Occupying Iraq

[HaloNoble6]

Well, for one, if you surpass 10 quotes the board will deactivate the quote tag. Second, the problem I'm speaking of seems to be extremely rampant here, and it's a combination of two things: trying to respond to more than one essential idea at once, and trying to reestablish an entire context each time you post by quoting generously. I personally can't stand reading through quote after quote. Each post should contain new content first and for most, and quotes only if absolutely necessary, i.e. if it isn't clear who/what you're responding to.

[Iakeo]

But, don't you see the circle? They're attacking us to create fear, to get us to leave them be. I honestly believe (after studying much of that culture), that if we were to do such an abomination, that not only would we not create fear, but we would create such a monster that we would be endlessly attacked, not just from the outside, but from within, and from any supporters they will muster. Pissing the world off, is not in our best interests.

And here is where you (Styles) become utterly unhinged from reality. A PC

regurgitation is not worthy of you. Come back to reality, chief.

You're right, and again, I apologize. I still think you are blantantly wrong. The reason that you're idea will never work is because you are talking about a people based on faith. The reason I disagree with this action is because I use reason.

Let's look at the facts

Ayn Rand suggests LIVING throught reason.

The culture you want to bomb, believes in DYING through faith.

The criminals, not the culture, believe in acting criminally, to gain "whatever it is

they value that costs them so much in human life and prosperity".

I'll let them speak for themselves as to what those values are. I would suggest

you do the same.

Yet, if your solution is just to kill them all, to what avail?  What will you have accomplished other than being a murderer?  There's a Rush line that I really like.

"Can any part of life be larger than life?

Even love must be limited by time

And those who push us down that they might climb

Is any killer worth more than his crime?"

-Neil Peart (from an aptly named tune "The Weapon : part 2 of FEAR")

If you have to kill "them all", then you've done something wrong, because it's only

a very small minority of any culture [whatever that means to you] that can create

such an evil as a "terrorist state". The rest of the populace, not inculcated by the

irrational bile of "the leaders" want what the rest of us do. To strive for happiness.

That's why you can't ethically kill a "culture", or whole people, which you seem to

imply is wanted here. A culture is a collection of individuals that share various

traits. No people can possibly hold irrationality as a requirement of it's culture, and

if they do, then they need to be shown why that is irrational.

And if they prove themselves criminal, then they need to be treated as criminals.

-Iakeo

Edited March 18, 2005 by Iakeo

[Iakeo]

This one just doens't want to work,.. so I'll figure somethng else out.

-Iakeo

Edited March 18, 2005 by Iakeo

[Iakeo]

• So, do you walk up to Fundamentalist Christians/Muslims and say this? By all accounts, they are the least rational of all. You advocate killing them over it?
  

No, as they (as sovereign individual people) haven't proved that they have

violated any voluntary value for value trade that I know of.

When they do, them they are to be ethically treated as the criminal they have

proved themselves to be. Luckily for them, there are varying degrees of "being

dealt with" short of death. The "DIE" in the above is used metaphorically for "lose

the irrationality or continue to suffer for your irrationalities".

• Self-protection does not involve DESTRUCTION. It involves PREVENTION.
  Two completely separate ideas. There are many ways to self-protect without
  killing. Killing should always, ALWAYS be a last resort, that of which, in this case,
  we did not get to. I fail to see, sometimes, why it's just so hard to leave other
  people alone. If they want the change, they will seek it. We have no need to
  inflict it upon them.
  

"Destroy" does not necessarily mean kill. Sometimes it does. But ethical killing is

not evil. Many people considering any killing to be evil. I don't.

And yes,.. killing should be the last resort. But when when it is the last resort, it

needs to be used.

Communication before Pain. Pain before killing. Killing when morally required,

administered in ethical fashion.

Your definition for "other people" is simply an evasion to allow others physically

far away from you to suffer at the hands of evil-doers, because "it's too much

bother" to you.

Perverse government ALWAYS tries to make it impossible for it's subjects to

change it. They usually succeed. And when they do, and the subject people are

too irrational to know their true power to move en masse, then the ONLY way that

the criminals are brought to justice is through extra-national ethical action.

Which in this case means US.

• In this case, Objectivism, rationality IS the ideology. The same can be held for irrationality.
  

Here you equate rationality with irrationality in value. That is not true. Rationality

is more of a value than irrationality.

In fact, irrationality drives out rationality, just as rationality drives out irrationality,

making them competitors.

Whom do you want to win this competition?

• 
  

  Accepting others BEING irrational is simply accepting the truth. It is. Tolerating
  that irrationality is not a moral act and needs to be dealt with by ethical action.

  
  I.e. killing them.
  

If need be. But only if need be. Once again do not equate killing with evil. A sharp

blade is not evil.

• 
  You deal with things when they happen. You teach your children to avoid those situations. There's no impinging because the situation will not be any better or worse for our children. Only indifferent. Like you said, there are irrational people in the world. Many of them will always be irrational (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). That is something that, yes, we must accept. The only thing we can do is teach our children how to make their world better. Not everyone elses.
  

When you say, "You teach your children to avoid those situations",

do you mean to avoid ethically confronting evil when it is seen?

That is classic evasion, litterally, and the essence of not only evil itself, but the

characteristic that allows evil to spread.

"Like you said, there are irrational people in the world. Many of

them will always be irrational (for every action there is an equal and opposite

reaction)."

Please show me the "balancing" force that maintains the status quo of relative

proportion between rational and irrational people in the world?

The act OF making the world better is simply to strive to increase the number of

rational people and decrease the number of irrational people. You do this by

ethical action based on moral priciples, which are derived by rational consideration

of reality.

"Teaching" anything else to our children is mystically hoping to improve the world

by stunting our children's minds about the world.

And why should we not include the children of rational, or "hoping to be more

rational", people in this educational effort?

-Iakeo

Edited March 18, 2005 by Iakeo

[HaloNoble6]

I'm not sure what it is, but people just love quoting. Is it laziness?

Iakeo, let me make an example of your last post with quotes above.

Here, instead of including that huge first quote, you could have said:

"And here, where you discuss some "circle of fear," is where you (Styles) become utterly unhinged from reality. A PC regurgitation is not worthy of you. Come back to reality, chief."

That would've been to-the-point and direct, instead of including that nested quote. Please, quote judiciously.

[Iakeo]

I'm not sure what it is, but people just love quoting.  Is it laziness? 

Iakeo, let me make an example of your last post with quotes above.

Here, instead of including that huge first quote, you could have said:

"And here, where you discuss...<clip>

I dislike the loss of information (the exact words) and the extra effort that the audience must do (trying to find the original post) that summarizing someone else's words entails.

But,... I shall try to not waste quite so many pixels.

Is a "20% warning" a good thing? Somehow I think not.

What happens at 80% (assuming 20% increments)..? And <yikes>, what about

100%..!!?

-Iakeo

Edited March 18, 2005 by Iakeo

[HaloNoble6]

You could also just cleverly link someone to the original post. Like, say, here. I'm not sure what happens at the fringes of the warning spectra, though I suspect you won't get there.

[TomL]

Again, Japan did not have the same economic and historical background that the middle east does.

There are definite similarties. If you care to actually study the history and see the similiarties on your own, you'll see them. Otherwise, you won't. I submit that "variations A, B, C" are fuzzy, vague notions in your mind you haven't really thought out clearly.

Then you make Broad Generalizations.

Which is not, in itself, an error. Induction is valid. The way to make error with induction are: context dropping, premature integration (i.e. piling up examples without analyizing the data), and of course the ultimate error -- Occam's Razor (if its simpler, its truer).

I have left out the context, so far, of the history of Japan and what led them to their role in WWII. I assumed, apparently erroneously, that the knowledge was common and obvious. Japan's culture and ideology had a great deal to do with the cultural mentality that drove them to war, and that part of its ideology halted and ceased to exist when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed.

The Japanese, too, were very adamant about their beliefs. They even trained civilians to use pitch forks and shovels to fight an allied invasion force. They changed their minds with a couple of brutal displays of force to which they could not hope to respond.

You really assume that everyone feels that way, don't you?

I don't care how everyone feels about it. I only care abou the reality of the situation.

All I hear about from my soldier friends are how the people they meet are happy that they're there.

I have heard this from returning soldiers also. What they are "happy" about is that we're there for them to leech off of. We're building them all sorts of free infrastructure they won't now have to learn how to build or maintain, and when it falls to ruin they can just blow up another building over here and we'll be back to fix their power plants and water systems for them. Again. They're also "happy" that we've deposed their dictator -- so they can prop up another one of a different sect. But its all the same crap.

Deposing of a monstrous dictator, giving them Democracy (or a warped version of it), building schools

Democracy itself is a warped political system that trades the boot of a dictator for the boot of the majority.

....MY ARGUEMENT is that they should do it themselves

At least we agree on that much.

But, as far as I'm concerned, if you hostily enter anothers land, and you expect them to welcome you with open arms...you're sadly mistaken.[/quiote]

I don't expect that at all. I expect them to stop. Permanently, or we'll come back to do it again.

Edited March 18, 2005 by TomL

[AisA]

Regarding the Japanese, it is also worth noting that they employed suicide bombers (kamikazes) long before the Islamic terrorists adopted the technique.

In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese unleashed 5,000 kamikaze attacks on U.S. forces, sinking (as I recall) over 30 of our ships. After the battle was over, U.S. forces uncovered plans for the defense of the mainland. The plans showed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were destined to be used as human shields along the coast lines.

One could speculate that using overwhelming force against such fanatics would only serve to enrage and encourage them. But history does not support that notion.

[HaloNoble6]

Again, quoting when it is not absolutely necessary wastes board space. If you find it absolutely necessary to maintain a connection to the original content you are commenting on, cleverly include a link to it. Also, expressions of thanks, apologies, and anything else that adds zero intellectual content to a thread should be handled via private message.

[EC]

What about wasting board space telling others not to waste board space, can't that be done via PM also?

[HaloNoble6]

I'm only doing this in the beginning so that it serves as public notice, otherwise many will remain in the dark, and in that sense it is not a waste. After a day of this, I will only use PMs and warnings.

[Iakeo]

You could also just cleverly link someone to the original post.  Like, say,...

Right O, mon capitain..!!

While wasting "monitor pixels" is a silly concept, wasting server memory space

makes ENOURMOUS sense. I was thinking I was only "wasting" monitor pixels.

Silly me.

It is rational. It is good..!!

Thanks for reminding me that monitor pixels aren't the same thing as server

memory.

-Iakeo

Edited March 18, 2005 by Iakeo

[TomL]

Going over there and having them lie to my face isn't any different than having them lie to the face of soldier X who happens to have been there and comes back to repeat the lie to me. Hearing it first hand won't suddenly transform an evasive lie into the truth.

The environmental effects of 2 nuclear detonations in WWII was neglible overall considering the loss of life prevented in U.S. casualties (projected casualties in an invasion of the Japanese mainland was between 132,500 and 220,000, compared to the first 30 days of Normandy at 42,000 [ CIA Report ]). Similiar yield devices certainly can be utilized again very effectively, when the enemy has no means to retaliate with nuclear capability.

Whether we pay the Iraqis to build infrastructure or do it with American labor makes no difference. We're the ones making it happen, and if we weren't there they still be sitting on their asses doing nothing. They're only doing it because we'repaying them.

When I said "they must stop" I mean they must stop attacking us and killing Americans e.g. 9/11, attempt at the Space Needle, Achille Lauro, USS Cole, etc. Anything else they wish to do is fine culturally, religiously, whatever. I don't really care, as long as they are not killing Americans -- and at the moment they have no incentive to stop doing so.

[Iakeo]

Styles, are you going to respond to what I said?

Do you have any issues with my thinking?

You seem to be confusing so many things with each other, such as that anyone is

suggesting that we kill entire populations when only destroying their capability to

be harmfully irrational is called for. Or that anyone is trying to "kill" a culture.

I have yet to see anyone advocate those things. Yet, that's the way you seem to

interpret what is being said.

How about tying to understand what it is that the writers mean by what they say,

instead of ranting about your interpretation of it?

So, will you please respond to my postings? Thanks chief.

-Iakeo

[AisA]

What does that have to do with the present situation?  If we had irrefutable proof. We would then have the means to go in and do nothing more than remove those weapons from those people.  However, in Iran's case, there is no suggestion that they would ever even WANT to attack the US.

Here is a link to MEMRI TV. Link This link takes you to the search page. Please enter 551 in the search box on the right hand side of the window where it says "Clip#" and then click the search button. This will retrieve clip 551. Please watch it. Watch it all. It takes about 8 minutes. Then retrieve and watch clips 548 and 530. (There are many, many others, but these three will give you a good overview or the Iranian mindset.)

Then tell me if you still think, "there is no suggestion that they would ever WANT to attack the U.S."

As you watch these broadcasts, bear in mind that this is state-run Iranian television, i.e. this is something managed by the government of Iran.

We are a threat to their culture.  They want to have nuclear weapons, as well. That is their pregotive.

Their "culture" is a worship of death in an Islamic theocracy that denies the rights of man. We should be a threat to their culture. Furthermore, a state that denies the rights of its citizens cannot claim any rights of its own, including any supposed right to possess nuclear weapons.

However, your case "X" has no application to real world "y." Even is y=x are you going to sacrifice thousands of people (American and/or Iranian) for the two hundred people that support it? I still see it has killing/sacrificing others for personal gain, something EXPLICITLY warned against in VoS.

Destroying those who threaten us (and who, in doing so, have initiated the use of force) is not sacrificing others for personal gain. America gains no values from such an action. We merely protect the one's we already have.

When you successfully resist a robber, you gain no values -- you are not a penny richer after the encounter -- all you have done is exercised the legitimate right to self-defense against those that threaten you. America's actions toward threats in the mid-east and elsewhere are of exactly the same nature.

[AisA]

And in the case of this discussion, do you pull out a bomb and kill everyone in the surrounding area, because of robbers?  By what's being said in this thread, we should put a Nuke in NYC because there's a lot of robbers and people who are completely immoral.

You are confusing the responsibility of the police and the military.

The police are responsible for protecting U.S. citizens from criminals within the borders of the U.S. Thus, they must act within the constraint of minimizing risks to the innocent.

The military is responsible for protecting U.S. citizens from threats in other countries. They have no responsibility for the safety of the citizens of other countries.

The purpose of our government is to protect our rights – not the rights of citizens of other countries. This means using whatever force is required to minimize the risk of American casualties while insuring the destruction of the threat. Civilian casualties are the responsibility of the aggressor, not us.

This does not necessarily mean that we must nuke every threat. We have the air power to destroy any regime in the mid-east with conventional weapons alone.

However, if al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization creates a situation where the choice is to risk mass death here or inflict mass death over there, I am in favor or mass death over there. How about you?

[Iakeo]

• But, if you are being robbed, as the other person pointed out, you are allowed to defend yourself? Do you KILL your robber, because he isn't following your ideals? And in the case of this discussion, do you pull out a bomb and kill everyone in the surrounding area, because of robbers? By what's being said in this thread, we should put a Nuke in NYC because there's a lot of robbers and people who are completely immoral.
  

A robber steals my left shoe. I have a gun. I threaten to shoot if he doesn't stop.

He doesn't stop. I shoot him in as little damaging a place as possible. It

immobilizes him and we wait for the police to take him in.

Let's say I kill him, by hitting something vital. Too bad for him. He knew the risks

of thievery.

Let's say I shoot him, but it doesn't immobilize him. It just slows him, down. There

are potential hostages around. I shoot again. This either immobilizes him and

makes hostage taking impossible or not, so see routine above.

Let's say I've shot him, not immobilizing him, and he continues to flee, but there

are no potential hostages around. He is also bigger than me so my only leverage

is the treat or use of my gun. I shoot him again, in some non-vital area. He

continues to flee and is getting closer to "freedom". I shoot him again in a more

vital area. He is either immobilized and alive, or immobilized and dead.

• What is "destroy" then? I would say Eliminate, but I'd like your version
  

It's the behavior and the will to behave that way that needs to be destroyed.

Eliminate works.

• 
  
  That sounds very altruist to me. Why should I care about them? What affect do
  they have on my life? What VALUE are they to me?
  

I suppose it could sound that way, if you confuse people affected by "the bad guy"

who are my trading partners with people whom I have no intercourse.

You have to remember, this is all predicated on the fact that the criminal has

already proved themself a criminal by interfering with a trade I am involved in.

• EVERY government tries to make it impossible to change it (perverse or not), they want to stay in power, with rational or not. So, that's true of every government, regardless of their perversity.
  

Which just tells me that there are no "objectivist governments" in existence!

A more rational government builds ways into it's operation for transitions of power

and how to limit itself. Does any of this sound familiar?

• Competitors {{rationality and irrationality}} for the same goal, eh? So, essentially, what you're saying is that rationality and irrationality are complete opposites using the same means to get to the same ends.
  

Competitors compete for resources. Rationality's "goal" is more happiness by

proven successful acts based on moral grounds with ethical means.

Irrationaliy's "goal" is more "supposed happiness" by any immoral and unethical

means necessary, which have always proven to be short lived and ultimately

disasterous.

• 
  
  There's a competition? I thought existance was just that...I have to compete now? I have to win? I can't just LIVE via my own means? Again, I fail to see why I have to care about everyone else. I understand that, while rationality works for me, Not everyone subscribes to it, and not everyone wants it. I just choose to let them be. If they don't bother me, I won't bother them. Simple as that.
  

Living is competing. You don't care about everyone else, or even anyone else, but

you do care about the ability to get what you need by trading with others without

being molested by criminals.

Right,.. If they don't bother you OR YOUR TRANSACTIONS (which you left

out) then they can do what they like. I agree.

But to muck up my trading with others with criminal acts is where I am forced to

enter the fray and punish the offender, if I can.

• 
  
  Why? Has their irrationality REALLY bothered you that much? Now, YOU are the judge of who can live, and who can die, based on a conflicting ideology to your own?
  

Once again, irrational behavior that doesn't affect my transactions are not

something I choose to concern myself with. But once they do the violators must

be dealt with.

• 
  We get attacked by "The middle East" and it's an attack on our ideology. Except we've been bombing them for years, people seem to forget that. So, their attacking us, is Self-defense, but apparently, they're not allowed that, because they hold the wrong ideology.
  

We got attakced by the McCoys because they don't like the color of our house. Of

course we have attacked them in the past because we don't like being shot at

from their porch whenever we passed by. So they're attacking us in self-defense,

but they're not allowed to do that, because they value being able to shoot at us

from their porch and that's "wrong".

That sounds a little silly, doesn't it?

• 
  
  I mean confronting it only when it affects you. If you see someone getting beat up in parking lot, are you obligated to help? Maybe. What if the person getting beat up was just as immoral as the guy doing the beating? Are we then still obligated to help? Now, you want me to go and rescue people on the other side of the globe, when we still have mass amounts of irrational people here? Not making sense to me.
  

If the person being beaten up in the parking lot is a value to me, I will intercede

as best I can. Period. It's for the government to say whether the cause of this

fight is appropriate. No one is oblidged to enter any transaction that would have

them trade more value for lesser value.

I don't want you to "rescue" anyone. I want you to do what you have to to

eliminate criminals from your midst so that future transactions are less likely to be

affected by them.

• 
  
  I don't need to show you anything. It's an observation. It's what I've seen with my own eyes/ears. You want to see it, walk outside. Look around. It's all there.
  

My eyes show me that rationality is growing in the world as measured by the

relative prosperity of humanity relative to the past. And prosperity is only

produced by rationality.

If you choose to see our prosperity as a result of theft and hoarding, you are free

to your opinion. If so, I would suggest striving mightily to bring the thieves to

justice.

-Iakeo

Edited March 21, 2005 by Iakeo

[Iakeo]

When we voluntarily take on the role as "WORLD POLICE," we subject ourselves to those same ideas and roles of protecting the innocents all over the world.  Is it done with self-interest to ourselves?  Hell, yes.  But, when you take on a responsibility, you take it ALL on.  You can't just say,"Well, we only want this part of the responsibility, so we're not doing that other stuff."

What "part" of which "responsibility" are you talking about?

The idea of "protecting innocents" is basically the military version of the

Hypocratic Oath. It means don't do any more damage than necessary.

It's not in your (you qua soldier) interest to piss any more people off at you than

necessary,.. obviously..!

But no military force should do charity work to protect "innocents" (whatever that

means in this context) when there's no gain in the operation to the government

(nation) who sends in the troops.

You want my help, you show me what my gain is for the effort. If I think it's worth

the trade, I'l help you go free the Easter Bunny from the evil clutches of Dr.

Doom, dude..!!

-Iakeo

Edited March 21, 2005 by Iakeo

[AisA]

That's not really true.  When we (soldiers) give our oath, we are sworn to "PROTECT AGAINST ALL ENEMIES-FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

Regardless of what the oath says, the U.S. military is not involved in domestic law enforcement, except under certain highly unusual circumstances.

And I disagree.  When we voluntarily take on the role as "WORLD POLICE," we subject ourselves to those same ideas and roles of protecting the innocents all over the world.

You are making a straw man argument. Acting in self-defense does not make us the world police.

Is it done with self-interest to ourselves?  Hell, yes.  But, when you take on a responsibility, you take it ALL on.

The only responsibility the U.S. government should take on is the responsibility of defending the individual rights of U.S. citizens. Discharging that responsibility does not entail any responsibility for the welfare or rights of the citizens of other countries. The right to self-defense is not contingent on simultaneously protecting the rights of other citizens in other countries.

You can't just say,"Well, we only want this part of the responsibility, so we're not doing that other stuff."

To the contrary, you cannot simply assert that any act of self-defense makes us the world police and obligates our military to protect the rights of citizens of foreign nations.

You did not respond to the question at the end of my last post. Nor have you responded to clip 551 on MEMRI TV. Do you still contend that "there is no suggestion that Iran would ever WANT to attack the U.S."?

[HaloNoble6]

Styles2112, in a fight for her life, whether it be against one country or the whole world, I would never bet against America. And don't let's forget that we would have the help of Israel. Remember how she single-handedly took down all those Arab nations that tried to stunt her at birth?

Furthermore, once we've fully integrated advance robotics into our military (which we've just begun to do), man-power will not be a problem. The only "problem," at this point, would be mass-production of the equipment, and I again would never bet against America's awesome productive engine.

[AisA]

Oh, and I watched it.  Your Islamic propoganda proves nothing.  What they really want is for us to LEAVE THEM ALONE!  Maybe you missed that message when you were watching.  Yes, they used big powerful words, such as "Death" and "Punch," but if you noticed it was in RESPONSE to us, WE did something to PROVOKE this.  It's not some arbitrary,"Hey, let's hate America and want to destroy them."  You've mis-construed the context for your own propaganda, and you've proved nothing.

This is not "my Islamic propaganda", these are the words of the Iranians themselves.

Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, we have done nothing to Iran.

After viewing that clip, do you still maintain that "there is nothing to suggest that Iran wishes to attack us"?

In addition, do you realize that they have been chanting "Death to America" since 1979, long before President Bush came to office?

[TomL]

Iranian government uses terrorism as a weapon to attack

Road to Victory is through Tehran

Iran most active state sponsor of terrorism

Proof that Tehran Backed Terrorism

Iranian support of Hezbollah -- denied to foreigners, "sacred" inside Iran

How much more do you need? That first one especially is well-documented with sources cited. The third is mainly excerpted from the U.S. State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 1997.

Edited March 23, 2005 by TomL