Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

American intentions in Iraq

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have much to say in response to the posts in this thread. However, in an attempt to keep my posts short and within forum guidelines, I will continue by addressing shorter quotes and responding to them in shorter posts.

I would like to hear other Objectivists' opinions on one of my main reasons for supporting the war on Iraq.

While I did not believe there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations, I did believe America was fully justified in attackig Iraq for this reason: Iraq is surrounded by three of the largest terror supporters in the world; Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

My understanding of Saddam Hussein's involvement in supporting terrorist attacks against the United States not only includes those listed in some of the posts above but, also his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. As I reside in Oklahoma City, this concerns me. While it would take an inordinate amount of time and space to make my case in this post, a very interesting book on the matter is The Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis. A synopsis may be read on her website HERE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No regime can stand if the majority of the people oppose it.
As I have already said in an earlier post in this thread, the Soviet Union stood with the support of only about 5% of its citizens. The Soviet Union, the champion of socialism during my childhood, murdered millions of its own citizens. One reason that this champion of “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs” managed to stay in power so long is that its citizens were denied the right to bear arms. This meant that those in power could make small change of any dissenters to the official party line quickly and efficiently. The communist party did this on a regular basis as a matter of policy. So did the Ba'athist party of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
If a regime stands then it has widespread support.
Obviously, you are siding with the cowardly marauding bands of terrorists, goons, and street punks again here. Somehow, you consider them to have a moral sanction. You are trying to make a case that they represent the majority of Iraqis and shift the blame for their cowardly and despicable acts to the United States of America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!!!!! Do you see how your second sentence contradicts the first?

Of course I do; it’s obvious (you caught it).

First you say there is "no" way to measure freeness, then in the next sentence you say it is "easy".

I was trying to be polite. If you still cannot figure it out, ask me again.

I would like you to "[insert reason here]" because I cannot think of one.

How about oil? Gold? More snow? (It doesn't matter) Why did the United States pay Russia $7,200,000 for it anyway? I know it’s easier to dodge the issue. If this helps use the overthrow of The Kingdom of Hawaii as an example and then answer my earlier question.

If King George considered them "terrorists" does that necessarily make it so?

It sure did to them. Treason was punishable by death. (i.e. they risked their lives so they and their posterity could be free) Here’s a question: If someone blows your head off and you did not want to be dead, are you still dead?

Does any objective recount of history assert this as being true?

Assert what to be true? That the colonies declared independence (Hint: 4th of July) or that sucession from England was treason?

Marc, I type like I talk so don't take this post personally. My intent is not “I’m right, screw you!” I’m trying to understand how Objectivism works in government in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johngalt1972,

Do you agree that what someone thinks something is has no effect on what it truly is?

To use an example from the debate between O'Reilly and Dr. Yaron Brook:

The point was made by Brook that if the Nazis thought they were "the good guys," it does not change the fact that in reality they were not the good guys, but immoral monsters.*

Do you think that “perception is reality,” as O'Reilly said, or do you think that "it doesn't matter what you think you are, what matters is what you truly are," As Dr. Yaron Brook said?

I hold that perception is not reality. Do you agree?

*Edit: this is not an exact quote, just a paraphrase from memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess, thank you for the questions; they are not unlike the ones I’ve asked myself.

(1) Is there any evidence showing that the "majority" supported the Revolution or the creation of the U. S. government?

Documentation of town meetings, the First and Second Continental Congress, and other sources make clear that while there was by no means a general consensus on the specifics of a new government, the majority of the colonists supported independence from England. Once independence was declared, The Articles of Confederation were tenuous at best. Nonetheless, this newborn country held together not because of a vague document, but because the majority had the same desire.

One should always be careful about "must-have-been" arguments.

I absolutely agree. For example: The Declaration of Independence exists. That doesn’t prove majority support for the document. However, study of how it came into existence (in this case) does.

(2) What do you mean by "majority" -- majority of whom? All individuals, only the adults, only the male adults, only the free (nonslave) male adults?

Merriam-Webster OnLine

majority (noun)

2a: the age at which full civil rights are accorded

3a: a number greater than half of a total

All individuals? Of course not, it should be obvious we are not including children in the discussion. It is, nonetheless, important that we establish which adults count as people (sic). Yes, only male and white. Negroes didn’t get the right to vote in this country until 1870. As far as women, not until 1920.

(3) What do you mean by "will" of the majority? Active support? Acquiescence? Something else?

Merriam-Webster OnLine

will (noun)

1: desire, wish

2a: something desired; especially: a choice of determination of one having authority or power

“Will” means what it means. I like, however, that you mention “active support.” Keep in mind that lack of an action can be active support and is by no means acquiescence. Then and now, the United States exists by the will of the majority of the people it governs. Putting laws on paper is meaningless without the will of the people. Need a real example? The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919. Didn’t stick, hence the 21st amendment in 1933. Law does not create will; will must create law.

If the United States’ intention in Iraq is to create a government, how do you impose (force) freedom? I’m not saying that is why we went to war in the first place. Frankly, that no longer matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess, thank you for the questions; they are not unlike the ones I’ve asked myself.

Documentation of town meetings, the First and Second Continental Congress, and other sources make clear that while there was by no means a general consensus on the specifics of a new government, the majority of the colonists supported independence from England.  Once independence was declared, The Articles of Confederation were tenuous at best.  Nonetheless, this newborn country held together not because of a vague document, but because the majority had the same desire.

...

majority (noun)

2a: the age at which full civil rights are accorded

3a: a number greater than half of a total

As mentioned in a previous post, there was not a majority that desired to secede from England. There was a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split. 1/3 for secession, 1/3 supporting the crown and 1/3 that didn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick, sorry I’ve taken so long (I wasn’t ignoring your questions). Both use conjunctions so I need to treat them as four.

1) Do you agree that the proper function and only moral justification for a government is the protection of individual rights?

Yes, the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights. However, there are over 200 governments (they exist).

Is the only moral justification for a government its ability to protect individual rights? If I said yes to that, I would be condemning myself as an American. The truth is I am less free today than I was 20 years ago. This goes right to the core of my Canadian example (which didn’t go over well with Marc K.) and my Hawaiian example. Because there is no way to measure freeness, you cannot use it as a rational for war (by war I mean one nation invading another). Do nations have the right to protect themselves? Absolutely. Iraq never invaded the United States. Hawaii never invaded the United States. Vietnam? No. Need I continue?

2) Do you agree that consensus does not make something true, and that perception is not reality?

Consensus does not make something true. Unless you’re talking about law, laws are true even when they’re wrong (meaning unjust). Self-government can be a pain in the ass, but there is no rational alternative. Either we govern ourselves or we live under dictatorship. Sovereignty either lies with the people or it does not, there is no gray area on this.

As far as perception, it is not necessarily reality.

perception (noun)

3a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation

We know the world through our five senses. To say “perception is not reality” means perception is never reality. Perception can often be reality. That is not to say perception is (always) reality. That would be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick, sorry I’ve taken so long (I wasn’t ignoring your questions).  Both use conjunctions so I need to treat them as four.

Yes, the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights.  However, there are over 200 governments (they exist). 

Is the only moral justification for a government its ability to protect individual rights?  If I said yes to that, I would be condemning myself as an American.  The truth is I am less free today than I was 20 years ago.  This goes right to the core of my Canadian example (which didn’t go over well with Marc K.) and my Hawaiian example.  Because there is no way to measure freeness, you cannot use it as a rational for war (by war I mean one nation invading another).  Do nations have the right to protect themselves?  Absolutely.  Iraq never invaded the United States.  Hawaii never invaded the United States.  Vietnam?  No.  Need I continue?

Consensus does not make something true. Unless you’re talking about law, laws are true even when they’re wrong (meaning unjust).  Self-government can be a pain in the ass, but there is no rational alternative.  Either we govern ourselves or we live under dictatorship.  Sovereignty either lies with the people or it does not, there is no gray area on this.

In reference to my question (1):

I think that the only moral justification for a government its ability to protect individual rights, and you apparently do not.

You claim that sovereignty lies with "the people," which I can only interpret as a view that consensus should come before truth. I do not agree. I hold that the sovereignty of a nation lies with the fact that it performs its proper function—which is not subjective—the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. I also hold that this view of government is an objective fact—it is true. Individual rights and only individual rights matter when evaluating governments. If the point of having government is not the protection of individual rights, then what is it?

In reference to (2):

I take your answer to this question to mean that you agree that truth is not a matter of subjective whim or consensus. However, it seems that this contradicts you view of what makes a government legitimate. If you agree that truth is not a matter of consensus, how can you claim that it is "totally subjective" whether one government can be superior to another, as you did in the Hawaii example?

Another question:

I do not understand why you say "Either we govern ourselves or we live under dictatorship." Why can't we live under a Constitutional Republic which protects individual rights? If such a republic performs its proper function as a government, why do we need a consensus to make it legitimate? If consensus does not create reality—and it doesn’t—then why do you consider it so important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American Indians died because they hadn't domesticated animals [...]

Okay, you’ve established (correctly) why small pox didn’t exist in North America prior the arrival of Europeans.

America didn't pursue biological warfare--the natives would have died whenever they contacted people or animals.

These two statements are by no means self-negating (and they are not true).

If an individual passed a dirty blanket to a native tribe, the tribe would still have been destroyed eventually, because a cure for small pox was a long ways away.

So the Colonists, who wanted the natives out of the picture anyway, would never have considered using biological warfare? Why? Shooting each one individually was expensive, time consuming, extremely risky (natives would often shoot back), and when was the last time you actually shot a few dozen people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The will of the majority does not matter if it is wrong.

Keep re-reading you post until it sinks in, seriously. In a society based on the rule of law, it does matter even if it is wrong. Go break a bunch of laws that you say are “wrong.” Get yourself arrested and tell the cop and then the judge, “These laws don’t matter!” I’m not kidding. I’ll give my home address so you can write me from jail.

In the case of Iraq, we don't need the majority of support from the militant Islamists to make us right--we already are right.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Please expand on this for me.

A majority isn't needed to maintain power over a population, look at Iraq. I'm sure only a small minority of people liked Saddam's regime [...]

Who said anything about “[liking] Saddam’s regime?” I don’t like the Bush Administration. I do not want to see the overthrow of the United States government because of them! Clearly the majority of the population of Iraq was not so unhappy as to be willing to risk their lives to get rid of Saddam.

The US and Canada are both relatively free countries, which puts them on equal footing in regard to foreign defence issues, since they both have a right to exist.

So, does Canada have a moral right to invade, say, Alaska? I’m sure they could argue that they are more free than the United States. (It's a rhetorical question) The point is that there is no omnipotent Objectivist judge who can make such decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorists,

Be very, very, careful here. The United States has lots of ties to terrorists (did you just sleep through the Reagan years? Bush years? Clinton years?). If you are going to use “ties to terrorists” as a criteria, you have to use it both ways. Have you studied the Nuremberg Trials? I want you to find out how “War Crimes” were defined.

and had lead to the deaths of Israelis

Gimme a sec… nope, there is something not right here. If, as Patrick N. states:

“the only moral justification for a government [is]its ability to protect individual rights,”

I’m an AMERICAN, not an ISRAELI.

and a small amount of Americans is moral justification to wipe him off the planet.

Oh, now you mention Americans (well, Israel uber alles). Okay, you got me. Wipe him off of the planet. I mean it. Questions: How was a blitzkrieg through Iraq a plan to wipe Saddam off the planet? Isn’t military service compulsory in Israel? How does Objectivism view compulsory military service? How many Israelis are fighting alongside American soldiers in Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you’ve established (correctly) why small pox didn’t exist in North America prior the arrival of Europeans.

These two statements are by no means self-negating (and they are not true).

If an individual threw a blanket at native tribes (an action not done by the state) it would only bring disease that would eventually come with any contact. In all, the settlers and colonists treated the Indians the same as the Indians treated themselves, or even better. Compared to Europe, and Napoleon's conquests, America was largely peaceful.

So the Colonists, who wanted the natives out of the picture anyway, would never have considered using biological warfare?  Why?  Shooting each one individually was expensive, time consuming, extremely risky (natives would often shoot back), and when was the last time you actually shot a few dozen people?

In most instances, the colonists were justified in killing the natives who attacked them, or operated slave societies ruled by a Chieftain within America.

Keep re-reading you post until it sinks in, seriously. In a society based on the rule of law, it does matter even if it is wrong. Go break a bunch of laws that you say are “wrong.” Get yourself arrested and tell the cop and then the judge, “These laws don’t matter!” I’m not kidding. I’ll give my home address so you can write me from jail.
So who is going to enforce these non-laws against the US? Saddam? The US has the power to disregard the Islamists.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Please expand on this for me.

America has a total right to destroy the regime whether or not anyone in the country says so!

Who said anything about “[liking]Saddam’s regime?” I don’t like the Bush Administration. I do not want to see the overthrow of the United States government because of them! Clearly the majority of the population of Iraq was not so unhappy as to be willing to risk their lives to get rid of Saddam.

You are either evading, or don't understand the context of my claim. When I said "liking," it meant "was within reasonable complacency with the regime."

You are context dropping again when you compare 1) A relatively free society to a rights violating society, and 2) A democracy which allows voting to change governments, to rule by a supreme dictator. If the people within Saddam's country chose not to rise up when it was sponsoring terrorists, they pay for their government's actions which exist because of them.

So, does Canada have a moral right to invade, say, Alaska? I’m sure they could argue that they are more free than the United States. (It's a rhetorical question) The point is that there is no omnipotent Objectivist judge who can make such decisions.
I know it's a rhetorical question, and your point drawn is completely WRONG. Relatively free states all have sovereign rights! Only slave-states have no rights. There is no reason to measure or judge freedom between Canada and the US. Dictatorships on the other hand, are characterized by one party rule, executions for opposing political beliefs, and harsh punishment for dissenting speech and press.

(By the way, I live in Canada, and I think it is less free than America. We even have laws infringing on free speech here, and a massive anti-free press organization called the CRTC)

Be very, very, careful here. The United States has lots of ties to terrorists (did you just sleep through the Reagan years? Bush years? Clinton years?). If you are going to use “ties to terrorists” as a criteria, you have to use it both ways.

Who died and made Kant God? The same standard dosn't apply to a dictatorship attacking a free country, compared to a free country attacking a dictatorship. America's actions to fund terrorists (like Afghanis) were completely legitimate because it was in self-defence against the Soviets. Iraq's action of funding Palestinian suicide bombers is not legitimate, since it is both an act of aggression, and since it has no right to attack a free country.

I want you to find out how “War Crimes” were defined.
Dosn't matter.

As for the rest, America can choose to attack another country that is attacking free countries, like in Gulf War I when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Afterward, Saddam Hussein continually broke what he had signed with the US, shot at American planes, and even made an attempted assassination of a US president. All are grounds to end the regime. Some are direct actions against America (declaring war), some are direct actions against allies (Israel and Kuwait), and Iraq's direct actions against it's own people are what made it free to invade whether they had attacked or not.

Oh, now you mention Americans

Yes, in the same sentence. You separated what I had written in a manner to misconstrue my words. Don't do that again.

kay, you got me. Wipe him off of the planet. I mean it. Questions: How was a blitzkrieg through Iraq a plan to wipe Saddam off the planet?

It was a method of taking down the regime. I am not a military strategist, so I don't know the most effective method of destroying an army and insurgents. I'm aware your question was facetious, but am responding as if you were polite and respectable.

What are your purposes in this thread? Are you sympathetic to any Objectivist positions? Are you actually a liberal? Your objections have been answered in the political essays in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep re-reading you post until it sinks in, seriously.  In a society based on the rule of law, it does matter even if it is wrong.  Go break a bunch of laws that you say are “wrong.”  Get yourself arrested and tell the cop and then the judge, “These laws don’t matter!”  I’m not kidding.  I’ll give my home address so you can write me from jail.

You are assuming that the basis for the laws is the whim of the majority. Sadly, in too many circumstances, in this country and many others, this is the case. But ideally, the basis for laws should be the protection of individual rights. If the majority wants to pass a law that violates individual rights it is wrong. In the context of a government where laws exist only to protect individual rights, if the majority wills a law that contradicts this, it does not matter what the majority thinks.

Clearly the majority of the population of Iraq was not so unhappy as to be willing to risk their lives to get rid of Saddam.

You cannot assume this just because it did not happen. Under a dictatorship like the one that used to exist in Iraq, it would be nearly impossible to organize a revolution. How could you get the word out to get others involved, aquire weapons, etc. without being detected and arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Banana (?), I first want to genuinely thank you for addressing my post(s). There are a couple points on which I can agree to disagree. Regarding the following:

America has a total right to destroy the regime whether or not anyone in the country says so!

Thank you for your re-explanation of this point; I strongly support the statement as it is now written. Because I am not in the “nuke ‘um till they glow” camp, I admit I am displeased with how this war is being carried out. Regime change is one thing, while total destruction of a nations infrastructure is clearly another.

Yes, in the same sentence.

I am sorry for splitting your Israel/America sentence. The former is my hot button and I respectfully leave it at that.

What are your purposes in this thread?

I have no problem applying Objectivism to my life, but am still (after 16 years) trying to understand how it can work in government. If American intentions in Iraq (right now) are to create a government, this would seem to be the right thread.

Finally, thank you for your suggested reading. My copy of The Virtue of Selfishness is at least 10 years old and it’s been about that long since I’ve read it. I will revisit it over the Holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there is no way to measure freeness, you cannot use it as a rational for war (by war I mean one nation invading another).

What is your evidence for saying one can not measure freedom ("freeness")?

[For this issue, which deserves extensive discussion, I have started a separate thread in the Metaphysics and Epistemology section.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in a previous post, there was not a majority that desired to secede from England.  There was a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split.  1/3 for secession, 1/3 supporting the crown and 1/3 that didn't care.

With all due respect, Bryan, any historian who is going to make this claim knows nothing about American history. Did the Colonists have three choices? Okay. Are you just dividing by three? It should be clear from my original post that the Articles of Confederation (and later, our Constitution) were then (and remain today) just pieces of paper. Paper cannot govern you. People can (and do) by agreeing to follow (or not follow) what is written on said paper. Hence, sovereignty lies with the governed; be it some form of democracy or dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, sovereignty lies with the governed; be it some form of democracy or dictatorship.

If we are discussing and debating philosophically, and not historically, then the pivotal concept is "sovereignty." What idea does that term name for you?

In other words, what does sovereignty mean to you?

Please do not give me a list of dictionary usages of the term. I am asking you what you are referring to in reality when you use the term. A formal definition is best, one by genus and differentia, if possible. Such a key concept in your argument deserves full definition.

I have been unable to define it. I am beginning to wonder whether "sovereignty" is even a valid concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Iraq I suspect people suspected that Saddam Hussein was much better than civil war which was the alternative, and is what we are moving toward now. ---Punk
The Iraqi people experienced Saddam Hussein’s goons coming in the middle of the night to randomly seize individuals and entire families to be imprisoned and tortured. The Iraqi people experienced Saddam’s sons seizing brides on their wedding days to rape them and killing their bridegrooms on the spot. Your suspicion that the Iraqi people, or any humans anywhere for that matter, prefer this to armed rebellion reveals, nay proclaims, your sinister and twisted view of humanity. Also, Iraq is not moving toward a civil war now. Iraq is in a civil war as punks and murderers stream in from surrounding theocracies.

Think of Augustus Caesar. He was a dictator, but he is generally lauded. He was probably the only thing that could have held the Roman Empire together at the time, that is to say a vicious unrelenting strong man. The alternative was chaos and war. ---Punk
Augustus (Octavian) Caesar started his political career by sharing his power with two of his adversaries. This was done in order to prevent civil war. Your boy Saddam would never do such a thing. A civil war did erupt and it took years of fighting to restore order. The turning point for Octavian came when he used the spoils of Egypt to give his troops large pensions in Italy thus retaining their loyalty. He later performed many civic actions that were regarded by the common population to be fair and just .
As I understood it Saddam Hussein had the support of the majority of the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion. ---Punk

Where did this little tidbit of information come from, Al Jezeera TV?

You obviously hate the United States of America and the Constitution it is founded on and survives with. You hate those brave humans who will take up arms against the likes of you instead of following you to their slaughter.

It is obvious that everything you say beyond this point is just a bunch of non-sensical blow that you made up on the fly just to use as confetti.

I cannot see myself wasting any more of my time responding to it.

“And that’s the ball game!” ---Jim Carrey, Liar! Liar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You [punk] obviously hate the United States of America and the Constitution it is founded on and survives with.

I'm glad someone else noticed that. In another thread I guessed that Punk would be defending the merits of Stalin... little did I know how close to the mark I would come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johngalt1972:

First let me say that I found your last reply to me to be obnoxious and rude. Furthermore it appears as though you know you are being obnoxious when you say:

Marc, I type like I talk so don't take this post personally.

You are a stranger to me so I don’t know whether to take anything you say seriously, let alone personally. I don’t know yet if we can have a rational discussion -- so far I don’t like our chances. Frankly, the only reason I’m still talking to you is this:

My intent is not “I’m right, screw you!”  I’m trying to understand how Objectivism works in government in the real world.

In my last post the attempt to spark understanding was met with evasion and condescension. So instead of using friendly cajoling as my method, this time I’ll employ explicit explanation.

You have said some things in this thread that disturb me. I’ll start with your most recent post and work backward.

It should be clear from my original post that the Articles of Confederation (and later, our Constitution) were then (and remain today) just pieces of paper.

To refer to the Articles of Confederation and especially the U.S. Constitution as “just pieces of paper” demeans their significance. Their value far exceeds that of some blank piece of pulpified wood.

Paper cannot govern you.  People can (and do) by agreeing to follow (or not follow) what is written on said paper.  Hence, sovereignty lies with the governed; be it some form of democracy or dictatorship.

Without your previous posts this paragraph would be difficult to interpret. However, given the context of your previous posts; you are wrong in everything you say above. To wit:

Our behavior is governed by laws, not men. Sovereignty rests in every individual, not in some collective called “the governed”. No group or individual can, by right, wrest our sovereignty from us. Whether a dictator, a gang, a robber, a government, a majority or a minority, none can usurp our inalienable rights whether they “agree” to or not. Remember, the only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Thus, in free democracies we do “agree” to loan to the government, under contract, that small piece of our sovereignty that deals with the use of retaliatory force in all cases except imminent physical threat to our persons. The people living under dictatorship don’t “agree” to anything. They are ordered what to do under threat of death.

Because I am not in the “nuke ‘um till they glow” camp, I admit I am displeased with how this war is being carried out.  Regime change is one thing, while total destruction of a nations infrastructure is clearly another.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you don’t agree with Objectivist thought on the morality of total war doctrine, then you should be happy with the way this war is being fought. Anyway, there are several threads on this forum addressing this issue.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2137

Thread: “in our Name”?: Political Philosophy Forum

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2259

Thread: A challenge to Yaron Brook... : Current Events: Terrorism...

Incidentally, how do you propose we accomplish this “regime change”? By using our soldiers as sacrificial lambs? or by using our magical regime-change-bomb?

The truth is I am less free today than I was 20 years ago. [...]. Because there is no way to measure freeness, [...]

Here you go again. I pointed out your contradiction on this same exact issue back in Post #49. You acknowledged your contradiction in Post #53 and yet here you are again making the same mistake. In the first sentence above you say you are: “less free today” than in the past. Within the next two sentences you say: “there is no way to measure freeness”. Well...which is it?

Let me clue you in. Contradictions do not exist in reality. When an Objectivist discovers a contradiction he says to himself: something must be wrong here.

At least one of your assertions above is incorrect, I’ll let you figure out which.

Do nations have the right to protect themselves?  Absolutely.  Iraq never invaded the United States.

This is very poorly constructed. First, keep in mind that while we do allow states to act on our behalf in some instances, only individuals have rights, states do not. That said; Iraq did not recognize the rights of its citizens (the only source of its sovereignty), therefore it had no “rights” at all, not even the “right” to protect itself.

Consensus does not make something true. Unless you’re talking about law, laws are true even when they’re wrong (meaning unjust). 

Likewise this is poorly constructed. Consensus never makes something true (although the consensus may agree with what is in fact, true). But to describe laws as true or false is grammatically imprecise and misleading. Laws may be right or wrong, objective or non-objective, good or bad, but not true or false.

... Continued in next post, Post #72

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Continued from last post, Post #71

If the United States’ intention in Iraq is to create a government, how do you impose (force) freedom?

This is a common mistake among non-Objectivists. You must always distinguish between the initiation of force and retaliatory force. To initiate force is immoral and thus always wrong. Retaliatory force is what self defense entails and is, by right, always legitimate. To be free is the natural state of being for man and so long as everybody leaves you alone you will be free. If you are not free it means that someone is using force against you. Usually the only way to remove that force is by the retaliatory use of force (or at least its threatened use). While it is the Iraqi’s responsibility to secure their freedom, every person we kill in Iraq helping them is through the use of retaliatory force.

So we are not “imposing” freedom. Through the use of retaliatory force we are removing the force that has been initiated upon the Iraqis, thus helping them to secure their freedom.

And now back to your original reply to me:

How about oil? Gold? More snow? (It doesn't matter) Why did the United States pay Russia $7,200,000 for it anyway? I know it’s easier to dodge the issue. If this helps use the overthrow of The Kingdom of Hawaii as an example and then answer my earlier question.

None of these are valid reasons for Canada to invade the US. The only valid reason would be if the US initiated force upon Canada. The reason the US paid Russia for Alaska is because that is the way we do things in the civilized world -- we trade value for value to mutual benefit.

What issue am I dodging? Be specific.

What earlier question? Be specific.

Assert what to be true? That the colonies declared independence (Hint: 4th of July) or that sucession from England was treason?

There is no objective recount of history that would define the Colonists as terrorists or what they were doing as treason. I doubt even English history asserts this to be true.

I am very curious why in the above quote you’ve changed to “Nazi death camps” (emphasis added) instead of maintaining Nazi concentration camps?  If anyone is trying to be misleading, it is not me.

Do you contend that there is a difference between “Nazi death camps” and “Nazi concentration camps”? Being a totalitarian regime that didn’t respect the individual rights of its citizens the Third Reich had no moral sanction to exist. So even if you are talking about prisoner of war camps here there is no moral sanction for them to exist either.

Finally, from your original post, we arrive at your most disturbing statements:

The United States is no stranger to concentration camps. My house is only a few miles from Tanforan (now a shopping center) which used to be a concentration camp for Japanese Americans. Currently the United States is maintaining a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. As for firing squads, I assume you are referring to capital punishment. Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes. Of the 65 executed in 2003, lethal injection accounted for 64 and 1 was carried out by electrocution.

Moral Relativism involves equating the good with the bad. It requires that you drop the context of what is right and wrong -- this is what you do here.

Patrick N. is talking about concentration camps in Iraq and you compare those to internment camps in America. Do you really think they are the same? They are not.

Later on you try to water down the meaning of “concentration camp” but your context here is clear. You compare concentration camps in Iraq with Guantanamo Bay. So you must think that either the President of the U.S. has no right to hold prisoners of war in Guantanamo or that Saddam had every right to maintain them in Iraq, of course both assertions are incorrect.

Then you compare extra-judicial executions in Iraq to capital punishment implemented through a rigorous legal process in the US. This is ludicrous and one of the best examples of moral relativism I’ve ever seen.

I have pointed out a few of your mistakes. These are two long posts. If you disagree with something I have said, then state specifically why you disagree and enumerate such facts or principles that shall contradict the reality or philosophy of that with which you disagree.

And please, hold the snide remarks and sarcasm as they only serve to confuse you and the reader on an issue with which you are struggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Jan. 5) -- A car bomb exploded outside a police academy south of Baghdad during a graduation ceremony Wednesday, killing at least 20 people amid a surge in violence ahead of a landmark election. Hours earlier, another car bomb killed two Iraqis in the nation's capital.
Will those who say that "the Iraqis" want the United States out of Iraq please explain, in relation to the above quote, which Iraqis want the United States to leave Iraq? Hmmm...?

HINT: I am reasonably certain that it is not the 22 people who were just murdered.

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...