of the population that must be brought along. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening unless and until there is another attack on American soil.

I don't see how we can espouse a course of action by siding with the likes of Kerry. I don't understand how anyone can say that voting for someone of his (lack of) character and philosophical makeup in anyway furthers either the cause of the war or Objectivism; or how deliberately endangering us further is something positive. I've studied what has been said (and I think Dr. Peikoff did an amazing overview of the problem), but the broad picture that has been drawn doesn't take many crucial facts into account, one of the most important being the military itself. Unfortunately, Objectivists (and not just Objectivists) find themselves in the position of knowing what ought to be done, but any chance of it actually being done is frustratingly out of reach. We must continue our efforts, of course. But I would rather continue my efforts with some chance of success. With Kerry there is absolutely no chance. As I understand it, the arguement is that Kerry will be so bad, with the obvious consequences, that he will be forced to do differently. This assumes that he will have people around him that will push him in the right direction. Where are these people? Who among his advisors do you see advocating fierce aggression? It won't come from Kerry, whose most viceral reactions are those of a life-long, clueless, Progressive elite.

Fight for change everywhere and all the time, but don't start the fight by abrogating what little is right.

[Godless Capitalist]

GC-

From the article:

I think this author is making the claim that with Kerry and a republican congress we have a chance to un-pervert our war strategy, Kerry having to be at least as "aggressive" militarily as Bush was while not being called "hawkish"--the claim that with Kerry we will have the chance to place America on a better conceptual footing, which will give us a better chance to improve America's war footing in the long run--the claim that with Kerry our military actions will be exposed for what they really are (weak) instead of being cloaked under an aura of "aggressiveness, strength, resoluteness, etc." as they are with Bush.

I don't agree with the reasoning in the article. I agree that Bush's half-battle is a disaster, but I don't think Kerry would be any better. I think a lot of Americans (and not just on the left) think that invading Iraq was a mistake and that we should get out as soon as possible. (This is mostly Bush's fault for claiming to have proof of WMD when in fact there probably aren't any, instead of just pointing out Saddam's failure to prove that he did not have WMD.) I think with Kerry we would have a quarter-battle in Iraq, leading eventually to a Vietnam-style withdrawl. This would rightly be seen as a victory for the terrorists.

[argive99]

Fight for change everywhere and all the time, but don't start the fight by abrogating what little  is right.

Oddsalt, thanks for another awesome post. I agree with you totally. I respect the opions of the "hawks for Kerry" Objectivists but I feel that they are all out of context. I still do not see how voting for Kerry would be tactically advantagous to defending Ameica or to spreading Objectivism. The logic that has been offered seems to suggest that a Kerry presidency will result in disaster and that disaster will be attributed to the ideals of the Left and then in the aftermath a rational third alternative will become available. That, to me, is both naive and risky. In politics, consequences are never actually associated with what really caused them. A Kerry presidency would not discredit the left but as you say would probably send people to Sunday School in droves.

Bush is a terribly flawed president but Kerry would be an agent of the enemy. I can see no reason whatsoever, in philosophy or in practical politics, to vote for that man.

And besides, I don't think that I could ever physically pull the lever for him. I would vomit right there in the voting booth.

[tps_fan]

I've been looking for a thread/topic header to post under for a while. I've thought about starting a new thread, but given Mr. Biddle's recent article, and _this_ consequential thread, I've decided that this is good a place to start as _anywhere_....

...so if this is not dead on-topic, well... sorry, I'm doing what I can.... I'd never be able to post if I tried to keep up with all the relevant comments just on _this_ site!

Some background: I had mostly settled on abstaining i.e. not voting for either Kerry or Bush for most of _the past year_, and I also at one time or another considered voting for Bush, but the relevant Lewis article and Piekoff audio excerpt really must have been the proverbial "straw to break the camel's back" for me. Those two _re_-introduced an angle that in hindsight should have _longggggg_ since been considered.

Someone wants my _method_ as well as my conclusions and reasons? We'll lets' cut right to the very heart of it all. Are Objectivists not supoosed to think and act in essentials??? For me, this is (as far as this election is concerned) an "all or nothing" consideration. That is, if what I'm about to offer doesn't hold up, then I am giving up altogether and going back to my original position of _not voting_. All or nothing!

Objectivists want to argue that Bush isn't an Ayatollah? Fine. O-ists want to argue that Kerry is an awful, untrustworthy, pragmatic, hypocritical, Modernistic and flat-out altruistic louse of a candidate? Now _that_ is a newsflash? Guess what Bush is the same! .....absolutely the same in those respects. What Piekoff pointed out is that there's one crucial difference, and he outlined _some_ of the examples of how Bush is explicitly and formally moving America towards theocracy. Dare you say that it can not happen here....? I mean I haven't read _The Ominous Parallels_, and even I can see the "writing on the wall". Did you see the other articles that also appeared at Capitalism Magazine in the past day? Do you see the common threads of _action_ that the Bush administration engage in? Do you not see the connections betwen the Patriot Act, the restrictions on political endorsements, and limits on research involving fetal tissue? Do you not see the connections in how this administration has/had dropped the ball with respect to Los Alamos, the Chinese downing of an U.S. plane (at the very beginning of Bush's term no less!), China vis-a-vis Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia (please tell me that getting what amounts to our own oil back will not suffice in maintaining a turn-the-other-cheek position! Also, can we forget the bin Ladin family?), etc., etc.

Look, Bush is generally not doing much new in American politics by starting with/promising one policy and then, in the next breath, undercutting the very policy in question...,BUT what is different is the _orientation_ of his tactics. Would Kerry resort to such an obvious capitulation to religious political factions? I just do not see that happening! Whether both candidates were to (further) prosecute war (or military and foreign policy in general) in the same way _or not_, there can be absolutely no doubt where Bush's allegiances lie, and they are NOT even remotely atheistic. You haven't heard Kerry talk about restricting medical research or free speech in the manner that Bush has. ...and if I (can!) understand Kerry and Edwards recent debate comments on gay marriage, that team isn't even opposed to those relationships _without Constitutional respect_.

When you hear a liberal Democratic candidate even give better lip service to the rights of the military servicemen than Bush (for example), it should give _any_ individualist pause about voting for Bush. ...and did Bush not in fact stipulate that troops that are already deployed _must_ operate overseas for another year _even when they were scheduled to come home_????? Isn't that WORSE than a normal draft where those who are to be called up have a long shot of escaping a war (even if albeit by illegal means)?!

As the tennis player Hewitt would say, "COME ONNNNN!"

[BurgessLau]

...

Do you not see the connections betwen the Patriot Act, the restrictions on political endorsements, and limits on research involving fetal tissue? 

...

Would Kerry resort to such an obvious capitulation to religious political factions?

...

You haven't heard Kerry talk about restricting medical research or free speech in the manner that Bush has.  ...and if I (can!) understand Kerry and Edwards recent debate comments on gay marriage, that team isn't even opposed to those relationships _without Constitutional respect_. 

When you hear a liberal Democratic candidate even give better lip service to the rights of the military servicemen than Bush (for example), it should give _any_ individualist pause about voting for Bush.

I am puzzled by several specifics in your post.

First, what limits on medical research -- conducted by privately funded organizations -- has President Bush imposed?

Second, what specific objections do you have to the Patriot Act, at least in time of war?

Third, in what way has President Bush threatened the "rights of the military servicemen"? Has he done something that has violated the contracts they signed?

Fourth, do you believe, as I do, that Environmentalism is a religion? If so, do you think that a President Kerry would not capitulate to religious factions?

Fifth, what do you mean by "without Constitutional respect"?

P. S. -- Please note the correct spelling of the name Dr. Leonard P-E-I-koff.

[tps_fan]

per 1)

I'll even concede that (tragically) the FDA has been up to their "tricks" for several years, but Bush is supposed to be a _Republican_ (...remembers something about "limited gov''t." )

http://search.lef.org/src-cgi-bin/MsmGo.ex...id&hiword=raid+

(...and by the way, LEF is _completely_ private, _and_ they've fought back against the FDA.)

per 2)

http://capmag.com/search.asp

search for "patriot act"... only 1 of 4 favors it, and Michelle Malkin (while being a fine writer) is a conservative.... who is for internment (which may not be relevant?!)

per 3)

I said, "and did Bush not in fact stipulate that troops that are already deployed _must_ operate overseas for another year _even when they were scheduled to come home_????? Isn't that WORSE than a normal draft where those who are to be called up have a long shot of escaping a war (even if albeit by illegal means)?!"

Is a one year contract supposed to equal 2 years of service? Man, my friend (who translated Bernstein's Declaration into another language) would like to hear an answer to that considering that her brother has been moved all over the high seas for the U.S. military over the last couple of years or so! :-D

per 4)

Leaving aside that I was the first person I've _ever_ heard explicitly to consider environmentalistism as a religion.... (I said this to Peter Schwartz back in '97 actually IIRC.) Your are begging the question of: Which is older? Christianity or Environmentalism? and the question of which has been practiced longer? and the question of: Which is practiced in a more widespread fashion? and the question of: Which has spawned the newest Hollywood trend?

per 5)

Did you see the V.P. debate? Maybe I didn't use the most obvious language, but I believe that Edwards said in effect that, "I have reservations about gay marriage as being sanctioned by the FEDERAL government when it normally falls to the state gov'ts for consideration."

(Of course, the whole issue could be razed away by considering that government should not be licensing something as unrelated to the defense of individual rights as marriage. BTW, who do gay people hurt by getting married? Who's rights are _they_ violating? ...rhetorical questions as far as I'm concerned (for this thread.))

(I'll remember to look at my signed copy of OPAR before I go on line. :-P )

...but all of this is getting away from what I contended is the essential issue: I think I might be able to rephrase that as "Isn't Bush's X-tian epistemology more relevant or more over-arching or more politically affecting than his political speech? Yes, it's debatable, but I _still_ say that Piekoff, Biddle, and Lewis (and well.... I) have offered some of the evidence to support that referenced premise.

Help me here! What am I _missing_ that Bush supporters see? I am being absolutely sincere here! I can not see the appeal of "4 more years!"

[tps_fan]

Also:

per 1)

What about what Bush said about stem-cell research, partial-birth abortions, and human cloning? Didn't Ayn Rand specifically refer to what Presidential speech means? That it amounts to a political mandate...; that it can't be considered casually?!

per 2)

Isn't it true that the Patriot Act gives the feds the authority to search library records without due process? Wasn't there something about redefining what "terrorist" means in disfavor to free speech?

I just found these.... haven't read yet though....

Examples of Non-Terror Cases and the Patriot Act

Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act"

http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid...247&mode=thread

Webmaster Sherman Austin, jailed under PATRIOT Act, released to halfway house

http://news.phaseiii.org/article3180.html

"Anyone who uses the public libraries around Charlottesville is likely to read about the USA Patriot Act and one of its unusual secrecy provisions before borrowing a book or browsing the Internet.

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Sep/961.html

Shopkeeper deported from South Carolina under PATRIOT Act killed in Pakistan

http://www.unknownnews.net/030929dead.html

INS & FBI Harresed and Jailed Foreign Students! http://www.peacenowar.net/immigrantRights/...%2002--News.htm

Jailed Without Cause http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067317/

ARTISTS SUBPOENAED IN USA PATRIOT ACT CASE

http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12403

Imprisoned by the Patriot Act

http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=140_0_2_0_C

per 4)

...or the question of which altruistic philosophy Republicans are likely to endorse? ...and which is the continuency that Bush depends on? I know that someone on behalf of the Bush administration has already spoken at a Christian Coalition function....

[tps_fan]

....and finally

per 3)

I was right; my memory held up after all. Two months ago, the National Guard's deployment was extended. What I didn't know is that Rumsfeld _also_ called for an extension back in Dec. 2003.

http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?query=ir...omi&prov=HotBot

I think this is disgusting. Again, I ask does a 1 year contract require 2 years of service? Does a 1/2 year contract require a full year of service?

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

Now, I have to add one more point which I consider to be the crux of the argument against how Bush has handled the war in Iraq, and this actually goes back to what both Drs. Peikoff and Brook said over the past 2 years.

I contend that the war in Iraq has been administered in two stages. The first started with the "Shock and Awe" strikes....,

(I had to sift through a bunch of liberal anti-war b.s. to try find some half-way decent references...)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p06s01-woiq.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/...ain537928.shtml

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/books%20-%20...20-%20Dec%2096/

and it ended when the coalition forces were tracking down members of Hussein's family.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.war.main/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/

...so this part of the campaign ran from January to July 2003.

...but then things changed...

the body count for U.S. troops surged.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Even this site divides the campaign in a similar way:

http://icasualties.org/oif/time.aspx

note the difference: a couple hundred dead up to May 2003 (even nearly a month after Hussein statue falls)

....and.... about ONE THOUSAND dead from June 2003 up to today

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

Bush has indicated _no exit strategy_ except that we'll leave "when the job is done" in effect. We are now living in the time of "peacekeeping" operations where U.S. forces are to be sacrificed. ...and for what?

For the Iraqi people?.... for Middle East liberation?.... but not for us Americans or more to the point for those families who are left to grieve over the victims of 9/11/01????

Over 1000 dead, that's about a 1/3 of the number killed on 9/11/01. What purpose is Bush trying to serve now when we've long since toppled the Hussein regime.... and Saddam himself is in captivity?

As far as I'm concerned, this is now a repeat of the war in Vietnam in altruistic essence.

[Godless Capitalist]

per 3)

I said, "and did Bush not in fact stipulate that troops that are already deployed _must_ operate overseas for another year _even when they were scheduled to come home_????? Isn't that WORSE than a normal draft where those who are to be called up have a long shot of escaping a war (even if albeit by illegal means)?!"

There's a difference between extending an overseas deployment and trying to keep someone in the military beyond when their contract has expired. Which is Bush actually doing?

(As an aside, when I served in the Canadian Reserves part of the deal was that even after you quit you were placed on a list somewhere and could be called up if needed. The same may apply in the US.)

[Lone Wolf]

There's a difference between extending an overseas deployment and trying to keep someone in the military beyond when their contract has expired. Which is Bush actually doing?

(As an aside, when I served in the Canadian Reserves part of the deal was that even after you quit you were placed on a list somewhere and could be called up if needed. The same may apply in the US.)

Bush is keeping people in the military after their contract has expired. However, any standard contract (excluding the two year deal that the Army now offers) stipulates that four years must be spent in the reserves following four years of active duty.

[MisterSwig]

I think that after four years of Kerry, we would have to reinstate the draft because you won't have enough people re-enlisting, or enlisting in the first place.

That's a laugh. After four years of Bush we don't even have enough soldiers left to control Iraq. I think it is much more likely that Bush's deep "faith in liberty and sacrifice" will steadily move this nation toward another draft.

A military force must believe in what they are doing.

Yes, they must have faith in dying for Iraqi freedom.

[MisterSwig]

Do you expect our volunteers to continue to volunteer to work for a man who obviously hates the military and has treated them with utter contempt? 

Do you expect our volunteers to continue to volunteer to work for a man who makes them sacrifice their lives to the enemy?

[Thoyd Loki]

That's a laugh. After four years of Bush we don't even have enough soldiers left to control Iraq. I think it is much more likely that Bush's deep "faith in liberty and sacrifice" will steadily move this nation toward another draft.

Yes, they must have faith in dying for Iraqi freedom.

This may be beside the point of the draft. But, do you think with the crippling way our soldiers are being forced to "fight" in Iraq that even an additional million would add anything but more heads for the "insurgents" to pick off?

[oldsalt]

If people are so concerned about religion, I suggest that they consider that other bunch of religionists who want to take over the world. There are no intellectual arguments one may make that they will recognize. They have no history of individual freedom -- or any concept for it in their language -- to appeal to. There is no hope of convincing them that they are acting against their own best interest and their own religious freedom. And they don't discriminate between Marxist, Christian, and Objectivist. We are all one to them. And if you think that they are just a bunch of ignorant barbarians who are no actual threat to an advanced civilization, you are underestimating what can be accomplished by ignorant barbarians when a civilization loses its focus. Rome was brought down by such people, as were many other civilizations in history.

Those of you who are wringing your hands over what is happening to our troops in Iraq don't understand our troops, don't understand the military, and don't understand the history of warfare. (The fact that many of the talking points are the same as the most extreme left is disturbing, to say the least.) Our forces know that they are fighting for change in an area that has bred our enemies. They do this so that these people will be busy minding their own business instead of thinking about killing us here at home. They do not stand and wring their hands; they stand and fight. They don't divorce what they are doing from the aim of their actions, which is the long-term goal of negating the threat we face.

Some here seem to think that the war can only be won by mass slaughter -- a Carthaginian peace. You are wishing for pie in the sky because our culture will not be a party to it. Can we do better? Yes. But not by throwing in the towel and saying that we'll get back to it when we've sorted out other problems. Or has the enemy agreed to hold off until we're ready and I didn't hear about it?

You are fighting the wrong people. No matter how dangerous someone here is to us, we have the intellectual wherewithall to engage them. I don't understand why so many have lost their confidence in the power of Objectivist philosophy -- to the point that they would destroy the only country remaining on this earth where we have any hope of spreading the truth. And they are doing this in the name of that truth. I honestly do not understand how one makes the journey from the principles of Objectivism to siding with nihilists, hoping that by doing so you can push the population to an epiphany on the road to Damascus. Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? If you don't have the confidence to engage the religious Right, how do you think you are going to manage the unforeseeable consequences of this policy?

I have no argument with the fact that religion is gaining right now and must be dealt with. I do not, however, think that metaphorically cutting off my nose to spite my face is the answer. Nor do I think that I gain anything by siding with Kerry and his merry band of Quislings.

And, in passing, you might ask yourselves what you are going to do when there is a mass brain drain from the military because the best will not put their lives in Kerry's hands, the snide comments of MisterSwig notwithstanding.

[HaloNoble6]

Second, what specific objections do you have to the Patriot Act, at least in time of war?

With regard to the patriot act and in general war-time rule, what happens, if anything, to peacetime law during a time of war?

[BurgessLau]

With regard to the patriot act and in general war-time rule, what happens, if anything, to peacetime law during a time of war?

I do not understand your question. You say "happens." That is ambiguous here. Is your question historical -- What has happened to peacetime law, typically, in times of war? Or is your question one of political philosophy -- What should happen to peacetime law in times of war?

[HaloNoble6]

I do not understand your question. You say "happens." That is ambiguous here. Is your question historical -- What has happened to peacetime law, typically, in times of war? Or is your question one of political philosophy -- What should happen to peacetime law in times of war?

Sorry for my ambiguity, I meant what should happen.

ps

In your profile, under "Information," the "Home Page" isn't showing up right.

[Yes]

I know there have been many discussions about this year's presidential election, so please delete this thread if you guys feel like arguments have been exhausted.

This article was posted on Cap Mag today, here's an excerpt:

What do you guys think about this argument for Kerry?

Very much to the point.

It is based upon the facts as the commentator sees them.

[Yes]

With Kerry we would likely get a quarter-battle; how would that be better?

Nonsense

[BurgessLau]

Nonsense

Godless Capitalist said: "With Kerry we would likely get a quarter-battle; how would that be better?" (Oct. 6, 834 am)

How is Godless Capitalist's question nonsense? What reasons do you have for reaching that conclusion?