Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

[Inspector]

The least self-sacrificial way a President could run this country is under martial law, where jay-walking is a capital offense.  Is that moral?  Is that rational?

Prove logically that martial law is the least self-sacrificial way the president could run this country. I would say that that is among the MOST self-sacrificial ways.

There's no treaty that says they have a responsiblity to resist the dictatorship.  You are advocating that they should be altruists for population "b" and risk their own deaths to save us.

No I am not. I am saying that since nation "b" has a moral right to defend itself, they should, IN THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS understand that that means the bombs are going to start dropping on them if they don't do something about it.

Your belief in this premise is subjective.

Things like this make me not want to put forth the effort to help you see where you're wrong here. Please do refrain.

Huh?  Doesn't this contradict what you said in 2?

No. Why would it?

Mass death, by it's nature, means that many will die who are not directly or even indirectly responsible for the crimes that their neighbors or dictator has perpetrated.

And this is the fault of their dictatorship, not of the free nation which exercises its right to defend itself. If a terrorist takes a hostage as a human shield, and that hostage is killed, it is the moral responsibility of the terrorist and not of the police. In the case of nations, this applies as well. There is one crucial difference however: we have no duty to sacrifice our lives to save hostages which are not our citizens.

You assume they have the power and the responsibility to resist this dictator for our sake and then build a logical argument based on these subjective assumptions.

One more act of psychologizing on your part and I will leave this discussion and report you to board management. You have no reason to claim knowledge of the contents of my mind.

Just because you say, "it isn't my fault, they should have moved," doesn't make it a fact or a valid moral premise.

I never claimed it was so "because I said so." Premise #3 IS a fact and a valid moral premise, however.

  You also presume that they haven't tried to resist, and if they have, "oh well, sorry, but what I did was still moral."  Therefore, it is irrational.

Again, there you go with claiming that I think this or presume that. And second, you have not shown how my arguments are irrational. You have shown that you can provide emotionalist bromides to counter my arguments, and from what I see of your discussion of RationalCop, perhaps you think emotions are a substitute for reason. I do not.

[Capitalism Forever]

Discard any or all that doesn't.

We'll do the latter.

[heizeus]

Prove logically that martial law is the least self-sacrificial way the president could run this country. I would say that that is among the MOST self-sacrificial ways.

Actually, I agree with you about this. It seems in the short term that the safest way to protect the President would be to kill off all opposition or anyone who is a remote threat to him. But in the long term, that would cause resentment among the population and would probably lead to more assassination attempts. But that same logic applies to the case of international relations, where it would seem like heavy-handed retribution against a generalized enemy would make us safer, but in the long term would cause more of a backlash.

No I am not. I am saying that since nation "b" has a moral right to defend itself, they should, IN THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS understand that that means the bombs are going to start dropping on them if they don't do something about it.

I believe I remember reading something that Rand said (I don't remember where) that a decision someone makes at the point of a gun cannot be considered moral. That person is being coerced into compliance with force. That is the nature of a dictatorship, and therefore it is illogical to expect these underlings to have the responsibility to take down the oppressive system on their own.

Things like this make me not want to put forth the effort to help you see where you're wrong here. Please do refrain.

I apologize for offending you, but don't see how this is objective. If you could elaborate....

No. Why would it?

So the casualties caused by free nation "b" are their sole responsibility and therefore would have no right to complain if relatives of terrorist nation "a" choose to attack back at a later date, out of "self-defense"?

If a terrorist takes a hostage as a human shield, and that hostage is killed, it is the moral responsibility of the terrorist and not of the police.

Agreed. But if the hostage is killed because the police decided to just blow up the building all the hostages are in, then the cops have to share some of the responsibility.

There is one crucial difference however: we have no duty to sacrifice our lives to save hostages which are not our citizens.

Why? What objective moral premise states that our collective is more important than theirs? Doesn't it contradict the idea of individualism to claim that it is "us vs. them"?

One more act of psychologizing on your part and I will leave this discussion and report you to board management. You have no reason to claim knowledge of the contents of my mind.

Again, I apologize for offending you. I'm not trying to guess what's personally in your mind, but trying to prove a point that at the bottom of this line of reasoning is a subjective premise. If you could show me how your premises are in fact objective, that would prove me wrong.

And second, you have not shown how my arguments are irrational. You have shown that you can provide emotionalist bromides to counter my arguments, and from what I see of your discussion of RationalCop, perhaps you think emotions are a substitute for reason. I do not.

Two things: First, I am not advocating replacing reason with emotion, but using both as tools for making moral decisions. Checks and balances.

Second:

Here is why your argument is irrational. I sort of hinted at this earlier. Acting in this manner creates a chain reaction that ultimately is much worse for free nation "b" in the same way that a dictatorial "President" is not working towards his own self-interest. It creates a downward spiral where mass murder is committed by all sides in "self-defense" and the rule of not initiating force is out the window. I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists thought that they were acting in self-defense, attacking the "Great Satan" before we attacked them. That ultimately was not in the best interest of the Muslim people, as shown by our reaction. To think there would be no backlash for nuking Mecca, or any of the other crazy theories I've seen, is naive in the extreme. To advocate mass killing as a way to get rid of a few individuals is incredibly irrational, especially when the ties to the terrorists is they live in approximately the same place or have the same religion and race. Prove to me that your premise is objectively rational. I don't believe it can be done.

[Inspector]

it would seem like heavy-handed retribution against a generalized enemy would make us safer, but in the long term would cause more of a backlash.

That is entirely a question of strategy, not a question of morality. It is one thing to say that we do have the moral right to defend ourselves with heavy-handed tactics, and another thing to say that such tactics would be the best possible strategy. I'm not here to argue strategy; that's too complex an issue.

I am saying that we have the right to use nuclear weapons, and that it might become necessary to do so.

"I believe I remember reading something that Rand said (I don't remember where) that a decision someone makes at the point of a gun cannot be considered moral. That person is being coerced into compliance with force. That is the nature of a dictatorship, and therefore it is illogical to expect these underlings to have the responsibility to take down the oppressive system on their own."

I know the quote you are thinking of, and it is particularly apt here. I recommend you find that quote and read the FULL context of what she said: you may be surprised to learn that she fully advocated that if we had to go to war with the Soviet Union, we had the moral obligation to do so just as I had outlined, for the EXACT reasons that I outlined.

I'd be grateful to anyone who could provide the text of that interview...

"I apologize for offending you, but don't see how this is objective. If you could elaborate...."

I accept your apology for now. I'm not sure what you are asking, though. Could you rephrase it?

So the casualties caused by free nation "b" are their sole responsibility and therefore would have no right to complain if relatives of terrorist nation "a" choose to attack back at a later date, out of "self-defense"?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. The casualties inflicted by free nation "b" are the moral responsibility of dictatorship "a," and the relatives of "a" have NO RIGHT to respond. If they do so, it would be an initiation of force against the innocent nation "b."

Agreed. But if the hostage is killed because the police decided to just blow up the building all the hostages are in, then the cops have to share some of the responsibility."

That is correct, because the police have a sworn duty to protect those hostages.

Why? What objective moral premise states that our collective is more important than theirs?"

It has nothing at all to do with one group being "more important" than another. If I hire a bodyguard to protect me, his duty is to protect ME, and not anyone else. The job of our government is to protect US and not anyone else. Our government is not an international altruist whose job it is to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers.

Doesn't it contradict the idea of individualism to claim that it is "us vs. them"?"

In order to make a statement of this kind, I think you would almost have to be misunderstanding my argument. I hope what I have said so far has cleared it up, because I don't quite know where the disconnect is...

If you could show me how your premises are in fact objective, that would prove me wrong."

Then focus on the numbered points that I have made and you will see how it is.

Here is why your argument is irrational. I sort of hinted at this earlier. Acting in this manner creates a chain reaction that ultimately is much worse for free nation "b...""

I think I covered this at the top of this post, but as I said that is entirely a question of strategy.

As for the strategy itself, I would not be so quick to dismiss it, if I were you. The idea of "backlash" is simply not thinking it through to the next step. How many nations would openly support terrorism against the US if they saw we had the wantons to defend ourselves in such a way? What about after the second nuke? The third? Why would the "backlashers" risk their lives so recklessly, when they know very well that they could be next?

mass murder is committed by all sides in "self-defense" and the rule of not initiating force is out the window."

As I said, free nation "b" has NOT initiated force against anyone. If this is confusing to people and they can't morally untangle the issues, that is THEIR problem and not OURS. No matter how mad people get at nation "b" for defending itself, they have NO RIGHT to initiate force against it, and if they do, then free nation "b" has the right to wipe them out.

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists thought that they were acting in self-defense, attacking the "Great Satan" before we attacked them.

"

What kind of argument is this? That they were "sure" and they were wrong, so now WE have to have doubts? That's not a rational argument. They did NOT have the right to do that, and we DO have the right to kill them and their allies for it.

To advocate mass killing as a way to get rid of a few individuals is incredibly irrational, especially when the ties to the terrorists is they live in approximately the same place or have the same religion and race. Prove to me that your premise is objectively rational. I don't believe it can be done."

That's a straw man argument. You've constructed something superficially similar to my position, but not quite right. I am saying that the casualties of war between a dictatorship and a free nation are the moral responsibility of the dictatorship and NOT of the free nation. You've taken that and turned it into "NUKE CHICAGO; THERE MAY BE ARABS THERE!!!"

Edited February 25, 2005 by Inspector

[heizeus]

That is entirely a question of strategy, not a question of morality.

If the strategy is irrational, and morality is based on rationality, then an irrational strategy is immoral.

I'd be grateful to anyone who could provide the text of that interview...

As would I.

I'm not sure what you are asking, though. Could you rephrase it?

I was requesting proof that your moral premises are in fact objective.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The casualties inflicted by free nation "b" are the moral responsibility of dictatorship "a," and the relatives of "a" have NO RIGHT to respond. If they do so, it would be an initiation of force against the innocent nation "b."

You have it backwards in your initial post. That's why I was confused by a contradiction between 2 and 3.

That is correct, because the police have a sworn duty to protect those hostages.

So the fact that they've signed an agreement is the reason for the immorality of killing the hostages? So if free country "b" signed an agreement with other countries not to purposely kill civilians, it would then be immoral to do so. Correct?

Our government is not an international altruist whose job it is to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers.

Fair enough. So the question becomes, would acting as a heavy-handed ruler over the rest of the world actually make us safer? It all seems to come back to the irrational strategy that is based on emotion (hatred, fear, anger) more than reason. I'm not saying that you personally are motivated by these emotions, but that they pervade the culture to such an extent that we are all steeped in them.

In order to make a statement of this kind, I think you would almost have to be misunderstanding my argument. I hope what I have said so far has cleared it up, because I don't quite know where the disconnect is...

The idea that an entire country is guilty of the crimes of a few is grouping "them" into a collective. The idea that "we" will be safer by killing all of "them" is collectivist as well towards our group. The lines that are drawn between us and them are arbitrary, especially when one or more governments aren't representative democracies.

Then focus on the numbered points that I have made and you will see how it is.

So I just have to accept your numbered points as objective premises? I don't have that kind of blind faith.

Why would the "backlashers" risk their lives so recklessly, when they know very well that they could be next?

You are talking about an enemy that will kill himself so that he can hurt others. I don't think making them fear for their deaths is going to work.

As I said, free nation "b" has NOT initiated force against anyone.

What if a free nation did start a war on false premises, supposedly for "self-defense" and it turned out they were wrong? Would it then be ok for a group to take retribution against said free nation? I would say no, but according to your logic, I deserve to die because I couldn't stop that from happening.

What kind of argument is this? That they were "sure" and they were wrong, so now WE have to have doubts? That's not a rational argument. They did NOT have the right to do that, and we DO have the right to kill them and their allies for it.

There are legitimate greviances against the US coming from the Arab world. Legitimate enough to for them to kill civilians? Hell no. But those on their side who use your line of logic would say yes. Now I'm sure you'll return with a "nuh-uh" just like someone on the other side would if I tried to defend the US to them.

That's a straw man argument. You've constructed something superficially similar to my position, but not quite right. I am saying that the casualties of war between a dictatorship and a free nation are the moral responsibility of the dictatorship and NOT of the free nation. You've taken that and turned it into "NUKE CHICAGO; THERE MAY BE ARABS THERE!!!"

No, I'm saying that we don't get a moral blank check to do whatever we want to another country (not Chicago) because the other side has done something wrong. We can torture them, and kill all the civilians we have to because we are right and they are wrong. The end can't justify the means. What I'm hearing (correct me if I'm wrong) is "they have proven themselves to be evil, therefore, we must be the good guys. In that case, no matter what we do, we'll be in the right." The dictatorship must share the responsibility, I'll give you that, but so must the free nation for any immoral acts of its own. Hell, I'll even give most of the blame to the dictatorship, but we are responsible for our own acts as well.

Edited February 25, 2005 by heizeus

[Inspector]

1) Suppose dictatorship "a" threatens free nation "b." Free nation "b" has a moral obligation to remove the threat of dictatorship "a" in the way that is LEAST self-sacrificial.

3) Casualties are the moral responsibility of nation "b" and are not the fault of nation "a."

3) Should read:

Casualties are the moral responsibility of nation "a" and are not the fault of nation "b."

That's a rather embarassing typo!

[Inspector]

Argh... broken quote function is making this too difficult...

If the strategy is irrational, and morality is based on rationality, then an irrational strategy is immoral.

Yes, I know that, but now you're getting bogged down in semantics. I am merely saying that a nuclear ultimatum strategy is something that cannot be dismissed on moral grounds. It might be dismissed on the grounds that it is not the best possible choice, but that is neither here nor there.

I was requesting proof that your moral premises are in fact objective.

Well, where should I start?!? You do realize that is basically asking me to repeat my entire argument, then the entire philosophy of Objectivism? Unless you can be more specific, I'm afraid I'm just not willing to do all that.

You have it backwards in your initial post. That's why I was confused by a contradiction between 2 and 3.

Yikes! That is a problem. Yes, I meant it in reverse.

So the fact that they've signed an agreement is the reason for the immorality of killing the hostages?

Yes, but not ONLY for that reason. Police are not merely in contract to do so; they are by definition duty-bound to do so.

To answer the question I think you're asking, suppose that you were an innocent bystander in a terrorist attack and you were also armed. If you acted to defend yourself, you would not be bound to "go cowboy" to save the hostages. If they were killed, that is on the terrorists purely and not on your conscience.

So if free country "b" signed an agreement with other countries not to purposely kill civilians, it would then be immoral to do so. Correct?

I don't get it. What kind of agreement? Why would they do so? Like the Geneva conventions, you mean?

Fair enough. So the question becomes, would acting as a heavy-handed ruler over the rest of the world actually make us safer?

That's a question I'm not really interested in getting into at this time. If that's all you're asking, then I step down so that others can answer you.

It all seems to come back to the irrational strategy that is based on emotion (hatred, fear, anger) more than reason.

Speaking for myself, yes I am basing my ideas on reason. No, they are not simply based on emotion. I don't think Dr. Peikoff was either when he wrote the article advocating the same strategy that I am defending here.

The idea that an entire country is guilty of the crimes of a few is grouping "them" into a collective.

That's not my argument. I said that the people in those lands had a responsibility TO THEMSELVES to resist/leave/whatever. Their lives are at risk living there for more reasons than just because they may get caught in the crossfire. My argument was not that they are all guilty and deserve to die, but rather simply that we needn't (literally!) kill ourselves to save their lives.

The idea that "we" will be safer by killing all of "them" is collectivist as well towards our group.

No it isn't. If "we" nuked North Korea, "we" would be safer. (assuming China was okay with that) I don't see how you can apply a social principle (collectivist vs individualist) to this context. It's a non-sequitor.

Then focus on the numbered points that I have made and you will see how it is.

So I just have to accept your numbered points as objective premises? I don't have that kind of blind faith.

Are you confused on the difference between the words "focus on" and "accept?"

You are talking about an enemy that will kill himself so that he can hurt others. I don't think making them fear for their deaths is going to work.

Those that do not fear death, we simply make dead. The fear is aimed at the majority, who DO fear death. But again, I'm not really interested in this aspect at the moment.

What if a free nation did start a war on false premises, supposedly for "self-defense" and it turned out they were wrong?

If you're talking about the Iraq war, then that's a false analogy. We had a legitimate cassus belli for the Iraq war, despite leftist lies and whining to the contrary.

Would it then be ok for a group to take retribution against said free nation?

In certain contexts, yes (though I couldn't fathom one right now). That's why it's important that we keep an eye on what our government does!

I would say no, but according to your logic, I deserve to die because I couldn't stop that from happening.

It's not about DESERVING to die. It's about the other guy not deserving to have to risk HIS life to avoid killing you.

Now I'm sure you'll return with a "nuh-uh" just like someone on the other side would if I tried to defend the US to them.

Yes, but unlike them, I am actually CORRECT to do so. You seek to obfuscate the difference. It reminds me of those who say "all violence is wrong."

No, I'm saying that we don't get a moral blank check to do whatever we want to another country (not Chicago) because the other side has done something wrong.

Neither am I. We can't do JUST ANYTHING. We can't just nuke them for no reason, or nuke them even when we don't need to. We can nuke them as an alternative to sacrificing thousands of our soldiers in pointless house-to-house fighting (assuming that that would work to end the war)

What I'm hearing (correct me if I'm wrong) is "they have proven themselves to be evil, therefore, we must be the good guys. In that case, no matter what we do, we'll be in the right."

No, you needn't take that from what I'm saying. We're still bound to do what is rationally in our interests. But so long as what we do is in our interests, then yes we WILL be in the right.

Hell, I'll even give most of the blame to the dictatorship, but we are responsible for our own acts as well.

Only if those "acts" are not in our self interest/self defense and therefore not justified by it.

[AisA]

Argh... broken quote function is making this too difficult...

The quote function is not broken. It is limited to 10 quotes per post.

[AisA]

Here is why your argument is irrational.  I sort of hinted at this earlier.  Acting in this manner creates a chain reaction that ultimately is much worse for free nation "b" in the same way that a dictatorial "President" is not working towards his own self-interest.  It creates a downward spiral where mass murder is committed by all sides in "self-defense" and the rule of not initiating force is out the window. 

By this logic, all criminals should go unpunished, since punishing them will only lead them to commit worse crimes.

This logic also ignores the fact that if we destroy our attackers, they will hardly be in a position to strike back.

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists thought that they were acting in self-defense, attacking the "Great Satan" before we attacked them.  That ultimately was not in the best interest of the Muslim people, as shown by our reaction.  To think there would be no backlash for nuking Mecca, or any of the other crazy theories I've seen, is naive in the extreme.

What was the backlash for nuking Hiroshima? Or Nagasaki?

To advocate mass killing as a way to get rid of a few individuals is incredibly irrational, especially when the ties to the terrorists is they live in approximately the same place or have the same religion and race.  Prove to me that your premise is objectively rational.  I don't believe it can be done.

I don't think anyone wants to kill millions to get rid of a few individuals -- unless that were the only alternative. If the few individuals have created a situation where we must chose between mass death here or mass death there, I vote for there.

The moral responsibility for civilian casualties in war rests with the aggressor, i.e. with the nation that initiated the use of force or threatened to, which is the same thing. (If a man puts a gun to your head, you need not wait for him to pull the trigger before using retaliatory force.)

[heizeus]

To answer the question I think you're asking, suppose that you were an innocent bystander in a terrorist attack and you were also armed. If you acted to defend yourself, you would not be bound to "go cowboy" to save the hostages. If they were killed, that is on the terrorists purely and not on your conscience.

Agreed. So let's say you grab a hostage and use him as a shield while you shoot the terrorist and he dies in the process. Is that moral?

I don't get it. What kind of agreement? Why would they do so? Like the Geneva conventions, you mean?

Yeah. Exactly like that.

That's a question I'm not really interested in getting into at this time. If that's all you're asking, then I step down so that others can answer you.

I believe we are arguing 2 different things, and it is partially due to my confusion on your exact stance on all this. While reading through several of these threads, I've seen several people argue that instead of choosing the best strategy for a particular situation, we immediately jump to using the nukes. For instance, the idea that we just decimate Iran so we don't have to bother with any consequences of a war. "Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out." I don't know if this is your stance or not, but that point of view leads to the view that America is dictator of the world. That, in turn, makes us less safe.

That's not my argument. I said that the people in those lands had a responsibility TO THEMSELVES to resist/leave/whatever. Their lives are at risk living there for more reasons than just because they may get caught in the crossfire. My argument was not that they are all guilty and deserve to die, but rather simply that we needn't (literally!) kill ourselves to save their lives.

See, this just seems unworkable when expanded to everyone. You have to know of at least one situation where the President (any president) acting on behalf of the United States, killed people who weren't a threat to us (didn't initiate force and know evidence they were going to). Now in that situation, you would be saying that if terrorists came from that country and attacked us, we (civilians) had the responsibility to not get killed by resisting, leaving, whatever. In addition, it's not like these people can just walk out of the dictatorial country. There's a lot of redtape and money involved in something like that.

No it isn't. If "we" nuked North Korea, "we" would be safer.

First of all, that's irrational. If we nuked North Korea, that would cause a huge international crisis and I am willing to bet that terrorists attacks on our soil would increase incredibly. It's a public relations nightmare. The statement above is not objectively true.

Those that do not fear death, we simply make dead.

Those who do, we make angry.

If you're talking about the Iraq war, then that's a false analogy. We had a legitimate cassus belli for the Iraq war, despite leftist lies and whining to the contrary.

Sorry, but the lies were for the war and turned out to proven wrong. If there were a legitimate cassus belli, Bush wouldn't be talking about "spreading freedom." Every legitimate expert who was asked about whether they had weapons said no. In any case, the weapons inspectors could be used to prove it first before going in. It was tantamount to blowing up a guy's house because he was a suspected drug dealer. We know the truly horrible stuff Saddam did when he was an ally 20 years ago, but it wasn't against us. The only reason we went to this war was for control of oil, which although strategic, is bad strategy.

OK, I think the crux of my problem with this line of logic is this: you and I can start with the facts, see them slightly differently based on our experience and which facts we each have. Then we can both apply sound logical principles and come to completely different conclusions. It all depends on those premises and which facts we know. It's built on subjectivity. Since it's not possible to know everything to make a decision (and we can't see the future) we can never know exactly what the consequences of our actions will be. The idea that we do the toughest thing possible when it comes to international diplomacy, reeks of irrationality.

[heizeus]

By this logic, all criminals should go unpunished, since punishing them will only lead them to commit worse crimes.

Based on your personal premises, that may be true. But if the police dropped bombs on the city block where a criminal was from whenever that crime was commited, then this would be similar situation. It's the killing "you and your family" mentality that is immoral and illogical. You could say it was the criminal's fault for doing the crime and therefore bringing the punishment on his block, but you should also throw some blame to the police for deciding on such a policy. It's the same as in the international scene.

This logic also ignores the fact that if we destroy our attackers, they will hardly be in a position to strike back.

It's irrational to believe that 1) we could kill them all, and 2) our actions would go unnoticed by everyone else in the world and they would sympathize with us.

What was the backlash for nuking Hiroshima? Or Nagasaki?

Superior Japanese cars. So let's say that we could have won the war with just Hiroshima? That's a very real possibility. So killing more people probably wasn't necessary, but we did it anyway. Is that as moral as doing just enough? Or what if we decided that we couldn't be sure how much it would take to make them stop fighting and we dropped 10 nukes on all the most populated cities in the country? Would that be as moral? This idea that as long I say it's for our self-defense and can make the case (and you could make the case to bomb just about any country in the world if you use enough imagination on your premises) we can do anything is absolutely ludicrous. So you could morally torture a man for a name of a friend of a friend of a friend who might be a terrorist?

I don't think anyone wants to kill millions to get rid of a few individuals -- unless that were the only alternative.

There's always more than one alternative. (Or almost always.)

The moral responsibility for civilian casualties in war rests with the aggressor, i.e. with the nation that initiated the use of force or threatened to, which is the same thing.

On a long enough timeline, every country's been an aggressor. What's the statute of limitations? What's the threshold over which something is consider a legitimate threat? Does speaking out against your government's actions in a war fill that definition? I've heard that said. Who decides and how do you prevent your premises from being subjective since you can't know everything.

[Inspector]

Agreed.  So let's say you grab a hostage and use him as a shield while you shoot the terrorist and he dies in the process.  Is that moral?

No, but I don't see how that could possibly carry over into what we're talking about.

Yeah.  Exactly like that.

I would think we would have an interest in following our international treaties, yes. But remember that nonuniformed terrorists are considered spies by Geneva and they don't have the same protections.

I believe we are arguing 2 different things, and it is partially due to my confusion on your exact stance on all this.

Bingo. I am merely saying that if nuking were the strategy that would cause the least loss of American lives, then nuking would be the MORAL strategy to use. IF.

See, this just seems unworkable when expanded to everyone.

No, it's not "unworkable," it just means that we have to be bloody careful what our government does.

You have to know of at least one situation where the President (any president) acting on behalf of the United States, killed people who weren't a threat to us (didn't initiate force and know evidence they were going to).

Actually, I don't. Not as such. Elian Gonzalez, maybe? (they're sentencing the boy to a "life" in Cuba... that's like killing...) Maybe you could name one?

In addition, it's not like these people can just walk out of the dictatorial country. 

Nobody said it would be EASY. It would, however, be in their self-interest, even if we weren't here to bomb their country.

First of all, that's irrational.

It is when you snip out the relevant part of my quote!

Those who do, we make angry.

Angry, yes. But we also make them afraid of us. So long as they are more afraid than angry, then we win.

Sorry, but the lies were for the war and turned out to proven wrong.

No, I'M sorry. Sorry that you think that it's a good idea to swallow leftist tripe. Whatever idiocy Bush cites as his reason for war, we have many LEGITIMATE reasons that exist independant of Bush. The simplest being that they fired on our planes after the ceasefire agreement.

Furthermore, why is it that everyone seems to think there actually had to be WMD for the war to be legit? The point was that SADDAM WOULD NOT ALLOW INSPECTIONS. That's like a criminal in a dark alley with a hand behind his back. If the cops say "put your hands up" and he says "no..." then he's getting shot. If it turns out he had absolutely nothing behind his back, the cops still had a right to shoot his stupid self.

It all depends on those premises...

This text I agree with. The rest of your skeptic gobeltygook you can keep.

[Inspector]

But if the police dropped bombs on the city block where a criminal was from whenever that crime was commited, then this would be similar situation.

I'll let AisA answer the rest, but I won't let you get away with this. The police have a responsibility to protect the citizens who live around the criminals. The military DOES NOT have a responsibility to protect enemy civilians who live around the enemy. I'm more than a little annoyed that you have the audacity to repeat this argument after you have already been refuted.

[AisA]

Based on your personal premises, that may be true.  But if the police dropped bombs on the city block where a criminal was from whenever that crime was commited, then this would be similar situation.  It's the killing "you and your family" mentality that is immoral and illogical.  You could say it was the criminal's fault for doing the crime and therefore bringing the punishment on his block, but you should also throw some blame to the police for deciding on such a policy.  It's the same as in the international scene.

Inspector has answered this properly. I will only say in addition that you are switching the subject here. I was responding to your assertion that massive retaliation will make us less safe because it will enrage our enemies. You respond by trying to switch to the moral argument -- which Inspector has refuted.

It's irrational to believe that 1) we could kill them all, and 2) our actions would go unnoticed by everyone else in the world and they would sympathize with us.

In the first place, we do not have to kill them all. If we kill enough of them and destroy the economic infrastructure that supports them, they will not be in a position to be a threat to us.

In the second place, we most definitely want the world to notice. The overwhelming annihilation of the military, economic infrasture and the government of one of America's self-described mortal enemies would send a very clear message. We have the power to do this even without nuclear weapons. And any nation whose government functions begin with chants of "Death to America" deserves it.

Superior Japanese cars.   

Are you conceding, then, that the examples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima demonstrate the falsehood of the "backlash" theory?

So let's say that we could have won the war with just Hiroshima?  That's a very real possibility.  So killing more people probably wasn't necessary, but we did it anyway. Is that as moral as doing just enough?

Here is how it went. The Japanese murdered 3,000 people at Pearl Harbor. We destroyed their naval forces at Midway and other battles. They refused to surrender. We destroyed their air forces. They refused to surrender. We captured their outlying territories. They refused to surrender. We firebombed their large cities to ashes. They refused to surrender. We vaporized Hiroshima. They refused to surrender. We vaporized Nagasaki. They surrendered. What else would you have had us do?

Or what if we decided that we couldn't be sure how much it would take to make them stop fighting and we dropped 10 nukes on all the most populated cities in the country?  Would that be as moral?  This idea that as long I say it's for our self-defense and can make the case (and you could make the case to bomb just about any country in the world if you use enough imagination on your premises) we can do anything is absolutely ludicrous.

No one is saying that we can "do anything". We are saying that if the use of retaliatory force to destroy threats to America creates civilian casualties, the responsibility lies with the aggressor.

So you could morally torture a man for a name of a friend of a friend of a friend who might be a terrorist?

Potentially, yes, in a war situation, provided one has proof that a threat does exist and provided one has proof that the individual in question has information that could aid in the capture or killing of the threat. In this context, refusing to help the good is the same as aiding the evil. Torture, however, is a poor way to gain information, and I cannot imagine very many cases where it is justified.

There's always more than one alternative.  (Or almost always.)

On a  long enough timeline, every country's been an aggressor.

Do you care to support that assertion? How has America been an aggressor in the sense you mean here?

What's the statute of limitations?

As long as the threat exists.

What's the threshold over which something is consider a legitimate threat?  Does speaking out against your government's actions in a war fill that definition?I've heard that said.

Opposing a war is certainly not a problem -- and with an all-volunteer army and all-voluntary funding, witholding one's support is easy. Speaking against a war is certainly your right.

However, calling for the destruction of our soldiers, or otherwise physically interferring with the conduct of a war, is a crime.

Who decides and how do you prevent your premises from being subjective since you can't know everything.

Congress, the people's elected representatives, decides when to go to war or use military force. This is generally not a difficult decision. When another country declares its desire to see America destroyed, has a history of invading its neighbors, kills its internal dissidents on a mass scale using every type of weapon it has including nerve gas and attempts to assassinate a former U. S. President, one can conclude with certainty that they are a threat.

The moral status of other countries is not hard to evaluate. The chance that we will attack a country that does not deserve it is small. The chance that we will attack a country that does deserve it, but is not a threat, is somewhat larger, though still small. The chance that we will attack a country that is a threat, but be handicapped by the notion that we must protect foreign civilians and therefore lose far more men and treasury than is necessary, is quite high, due primarily to thinking such as yours.

[heizeus]

No, but I don't see how that could possibly carry over into what we're talking about.

I'm glad that you at least agreed that this is immoral. It's immoral because it's a wreckless disregard for another human life, initiating force against this person who did nothing to you. Indifference whether another person lives or dies, regardless of the fact that this person probably helped save your life by stopping the bullet that would have hit you. It was selfish and yet immoral. The same is true when you are indifferent to the death of civilians and make the choice to vaporize them without a guilty conscience. You should feel guilty for killing people who did nothing wrong (except try to survive in a country that doesn't give them much choice) even if it's the best choice you have. It's still wrong, just less wrong than the other choices.

I would think we would have an interest in following our international treaties, yes. But remember that nonuniformed terrorists are considered spies by Geneva and they don't have the same protections.

But not everyone who is killed is a terrorist, even by stretching that definition to its limits. Civilians aren't open to be killed simply because they don't wear uniforms.

No, it's not "unworkable," it just means that we have to be bloody careful what our government does.

We can't control everything it does. Even if we could, there will always people in the minority who don't get their way, even if they try via voting or whatever.

Actually, I don't.  Maybe you could name one?

Vietnam: the domino theory was pretty flimsy and just a theory that we can't prove because that alternate reality didn't happen. We don't know what would have happened if we'd stayed out of it, but they didn't pose an immediate threat, and saying they might have at some future point wouldn't work in a court of law (and shouldn't). Most of the South American BS from the Reagan era could also be included in the category of American aggression. Terrorists trained by the US to kill civilians to keep the populations in line and without a democratic choice.

Nobody said it would be EASY. It would, however, be in their self-interest, even if we weren't here to bomb their country.

Try close to impossible. It would be in my self-interest to fly, but I can't do that either.

It is when you snip out the relevant part of my quote!

What? The part about China. I assumed that China was ok with it. There would be many others who wouldn't. As strong as we are, we can't take on the force of the entire world against us, and that's a possibility if we move on a course of pre-emptive heavy handed attacks.

Angry, yes. But we also make them afraid of us. So long as they are more afraid than angry, then we win.

It starts a cycle where every time we kill people, more people get afraid and more get angry. Anger coincides with fear and resentment. It might take a while for it to build, but it's that much more catastrophic when it comes to a head.

Furthermore, why is it that everyone seems to think there actually had to be WMD for the war to be legit? The point was that SADDAM WOULD NOT ALLOW INSPECTIONS.

WMD=threat to US. Otherwise, what would he do to hurt us? Paper airplanes? The whole thing about Saddam avoiding the inspections was a Clinton lie. He did some minor evasions, but was eventually forced into submission. The inspections process got rid of the vast majority of the weapons (like 95% I think). Most of what was left was useless (expired, in a lot of cases). The proof is in the pudding, since we haven't found anything and the whole point of the weapons inspections process was to find the weapons. If Clinton hadn't pulled out the inspectors to launch cruise missiles (and then lied to cover his ass), they would have gotten everything. Clearly more rational than the present situation where 1500 American soldiers are dead and chaos and civil war will probably continue for a decade. What would have happened if we had just pulled our troops out of Iraq completely and wiped our hands of the mess? Nothing.

That's like a criminal in a dark alley with a hand behind his back. If the cops say "put your hands up" and he says "no..." then he's getting shot. If it turns out he had absolutely nothing behind his back, the cops still had a right to shoot his stupid self.

This text I agree with. The rest of your skeptic gobeltygook you can keep.

It's more like he reluctantly put his hands up when the cops repeated themselves. At times, it was like we were yelling for his hands up and they already were. Nothing wrong with a healthy level of skepticism. I can accept a certain level of uncertainty in life, since it is naive to believe that you could ever know everything. It's what science is built on. Seems to me the opposite of a skeptic is someone with blind faith. I like to balance somewhere in the middle.

[heizeus]

I'll let AisA answer the rest, but I won't let you get away with this. The police have a responsibility to protect the citizens who live around the criminals. The military DOES NOT have a responsibility to protect enemy civilians who live around the enemy. I'm more than a little annoyed that you have the audacity to repeat this argument after you have already been refuted.

According to the Geneva conventions, a similar oath than that of a police officer, we can't kill civilians haphazardly. You may disagree with this, but we signed it. An accident is one thing. Intentional civilian death, directly or through indifference, is another entirely. My point was not refuted.

[heizeus]

I have to say, this is wearing me down a bit. So much typing.

I will only say in addition that you are switching the subject here.  I was responding to your assertion that massive retaliation will make us less safe because it will enrage our enemies.  You respond by trying to switch to the moral argument -- which Inspector has refuted.

When rationality=morality, as said in Objectivism, my claim that your tactics are irrational is not changing the subject. That's the whole point.

In the first place, we do not have to kill them all.  If we kill enough of them and destroy the economic infrastructure that supports them, they will not be in a position to be a threat to us.  In the second place, we most definitely want the world to notice.  The overwhelming annihilation of the military, economic infrasture and the government of one of America's self-described mortal enemies would send a very clear message.

Afghanistan had no economic infrastructure to speak of and they were a haven for terrorists. Most of the poorest countries in the world are also the ones that are the birthplaces of terrorists. Economic factors are a big reason why such philosphies can take hold at all. The Klan mostly exists in the poorest parts of the poorest states in the country (those red Southern states).

That message: "you better do what we say or else." People don't respect that. That's the message we've been sending all over the world for the entire post-WWII era. It hasn't worked too well yet, has it? There's a big difference between respect and fear.

Are you conceding, then, that the examples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima demonstrate the falsehood of the "backlash" theory?

It doesn't disprove the theory. It just proves that it doesn't always happen. There isn't enough data at the time to extrapolate. But the fact remains that much of terrorism that exists now is from backlash. We use the Afghanis to fight the Soviets and give them CIA training and weapons. Al qaeda. We leave military bases all over the world because we can. We support Saddam Hussein because he was the lesser evil of the month. Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs. At least with Japan, we were retaliating. There are so many factors that go into what the consequences of our actions will be.

We vaporized Hiroshima.  They refused to surrender.  We vaporized Nagasaki.  They surrendered.

There's some debate about whether they would have surrendered after Hiroshima. Check this article out: http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

No one is saying that we can "do anything".  We are saying that if the use of retaliatory force to destroy threats to America creates civilian casualties, the responsibility lies with the aggressor.

"Threat" is so vague. You could make it mean anything.

Potentially, yes, in a war situation, provided one has proof that a threat does exist and provided one has proof that the individual in question has information that could aid in the capture or killing of the threat.

2 things: 1)how much proof is required. Sounds kind of subjective. 2) Even Ayn Rand said the end can't justify the means.

Torture, however, is a poor way to gain information, and I cannot imagine very many cases where it is justified.

Ahh, something we can agree on.

Opposing a war is certainly not a problem -- and with an all-volunteer army and all-voluntary funding, witholding one's support is easy.  Speaking against a war is certainly your right.

The case has been made by some that speaking against the war adds to the morale of the enemy and takes it from our soldiers, which leads to their physical harm. With that (erroneous) logic, it would be considered criminal to speak out. So what's the Objective difference?

kills its internal dissidents on a mass scale using every type of weapon it has including nerve gas

Since those were provided by the US, does that mean that the Kurds would be morally correct if they chose to attack us? Or Iran? Isn't that aiding them enemy a lot more than those who just happened to live under Saddam's repressive foot?

The moral status of other countries is not hard to evaluate.  The chance that we will attack a country that does not deserve it is small.  The chance that we will attack a country that does deserve it, but is not a threat, is somewhat larger, though still small.  The chance that we will attack a country that is a threat, but be handicapped by the notion that we must protect foreign civilians and therefore lose far more men and treasury than is necessary, is quite high, due primarily to thinking such as yours.

Due to thinking such as yours, everyone (except for us) deserves to be attacked. Everyone is a potential threat. It's arbitary where you draw the line on what is a threat and what isn't. It's subjective. If the gun isn't held to your head, but is in the dresser drawer, and the guy once said negative things about you, do you have the moral right to shoot him without the draw of his gun?

Edited March 2, 2005 by heizeus

[Inspector]

Heizeus, I am simply not interested in continuing this debate with you. I do not agree with your version of history, which could well have been crafted by Michael Moore, IMO. I do not agree with your view of war, and how it should be fought. I do not agree with your evaluation of what happens when a free nation engages in a proper defense. The whole "anger begets anger" thing is a leftist fave and I don't have time to go into why it's wrong. This is not an argument, so don't bother arguing with it. I'm simply saying I don't support you or your leftist-revisionist-history, or your pacifist bromides.

[heizeus]

Fair enough. I was starting to tire of this as well. It's like

leftist-revisionist-history

The winners write history. To think that it's objectively correct as it's written is naive at best. Sadly, like most things, we can never be absolutely sure what the Truth is because there aren't enough facts.

[Inspector]

Sadly, like most things, we can never be absolutely sure what the Truth is because there aren't enough facts.

For the record, I don't agree with that either.

The effect comes from us not having enough common ground, and I just can't get into the mess of untangling where our disconnect is right now.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Inspector

[AisA]

Afghanistan had no economic infrastructure to speak of and they were a haven for terrorists.

It doesn't matter whether a country is a haven for terrorists. It matters whether or not they are a threat to America. The 9/11 hijackers were funded with Saudia money and money from Islamic charities around the world and they got their flight training in America, not Afghanistan. 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.

Most of the poorest countries in the world are also the ones that are the birthplaces of terrorists.  Economic factors are a big reason why such philosphies can take hold at all.

In the first place, you have cause and effect reversed. Bad philosophy is what (ultimately) creates bad economic conditions -- not the other way around.

In the second place, most of the world's most dangerous terrorists -- such as bin Laden -- are wealthy or come from wealthy families. They are not the products of poverty.

That message: "you better do what we say or else."  People don't respect that.  That's the message we've been sending all over the world for the entire post-WWII era.  It hasn't worked too well yet, has it?  There's a big difference between respect and fear.

The message we have been sending is that it is okay to attack America, we won't fight back. Prior to 9/11, there had been a long string of attacks against American interests here and abroad, with little or no response from us.

Terrorists bombed our embassies, bombed our overseas military barracks, bombed the World Trade Center, bombed the U.S.S. Cole warship, bombed American Hotels, murdered U.S. ambassadors and blew up U.S. airplanes -- all with little response from us. That is the message we were sending.

The message we are sending these days is that we might respond militarily (albeit not nearly as strongly as we should), and even that tepid response has produced results: No more attacks in America, fewer attacks (outside Iraq) on American interests, and in his latest communique, bin Laden essentially proposed a cease fire.

It doesn't disprove the theory.  It just proves that it doesn't always happen.  There isn't enough data at the time to extrapolate.  But the fact remains that much of terrorism that exists now is from backlash.  We use the Afghanis to fight the Soviets and give them CIA training and weapons.  Al qaeda.

You think al Qadea and the 9/11 attacks occurred because we helped the mujahadeen against the Soviet occupation?

We leave military bases all over the world because we can.  We support Saddam Hussein because he was the lesser evil of the month.  Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs.

So lets see, in addition to the Japan example, we stuck our noses into France in 1944 and what was the backlash from that? We stuck our noses into NATO from 1960 - 1989 and won the cold war, what was the backlash from that? We stuck our noses into Afghanistan in 2001, and what was the backlash from that? We stuck our noses into Panama and Granada, what was the backlash from that? I've now given you six cases of significant nose-sticking that did not produce any backlash.

  At least with Japan, we were retaliating.  There are so many factors that go into what the consequences of our actions will be.

But this contradicts your prior statement that, "Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs."

"Threat" is so vague.  You could make it mean anything.

So "threat" could be made to mean "non-threat"? This is silly. It is obvious, for example, that Great Britain is not a threat to the U.S., but that North Korea is.

The case has been made by some that speaking against the war adds to the morale of the enemy and takes it from our soldiers, which leads to their physical harm.  With that (erroneous) logic, it would be considered criminal to speak out.  So what's the Objective difference?

Since you capitalized the "O" in Objective, I assume you are asking for Objectivism's answer to the argument you just quoted.

My answer would be that mere speech cannot be construed to be support for the enemy. Now, demonstrations that interfere with operations at military bases or raising funds for the enemy are obviously a different matter.

Since those were provided by the US, does that mean that the Kurds would be morally correct if they chose to attack us? Or Iran?  Isn't that aiding them enemy a lot more than those who just happened to live under Saddam's repressive foot?

We are not responsible for Saddam Hussein's actions.

Due to thinking such as yours, everyone (except for us) deserves to be attacked.  Everyone is a potential threat.  It's arbitary where you draw the line on what is a threat and what isn't.  It's subjective.  If the gun isn't held to your head, but is in the dresser drawer, and the guy once said negative things about you, do you have the moral right to shoot him without the draw of his gun?

Depends on the context. If the guy in question is a convicted hit man with a history of killing those he does not like, and if the negative thing he said about me is that I do not deserve to live, I may well be justified in killing him before he draws the gun.

If the guy in question has no criminal record and the negative thing he said about me was that I do not cut my grass often enough, no, I would certainly not have the right to kill him.

The fact that situations must be judged and evaluated does not make the process subjective or arbitrary. Was the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler arbitrary? Is it your position that the choice of Hitler as an enemy was subjective, and therefore it was no more justified tban, say, an invasion of Canada? Going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was completely arbitrary? The decision to view nations that explicitly call for, "Death to America" as enemies, instead of allies, is mere subjective whimsy?

Nothing that I have said can be construed to mean that everyone is a potential threat. That is the lamest straw man argument I've heard in a while.

[heizeus]

I've been trying so hard to find that lynchpin on which hangs our disagreement. So elusive!

It doesn't matter whether a country is a haven for terrorists.  It matters whether or not they are a threat to America.  The 9/11 hijackers were funded with Saudia money and money from Islamic charities around the world and they got their flight training in America, not Afghanistan.  15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.

A country that is a haven for terrorists is a greater threat to America than Iraq was. Now, of course, Iraq is yet another haven for terrorists.

In the first place, you have cause and effect reversed.  Bad philosophy is what (ultimately) creates bad economic conditions -- not the other way around.

That's why the red states are typically poorer than the blues. But it's a cycle that feeds on itself, sort of like the chicken and egg. It doesn't really matter which came first, because the cycle keeps repeating from that point on.

In the second place, most of the world's most dangerous terrorists -- such as bin Laden -- are wealthy or come from wealthy families.  They are not the products of poverty.

You wouldn't have heard much about bin Laden if he didn't have millions of followers. The leaders of just about anything are always the rich guys. It's the masses you have to worry about, and they are a lot harder to fight.

The message we have been sending is that it is okay to attack America, we won't fight back.  Prior to 9/11, there had been a long string of attacks against American interests here and abroad, with little or no response from us.  Terrorists bombed our embassies, bombed our overseas military barracks, bombed the World Trade Center, bombed the U.S.S. Cole warship, bombed American Hotels, murdered U.S. ambassadors and blew up U.S. airplanes -- all with little response from us.  That is the message we were sending.

I notice that you are only mentioning Clinton-era crap. I'm not a big fan of the guy, so that's not going to do much for me. You are giving too much credit to the guy in charge when those things were happening. (Or blame, I suppose). This stuff builds up over time and isn't too predictable. A lot of greviances being expressed go back to Reagan and further. If you were to see the way other's see America in the world, you wouldn't have the view that we are too soft. It's quite the opposite. Before WWII, we didn't intervene much at all in other countries affairs, and the founders wanted it that way.

No more attacks in America, fewer attacks (outside Iraq) on American interests, and in his latest communique, bin Laden essentially proposed a cease fire.  You think al Qadea and the 9/11 attacks occurred because we helped the mujahadeen against the Soviet occupation?

Yeah, I'm sure bin Laden would never lie to get us to lower our defenses.

"al Qaeda" means "the base" and is a database of those who were involved in that conflict. We then trained them because we refused to see past that conflict. We also didn't care that they were fundamentalist crazies, because "my enemy's enemy is my friend." And then, when the dust settled, we left them in their wartorn country without much aid or reward for fighting the good fight and the country has remained in that state since.

I've now given you six cases of significant nose-sticking that did not produce any backlash.  But this contradicts your prior statement that, "Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs."

Our noses were welcome in France and NATO, and belonged in Japan since they attacked us. As far as Afghanistan, 2001 was the result of a previous backlash from 20 years previous. It might be another 20 before we see the backlash of this one. As for Panama and Granada, the only backlash I know of is a tainting of the American image (and legitimacy) in the eyes of the rest of the world. All those little insignicant times that we do things that others see as bullying or empirical amount to a nasty picture. Maybe I was over-stating it when I said every time. Here's a good article on the idea of "blowback": http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

So "threat" could be made to mean "non-threat"?  This is silly.  It is obvious, for example, that Great Britain is not a threat to the U.S., but that North Korea is. 

Since you capitalized the "O" in Objective, I assume you are asking for Objectivism's answer to the argument you just quoted.  My answer would be that mere speech cannot be construed to be support for the enemy.  Now, demonstrations that interfere with operations at military bases or raising funds for the enemy are obviously a different matter.

I was thinking more of turning a "non-threat" into a "threat" with the right criteria. What I'm trying to get at is an objective standard as to what is a threat. It may be obvious when you use 2 extremes, but as you move towards the center it becomes a little hazy. Subjective. I know you aren't claiming to have some special intuition that makes it obvious when a threat is near. So what is it? Since we knew that Iraq didn't have weapons (and we did), all the other points were moot.

We are not responsible for Saddam Hussein's actions.

Nor are the civilians in Iraq.

If the guy in question has no criminal record and the negative thing he said about me was that I do not cut my grass often enough, no, I would certainly not have the right to kill him.

The fact that situations must be judged and evaluated does not make the process subjective or arbitrary.  Was the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler arbitrary?  Is it your position that the choice of Hitler as an enemy was subjective, and therefore it was no more justified tban, say, an invasion of Canada?  Going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was completely arbitrary? The decision to view nations that explicitly call for, "Death to America" as enemies, instead of allies, is mere subjective whimsy?

Nothing that I have said can be construed to mean that everyone is a potential threat.  That is the lamest straw man argument I've heard in a while.

If you have to sort the validity and rationality of different facts, then there is a subjective element to it. You have to say, "well, if we leave Saddam alone, he'll do this," but you can't know what will happen in the future. As I've shown here, different premises lead to different conclusions. All my premises (although completely different from yours for the most part) are based on facts and personal experience, as are yours. Hitler is too easy a target, especially when compared to Canada, since the gulf is really wide. But at some point a line has to be drawn in that gray in-between area. I'm also not saying "completely arbitrary" because that is too extreme as well. It's like how a scientist knows that there is a factor of error in his measurements because absolute precision is impossible. But the factor of error in interpersonal (and by extension international) relations is huge because our instruments aren't precise at all. It's too chaotic.

Once again:

[heizeus]

I wanted to add something. I just learned that Ayn Rand testified at the House Unamerican Activities Committee. There is an example of people turning free speech on its head and saying that thought crimes are dangerous and a threat to America. This is what I was talking about how there is some subjectivity in determining what a threat might be. We both agreed earlier that speaking out against a war is not a threat and shouldn't be punished. Well, isn't speaking about a different political ideal, no matter how stupid or naive, the same kind of bird?

[BurgessLau]

That's why the red states are typically poorer than the blues.  But it's a cycle that feeds on itself, sort of like the chicken and egg.  It doesn't really matter which came first, because the cycle keeps repeating from that point on.[...]

I was thinking more of turning a "non-threat" into a "threat" with the right criteria.  What I'm trying to get at is an objective standard as to what is a threat.  It may be obvious when you use 2 extremes, but as you move towards the center it becomes a little hazy.  Subjective.  [...]

If you have to sort the validity and rationality of different facts, then there is a subjective element to it.  [...]

You reject the Objectivist philosophy of history, and you assault Objectivism's highest value, reason, by attributing subjectivity to understanding borderline cases among the referents of a concept ("threat").

These points raise a question: What is your philosophy?

If your philosophy isn't a standard one, with a recognizable name, would you identify the essential principle in each branch of your philosophy?

Your answer may help clarify your bewildering arguments -- by providing context for them.

[ex_banana-eater]

Prodos.com has a September 11th Leonard Peikoff interview that touches on many of the historical issues with Islam. Heizeus, if you're unsure of the moral angle that Objectivists are coming from, you'll want to listen to a clear view here

Objectivist Intellectual, John Lewis, has a chronology of attacks on the West from fundamentalist Islam here

Heizeus,

Essentially, many of the actions taken by America that you consider "too far" are also wrong, but not for going too far. Funding Islamic guerillas in Afghanistan, when Islam had declared war against the West by seizing oilfields, attacking Israel, and taking hostages was not the right thing to do. It was likely an attempt by the religious administration in the US to ally with another religious group to fight off a secular enemy--the Soviets. The correct thing to do would have been to mop up the Soviets after WWII when America was the only nuclear power, and established free countries throughout Europe.

Funding Saddam Hussein, or Iranians, or whoever, was wrong too. If the goal was to destroy them, they should have been destroyed, not propped up economically by American taxpayers. These murderers were by no means friendly governments, and should have been treated as they justly deserved. Ideally, military action should have been taken against Iran a long time ago, after the hostage crisis and the bombing of hundreds of American marines two decades ago. If Saddam had not been funded, he would have been left relatively impotent, and would have an Americanized, Westernized, secularized Iran sitting next to him. No action would be needed against him, and the invasion of Kuwait wouldn't have existed. If Iran would have been taken out we wouldn't have a terrorism problem or September 11th, but I guess hindsight is 20/20 (although Objectivist intellectuals favoured action long before 9/11).

Now, you said that Iraq is a haven for terrorists now. Of course it is, but only because of the Bush administration's weak-willed war effort. It would never be a haven for terrorists if it was taken care of properly, and I think that all Objectivists advocated a real war, not the one that is being operated now.