Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Occupying Iraq

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Doesn't all this go against the Objectivist Philosophy?  The idea of taking unearned property from another nation?  And Objectivists are attempting to justify it?  So, you sacrifice innocent life for the sake of government?  More against Objectivist ideas?  Wow.  I'm floored by you all.

There's so many errors in this thread, I wouldn't give much weight to it. Don't consider for one minute that any individual's ideas -- including mine -- on a particular issue represent "Objectivism". You have to decide that for yourself by first understanding Objectivism.

Trying to understand Objectivism by observing those who claim to be using it is second-handed by definition. Don't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't all this go against the Objectivist Philosophy?   The idea of taking unearned property from another nation?  And Objectivists are attempting to justify it?  So, you sacrifice innocent life for the sake of government?  More against Objectivist ideas? 

To add my own response to the questions, though:

Please study the history of the nations in question, the culture in question, and most importantly, the history of the value of oil. When you understand that American oil companies discovered the oil and Americans gave it value -- and that "Comrade" Roosevelt seized it from those companies and handed it over to the Arabs merely because it was in their corner of the world -- you'll see that the real property owners of the oil is American oil companies, and any such seizing of the oil would only be returning it to its rightful owners.

Just one example of the appropriation that went on (through legal channels):

Mobil, Exxon, Texaco and Chevron had created the "Arabian American Oil Co" in the 1930's. It built factories and secured leases in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of extracting and refining oil for U.S. consumption -- the same oil the then (even in the 1930's and 40's) nomadic tribes of Saudi had been drifting over for thousands of years without a care. At the end of WWII, President Roosevelt had a meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia that set in motion the nationalization, seizing, and handing over of that company to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is now known as the Saudi Arabian American Oil Co (or "Saudi Aramco") and is the only exporter of oil to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia at the rate of 8 million barrells a day.

The story of the King of Saudi Arabia travelling on a U.S. naval vessel to meet the president is rather amusing and telling itself. He brought live goats on board, would not sleep inside the ship (he had the crew contruct a tent for him on deck) and would not step on the steel deck without someone throwing a rug down for him to walk on.

Lastly, there are no innocents in nations at war. Anyone would works in and produces value within a particular government's jurisdiction is responsible for what that government does with said productivity -- including initiating force. I am responsible for whatever the U.S. does, even if I don't agree with that particular action -- because I work here, pay taxes here, etc. To that end, I am responsible for some bad things to be sure, but citizens of other nations are reponsible for worse. I don't get to hide behind the protection of the U.S. military, enjoy its freedoms, and claim that I'm not responsible for its actions selectively on my whim at the same time. I get to take the bad with the good, unfortunately. The only choice I have is to leave the country -- but others are worse, so I'll stay where I am.

The key issue here is really what constitutes "force", and knowing that it is the initiation of force that is evil. Other countries claim we have done some bad things to provoke the terrorists. This may be true, but we didn't kill thousands of people and destroy billions of $ in property in a fiery explosion. That is uniquely their escalation of the situation -- we have done nothing of the sort. The money i.e. value of productiveness that was used to carry out this deed was created by someone. Whom? The citizens of the countries who gave Osama money to do it, that's who. The "innocent" citizens, who had "no idea" but admit to hating the U.S. with a passion, and who danced and sang in the streets on 9/11. They were cheering for their own victory, and taking pride in it.

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if you discover a tree on my property, you are automatically entitled to it? That makes no sense to me. The oil is the property of the land it is on, as it is NATURAL to the land it is on. The Arabs may do with it as they see fit. The Americans, in that case, are taking an unearned property from a sovereign source. I'm sorry, but everything I read in "The Objectivist Ethics" said ideas like this are VERY wrong.

Oh oh..!! Good luck with this one Styles! You're in the big nasty wilderness now,

dude..!! :)

Existing on the land is encumbent on holding the land, owning the land. What

does "owning" mean? It means possesing it as a thing of value, and a thing that

can be traded.

Did the current population of the oil-territory own the land as property? Yes. Did

they sell access to something they had no idea was there for an insane profit? Yes.

By this I mean, some guy came along and offered huge amounts of money, to

them, for allowing them to set off land-bombs (seismic sensors) and build derricks

to extract a nasty oily stuff that the landowners had no use for or awareness of.

They sold their access to land and unknown subterrainean stuff for a price.

They later decided that they had been underpaid for their "resources", and tricked

because of their ignorance.

So, instead of renegotiating, they simply took it.

The "improvements" should have been allowed to be removed, and the

landowners should have had to buy the technology to extract their newfound

resource.

Or, a lease of the existing technologies paid by the landowners should have been

negotiated such that the "foreign exploiters" were (gratefully) paid for their

assistance in improving the economic standard of the landowners.

In my opinion, the landowners should have been held off from taking "that which

makes the extraction and use of the resource possible" by force, if necessary, and

the capability to use the resource utterly destroyed. Then the landowners would

be allowed back on their land and the "exploiters" would be made to leave,

after "agreeing" on a price for the value of informing the landowners that they had

this resource on their land in the first place.

Then, whomever could supply the landowners with the ability to gain from only the

knowledge that the resource is there, can make their best deal with the

landowners. (Because the landowners can't do it themselves.)

You are responsible because our government says you are. Most of their

governments give them no power on that level. And by what you're saying, you

take no action to make things better (for yourself) you simply take the bad and

ACCEPT it. Isn't that, in itself, against Objectivism?

The question is whether there are any "innocent citizens" in war. People may

choose to leave anywhere they are and travel to "a better land". Whether it's too

hard to do, such as "will get them killed", puts them in a nasty spot, but it's

exactly the same "spot" a soldier finds himself in.

What do you suppose would happen if an entire population chose death

(ultimately) over their unethical "government"?

Very few would actually die, and the chance of a more ethical government would

ensue.

You're talking about Afghanistan. What did Iraq do to us before we attacked them? They defied the U.N, but who cares. They (apparently) didn't have WMD, there's no proof of them supporting terrorist attacks against America (unlike Afghanistan, and most of the terrorists were actually Saudis, yet, we haven't invaded them). And yet, in return we HAVE destroyed billions in their property and created many fiery explosions while killing many innocent people just trying to LIVE. Yet, you would sacrifice the thousands of American lives (let alone the numbers of Iraqis and others) over a weak argument on OIL RIGHTS? That's scary.

Any "government" that threatens voluntary value for value trade (commerce)

between nations is a target for retaliatory use of force (to enforce free trade).

What is a way to neurtalize a nation's (government's) capacity to interfere in

proper trade? Kill their unethical "government". First you isolate them, to strangle

their supply of operating funds. If that doesn't work because the policing agency

refuses to due to corruption, then you dismantle the criminal government's

physical assets that supply it with funds. You escalate this destruction (pain) until

the criminal relents.

How much pain they (ALL the inhabitants of the nation) can take before relenting

to ethical enforcement of a moral imperative is up to them.

It's not a question of whether they can "blow up my house 12000 miles from their

border". It's a question of the moral obligation to ethically defeat evil.

And what proceeds from "doing the right thing"? We'll see. Do I feel good about

the future prospects? Yes. And what do the rational good people of such

a "defeated nation" feel about it? I'll leave that to them to say.

Just remember that I'm only asking for the opinions of the RATIONAL GOOD

people.

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if you discover a tree on my property, you are automatically entitled to it?  That makes no sense to me.  The oil is the property of the land it is on, as it is NATURAL to the land it is on. The Arabs may do with it as they see fit.  The Americans, in that case, are taking an unearned property from a sovereign source.  I'm sorry, but everything I read in "The Objectivist Ethics" said ideas like this are VERY wrong.
Not at all. I didn't say we discovered oil on someone else's property and then seized it from them. I'm saying we found oil, they saw no value in it and gave us legal leases, and then LATER something very different happened that made those leases "go away".

You are responsible because our government says you are.  Most of their governments give them no power on that level.  And by what you're saying, you take no action to make things better (for yourself) you simply take the bad and ACCEPT it.  Isn't that, in itself, against Objectivism? 

Not at all. I am not responsible because the government says I am, I am responsible because I choose to live here despite the bad things this government does. I did not see a wall around Iraq or armed border patrols like with the Soviet Union -- and even Soviets managed to escape from time to time. Did I miss something?

You're talking about Afghanistan.  What did Iraq do to us before we attacked them?
I don't think I can convince you that Iraq gave bin Laden money, but he did openly reward the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers with large cash payments (which was really an incentive for people to choose to be suicide bombers so their families could get the money). He also bilked hundreds of millions from the Iraqi people and did noone-knows-what with it (and if noone knows, it can't be good). Plus, they let him do it.

we haven't invaded them).  And yet, in return we HAVE destroyed billions in their property and created many fiery explosions while killing many innocent people just trying to LIVE.

I see no problem here. It is retaliatory force in what I consider to be ideological war, and they hold the wrong ideology. Plus, I already said how they were not innocent. They didn't have to stay in Iraq, but they chose to anyway.

Yet, you would sacrifice the thousands of American lives (let alone the numbers of Iraqis and others) over a weak argument on OIL RIGHTS?  That's scary.

No, actually I wouldn't. I'd be looking for a way to minimize American losses while at the same time utterly defeating the enemy -- and the enemy is the people who want me dead because I'm an American. That would be roughly 100% of everyone -- whether they admit it to themselves or not -- from Egypt over to Pakistan and everything in between. And North Korea. I'd be looking at tactical nukes instead of troop deployments, and making sure that India and other friendly populations aren't going to be affected. Small nukes were used very effectively to end WWII, and there was no collateral damage in other countries from it.

The population of that part of the world are confused. They have the wrong ideas -- just like the population of Japan, or the population of Germany, during WWII. Both of which we shortly counted among our best allies because they wanted to mimick us. If you want to change their ideas, you have to give them a reason to want to change -- and that means defeating them, utterly.

They have to know that their ideas are not going to work, they have to give up on them and then they'll look for new, better ideas. It's almost the same thing as the many individuals seeing the consumation of their own lives by altruism and discovering Objectivism as a result, but on the scale of a nation or a culture rather than an individual.

The oil issue was brought up by those seeking an alternative motive to the real one, which is self-defense. I merely responded it, and did not intend for that to be a justification of war. It isn't. There is sufficient morally righteous cause to defeat the east based on the initiation of force, and that is the only cause that makes it moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this I mean, some guy came along and offered huge amounts of money, to

them, for allowing them to set off land-bombs (seismic sensors) and build derricks

to extract a nasty oily stuff that the landowners had no use for or awareness of.

They sold their access to land and unknown subterrainean stuff for a price.

They later decided that they had been underpaid for their "resources", and tricked

because of their ignorance.

So, instead of renegotiating, they simply took it.

I would not even say they had a right to renegotiate the existent deal based on "ignorance". There was no exploitation whatsoever. If the land owners agreed to giving the lease for $10/year and -they- thought that was fair -- who are you to say if it is or not? It's theirs, and they get to set the terms for its use and disposal. Their not knowing the value to the lessee is part of the trade -- obviously the lessee doesn't want the lessor to know how much money can be made, or how much money they do make. I certainly don't disclose my books to the landlord when I lease an office -- its none of his business. Is he going to charge me more rent based on how much money I make?

I realize that mineral rights are probably a bit different, but if the lessor later realizes they left money on the bargaining table, they can try to renegotiate a better deal when the lease is up. They simply have no moral right to renege on a mutually agreed upon deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not even say they had a right to renegotiate the existent deal based on "ignorance". There was no exploitation whatsoever. If the land owners agreed to giving the lease for $10/year and -they- thought that was fair -- who are you to say if it is or not? It's theirs, and they get to set the terms for its use and disposal. Their not knowing the value to the lessee is part of the trade -- obviously the lessee doesn't want the lessor to know how much money can be made, or how much money they do make. I certainly don't disclose my books to the landlord when I lease an office -- its none of his business. Is he going to charge me more rent based on how much money I make?

You're absolutely right, of course. If the landowner was smart, he would be

suspicious of people wanting to give him more for "apparently nothing", and make

the term (lenght) of the original lease as short as possible to discover what the

heck the other guy is doing.

But you're right. Renegotiation is dependent on both parties getting potential gain

to make any sense.

I realize that mineral rights are probably a bit different, but if the lessor later realizes they left money on the bargaining table, they can try to renegotiate a better deal when the lease is up.  They simply have no moral right to renege on a mutually agreed upon deal.

Yup. :)

-Iakeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, in any lease, the Leaser has still has PROPERTY rights, and can terminate the contract at any point. So, we can lay claim all we want, but the oil is/was not on our property and that contract has been terminated. End of discussion really. At that point, trying to, by force, take it back is taking unearned property. Nothing less.

A contract is never "terminatable at any point", unilaterally for no reason, unless

that is specified in the contract.

The landowner still holds the property, but has sold the rights that were sold

(access to subsurface and stuff found there). His property rights are not being

violated at all.

As you've said, end of discussion. :)

In a situation of a dictatorship, nothing would happen. They would simply die.

Now, if they rose up in rebellion (that sort of death, might happen, but look how

long it took France to even do that. How many rebellions did they go through?)

And major difference with the soldier. The soldier is PAID (value/worth) to be

there.

While I grant that it's unlikely that an entire populace would simply walk out of a

country in protest of their government's unethicalness, sufficient proportions of a

nation's people have (recently) simply had enough and forced governments to fall.

Romania is one example.

The soldier is paid to be a soldier. The citizen is paid to be a citizen. By that I

mean that they reap the benefits of belonging to their country. Both the soldier and

the citizen are forced, by their government, to stand between the "enemy" and

the "continued existence of their government". Soldiers are merely citizens that

are given guns and organized for specific "warlike" functions.

There is NO real differentiation between soldiers and citizens.

I disagree. Iraq did not threaten the Value for Value trade. If they did not want

to trade with us, that was their pregotive. If they had affected our trade with

other countries, that might be a different story, but that is not the case here.

Forcing ideologies on other nations/people is a fundamental christian thing to do.

Frankly, if that's how Objectivism works, I want no part of it.

They invaded Kuwait. That makes them thieves. Thieves need to be dealt with.

And they were dealt with, by the international coalition (folks that decided to

enforce Kuwait's right to property). Then the UN took over as "police force", with a

police agency's requisite monitoring functions.

Then, the UN dropped the ball. The idea was to strangle the Iraqi government into

extinction so that some other, hopefully rational, government would ensue. The

UN didn't allow that to happen. So the US took over the project.

What gives the US the right to act as the "police agency" of the world? The fact

that it could, and that it was morally necessary to do so.

One does not let a criminal "off the hook" simply because he's found a way to

exist by corrupting his executioners. (And I say executioners explicitly, because a

government that is habitually criminal needs to be extinguished and replaced by a

rational one.)

The reason that you find this so "distasteful" is because you don't see the moral

imperative of holding governments, which have a very limited function, to account

for their transgressions of ethical behavior.

The "if it doesn't directly affect us" ploy is evading (THE essence of evil) doing

what is correct to solve a problem. It simply pushes it out in time or off onto

someone else.

From what I've seen, objectivism is not a political party. You don't "belong" to an

objectivist faction. It's a way of thinking.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but this is my thinking.

Since I don't influence my government very much, I have only the power of my

one individuality to affect whatever it is that I want to affect.

But I'm morally obligated to affect what I can affect.

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated above, the Leaser ALWAYS has the right to terminate a lease, as it is still the leaser's PROPERTY.  That of which we have no right to.

Not always. There is a thing called a "indefeasable lease". This is usually used with respect to utilities such as cell phone towers, and rights-of-way for power/phone poles. Also, typically mineral rights are sold rather than leased.

You're right, I'm mis-spoke on this issue, sort-of.  I still believe that if you see something wrong, you need to act on your appropriate channels to fix it.  Simply "accepting" something as wrong, with doing nothing, just seems wrong.
I agree.

You don't need to convince me.  I have my own thoughts on the matter, however, you cannot form an argument on silence and act upon it.  The reality is we have no proof of anything of that sort.

Do you mean "proof", or "evidence"? There's mountains of the latter if you look for it.

If the U.N. had felt threatened, they would have done something.
You must be joking? The U.N. writes a resolution and Hussein ignores it. Then they write another one, and Hussein ignores that. Why? Because the U.N., as an entity, has no military and carries no weight behind its word. It is a joke. Besides, the U.N. doesn't get to decide who is a thread to the U.S. and what should be done about it. That is exclusively the job of the U.S. government.

I reiterate; forcing an ideology on a nation/people is plain wrong.  We make ourselves nothing but a brute and a thug by doing so. That is something a fundy Christian would do/say.  Again, if that's Objectivism, I want no part of it.

I'm not saying we should force any particular ideology on anyone. We should let them choose it, but they are not allowed to choose any ideology that desires & promotes killing Americans for being Americans.

Where are your sources?  You'd would wipe out an entire people over an ideology?  That's SCREAMING of Nazi-ism.  Some of you people are scaring me, more and more with your statements.  And no collateral damage from NUKES?  Have you actually studied what those things do?  Do you know WHY there are world sactions against the use of them?
Sources: all of the history of eastern culture. No, I would not wipe out the entire population -- we didn't wipe out Japan did we? But we did utterly defeat them, which is what I said -- and we weren't too sentimental about the average citizen in Hiroshima or Nagasaki either. A couple of well-placed tactical nukes -- my main targets would be Tehran and Damascus, and the whole remaining population would beg us for peace -- without losing a single American soldier. Of course, India is downwind from Tehran and Damascus is a bit close to Israel, so there's a bit of a problem there.

I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so, is never a REASON  to kill thousands, destroy sovereign governments, and FORCE an ideology.

I never said that was the reason. What I actually said was the reason was the fact of 9/11, its fact of being an escalation in the war brought by the ideology of the east, and what that means for the future if we "turn the other cheek".

Our trade values have not been threatened (According to Ayn Rand, the only way we can use force is in Self - defense),
Self-defense means to stop someone from attacking you. They have attacked us, and without retaliation they will have no reason not to attack us again.

and the Initiation of force to simple place an ideology, forcefully, on people I

would say CLEARLY goes against Objectivism.  From what's being said, You are nothing but a Christian using God under the guise of Reason/capatilism.  Even I can see that sacrificing others for my cause is wrong.

I never said we should force an ideology on them. We didn't have to do so in Japan -- they chose to mimick us. The general thought was "if they beat us, their system must work better than ours... let's learn their system". The only thing we forced them to do was to cease military action and stop attacking us and our allies.

The only difference between now and WWII is that now, the governments that attack us are doing so covertly, through the guise of terrorist groups, so they can claim plausible deniability and avoid retaliation. And look at the state of the U.S. population's ideas on the subject today -- it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to convince me. I have my own thoughts on the matter, however, you cannot form an argument on silence and act upon it. The reality is we have no proof of anything of that sort. And, why do we, suddenly, care NOW what he does to his people and what he does with his money? It was not an issue for America to take up arms about. If the U.N. had felt threatened, they would have done something.

We care because it's wrong. We care NOW because not acting in the past is no

excuse for not acting now.

The UN only feels threatened by having it's "secret life" exposed (ala the "Oil For

Palaces (Food)" situation).

That's the only threat the UN is equipped to percieve.

The soveriegn INDIVIDUAL nations consisting of those who saw an injustice and

acted on a threat, nominally under UN sanction (a veritably meaningless sanction

in my opinion), acted. And these INDIVIDUALS did so for moral reasons and in

ethical fashion.

I reiterate; forcing an ideology on a nation/people is plain wrong. We make ourselves nothing but a brute and a thug by doing so. That is something a fundy Christian would do/say. Again, if that's Objectivism, I want no part of it.

It is appropriate to FORCE a nation, or an idividual, to adopt only one "ideology".

And that ideolgy is, "BE RATIONAL".

Any OTHER ideology being forced on any sovereign individual (nation or person) is

immoral.

Where are your sources? You'd would wipe out an entire people over an ideology? That's SCREAMING of Nazi-ism. Some of you people are scaring me, more and more with your statements. And no collateral damage from NUKES? Have you actually studied what those things do? Do you know WHY there are world sactions against the use of them?

Utter defeat means that the governing institutions and thought processes that

support them are rendered completely impotent and are not free to influence the

individuals of a nation.

Once that happens, then the (rational) people of that nation can do what normal

people do everywhere,.. go about trading (striving) for their happiness.

No one wishes entire populations dead, as then there'd be no one to trade with.

And it's immoral to wish those dead who only want to strive for their happiness.

Your strong (over)reaction to the mere mention of nuclear weapons screams of

some hefty brainwashing (irrational inculcation and holding of ideas). Get back to

us with your research vis "why nuclear weapons should NEVER EVER be

used", and I'm sure we'll listen.

I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so, is never a REASON to kill thousands, destroy sovereign governments, and FORCE an ideology. Our trade values have not been threatened (According to Ayn Rand, the only way we can use force is in Self - defense), and the Initiation of force to simple place an ideology, forcefully, on people I would say CLEARLY goes against Objectivism. From what's being said, You are nothing but a Christian using God under the guise of Reason/capatilism. Even I can see that sacrificing others for my cause is wrong.

Sovereignty does not mean "immunity from prosecution for criminal acts".

The point of acting to utterly discredit (annihilate) governments and the principles

that they use to be criminal is to act as the hand of reality. To show them, the

rational people of a country, that what their governments are doing is not in their

interests because it WILL BE PUNISHED.

The "hangers on" of a gang of thieves that believe that it's been "comfortable"

being with the thieves because the thieves keep them nourished and clothed,

NEED to be shown (by reality or it's agent) that this is not the best way to live.

And it IS self defense to persecute (and annihilate) criminals. To be a criminal you

must have already acted initially to force a non value for value voluntary

transaction. A criminal thereby sentences himself to being stomped, in retaliation.

How is this "SELF defense"? Because any criminal, like any irrational thought, will

destroy rational relationships whereever they meet. And this corruption will

ALWAYS spread to and affect every individual eventually because we all touch

each other in trade.

Now do you see where I'm coming from, and can you point out my irrationalities?

I would REALLY appreciate it if you could as I'm here to learn to not be irrational.

Thanks..! :)

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to convince me.  I have my own thoughts on the matter, however, you cannot form an argument on silence and act upon it.  The reality is we have no proof of anything of that sort. 

Prior to our invasion, the al-Ansar terrorist group (an explicit ally of al Qaeda) was openly training in a large terrorist camp in northern Iraq.

The Salmon Pak terrorist training facility was open and doing business just south of Baghdad; it included the fuselage of a jet airliner for hijacking practice.

The terrorist that masterminded the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship and killed American Leon Klinghoffer was living in Baghdad.

Hussein tried to have former president Bush assassinated.

Hussein also launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, tried to develop a nuclear weapon (a program the Israeli's helped delay by bombing the reactor at Osirak), and was quite willing to use WMD's on his own citizens as well as his neighbors.

This is all in addition to Hussein’s known funding of suicide bombers operating in Israel, who were also killing Americans, by the way.

Now, one can make a case that Iraq was not the best target after Afghanistan. However, one cannot reasonably dismiss it as being no threat at all. A lunatic with unlimited oil revenues, with possible access to nuclear weapons (from North Korea and Pakistan) and an insane desire to control most of the world's oil supply, is definitely a threat.

The fact that we failed to do much about Hussein in the past is only an indictment of our past judgment; doing the wrong thing in the past cannot become a prohibition against doing the right thing in the present.

  If the U.N. had felt threatened, they would have done something.
In the first place, the debate at the U.N. was not over whether or not Hussein was a threat and not over whether or not he had WMDs; the consensus was yes on both questions. The debate was how to handle the threat. The U.N. wanted more inspections. We recognized the folly of asking a criminal to produce evidence of his criminality.

Secondly, please cite some cases where the U.N. has acted to eliminate threats.

I reiterate; forcing an ideology on a nation/people is plain wrong.  We make ourselves nothing but a brute and a thug by doing so. That is something a fundy Christian would do/say.  Again, if that's Objectivism, I want no part of it.
Imposing freedom is always acceptable, because it means imposing the rule of law and outlawing the initiation of force. It is not an attempt to control the content of anyone’s mind. It is an attempt to control and limit criminal behavior by limiting the use of force to retaliation against initiators.

Whether or not it is wise for us to attempt it in Iraq is a different question, but it is always moral. No one, regardless of religion, culture, history, geography or “apparent” sovereignty, can claim the right to live under a system that does not recognize rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not, RATIONALLY, accept that Forcing others to think such as you is acceptable.  If you cannot, RATIONALLY, accept that others think differently, and that is their CHOICE, then that is your IRRATIONALITY coming through.

They are allowed to think differently. They are not allowed to blow me up because they think it's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and given the state and history of the middle east, do you HONESTLY think that dropping a couple NUKES is going to make them LOVE us? 

No. They are going to fear us, as they should.

Germany, stated that it had no intentions of attacking America after it had secured Europe (whether you want to believe that or not).
Germany did have a plan to invade the U.S., they just didn't get that far or have the resources. You forget, they even went as far as signing a peace treaty with Russia... and then invaded Russia anyway. Hitler's "statement" of non-aggression was worth approximately jack shit.

We are not talking about defeat, we are talking about a general respect among enemies.  That, which the "terrorists" in the middle east DO NOT have for us. 

Right. Maybe they'll gain some if we drop a couple of nukes on some big cities.

I have some friends over there, and I hate to think that you people are putting those kinds of labels on them to justify forcing an ideology on them.

I know people that have family there, but that doesn't change the fact that those friends/family could leave and they choose not to. The fact is, they do support the actions of their government(s), even the one's that claim explicitly not to hate us. Just ask them. And again, no one has suggested forcing an ideology on anyone -- so stop repeating it as if someone has said that. Did you not read the replies to that point, or are you evading them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, look, it was in your own words too. Would you like to keep contradicting yourself? I must be happier than you then, because I'm not doing so.

I find it deeply disturbing that a person would frequent an Objectivist forum and not understand why it is objectively proper to destroy ones enemies, even if that destruction is taken to its logical extention of killing every man, women, and child in that nation, "innocent" or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to clarify my position on the matter.  I think that taking out Hussein was a good thing.  I think, given the evidence, that there was still WMD and I think that Hussein has them cleverly hidden NOT in Iraq.  I think that he was funding terrorists to attack us. I think many a good things has come out of this "war." 

HOWEVER, the Rationality that you can kill thousands, force governments to obey your law (under the guise of Freedom), and use ideology as an excue is Irrational.  That's what they're doing to US, and doing the exact same back, in my mind, is hypocrisy.  It boils down to, we're right-you're wrong.  That's BS, you have no way to measure how happy we are ( the only real measurement of an idealogy) against theirs. The only MORAL obligation We have is the obligation to uphold OUR freedom (Those of which we are losing more and more of everyday). Others needs to be of their own doing.  Freeing other people for those reasons is that of an Altruist.  We'll just start calling this, "The Objectivist Crusades"  and we'll have an "Objectivist inquisition (accept Objectivism or DIE scum!)"

We are not imposing any ideology on them (or shouldn't be anyway). We are

imposing rationality on them. Don't confuse rationality with ideology.

And if we're not imposing an ideology on them, then your argument collapses for

lack of a subject for the verb "impose".

"The only MORAL obligation We have is the obligation to uphold

OUR freedom"

What is "OUR freesom"..? Who do you refer to by "OUR"..?

It's not "Accept Objectivism or DIE!!". It's behave rationally or die.

And it's a self-protection (self defense) to destroy criminals. As well as moral, if

done in an ethical fashion.

By what you all are saying is that, in reality, we should have attacked Europe instead, because, THEY were holding back free trade, and supporting a criminal (generally a crime in itself), and allowing him to function.  So, we, as america, should have forced Europe to halt its transactions with Europe (Iraq? [iAKEO]), but we didn't.  We simply attacked Iraq, because?  Because it was easier, and we could get away with it.  I'm sorry, but I cannot rationally agree that FORCING ideologies onto others is a good thing to do.  You don't see the contradiction in Using force to outlaw force?  It's a pretty funny concept in my mind. 

Basically correct..!! :)

Europe should, and does, fear the "hand of reality", which we (the US) happen to

represent better than anyone else at the moment.

Once again, we are not forcing an ideology. We forcing rationality. If you take

rationality to be an ideology (which I don't by the way), that's fine. But it's then

the ONLY ideology, as you means ideology, that can properly BE imposed on a

sovereign individual (person or nation).

No one in their right mind would want to "outlaw force", as that wuold be outlawing

volition. What is outlawed is the use of force for unethical acts that violate morality.

You can ONLY "fight" this unethical use of force with force, as the users of

unethical force only respond (positively) TO the ethical use of force.

Just as it's not a good idea to remove all sharp edged instruments from society

because "cutting can be BAD", neither is removing "force".

I also think, that the U.N., well needs to be reconstructed.  However, such instances where peace keeping troops (i.e. Bosnia) have been a good thing.
Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes shit happens. Sometimes shit is what is

called for.

I will not, RATIONALLY, accept that Forcing others to think such as you is acceptable.  If you cannot, RATIONALLY, accept that others think differently, and that is their CHOICE, then that is your IRRATIONALITY coming through.

Not forcing them to think AS YOU DO,.. just to think rationally. There are only two

kinds of thinking. Rational and irrational.

Others may (are allowed to) think anyway they please. If their thinking is

irrational then it WILL (eventually) cause harm between individual sovereigns

(people or nations). This harm must be paid for by the harmer, and must be

stopped from happening again.

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.

If you choose to placate evil, and push it's being dealt with into the future, where

it most will likely be stronger, and impinge upon your children because you don't

see the need to deal with it when it should have been, your definition of what

is "morally acceptable" and mine differ mightily.

-Iakeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good, ruling by fear. Cause they couldn't have gotten THAT from Hussein. Yep, they'll get plenty of happiness living in Fear of the U.S. OH WAIT! THAT'S WHY THEY ATTACK US IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Fear of an immoral and unethical power is different from fear of a rational

sovereign (person or nation).

FEAR is NOT a bad thing..!!!! It is a signal that something is wrong in the system

such that the fearer is afraid (afeared) to act as he'd like.

I fear volitionally driving myself into walls at 65 MPH. I really SHOULD fear that,

don't you think?

They SHOULD fear the tyrant they live under. It's a signal that the tyrant is willing

to do the unethical things to them. To not fear that is insane.

They SHOULD fear the US if they wish to continue being irrational tyrants (anyone

who acts irrationally is defacto a tyrant). It's a signal that a rational sovereign is

willing to do ethical things to them (in response to their being tyrants). To not fear

that is insane.

Yeah, you keep thinking that. And eventually the Easter Bunny will become reality

too. You've got so many versions of reality going out there, you're not sure which

one's real anymore, eh?

It would be a fascinating experiment..! You have to admit that. :)

Though it would be irrational to do experimentsof this kind without doing some

testing of some sort to make sure that the lab isn't destroyed in doing it.

"Many versions of reality"..? Huh..?

Here, allow me to go back and show you that it was said that forcing an ideology was alright.

Do tell..!! And remember to clarify what the parties each mean by "ideology".

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good, ruling by fear.  Cause they couldn't have gotten THAT from Hussein.  Yep, they'll get plenty of happiness living in Fear of the U.S.  OH WAIT!  THAT'S WHY THEY ATTACK US IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! 

I have never nor would I ever suggest that the U.S. should rule the people of Iraq or any other country in that part of the world. I am not suggesting ruling them by fear, I am suggesting making them stop attacking us through fear. The same fear they put into me by attacking us.

Do I fear for MY life? Yes, very much so. It's well known that bin Laden has a hard-on for the Space Needle, which I can practically see from my front porch. This threat is very real, and the more we let them get away with it, the more Americans who are going to wind up dead. I just hope that doesn't include me before this society wakes up.

Yeah, you keep thinking that.  And eventually the Easter Bunny will become reality too.  You've got so many versions of reality going out there, you're not sure which one's real anymore, eh?

You're becoming malicious and insulting, now. There's no need. We are exchanging ideas here, not ripping each other's throats out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, look, it was in your own words too. Would you like to keep contradicting yourself? I must be happier than you then, because I'm not doing so.

I didnt' say in that statement that we should force a particular ideology on them. I said we should put a stop to the one they are currently living by, because it is wrong. It is a violent, deadly threat to us. They can choose whatever ideology they wish, so long as it does not lead them to killing Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's well known that bin Laden has a hard-on for the Space Needle, which I can practically see from my front porch.

Terrorists try to blow up Space Needle

These guys have ties to al Qaeda. Ressam trained in Osama bin Laden-financed terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

Photo of Space Needle found on al-Qaeda computer

Space Needle targeted by bin Laden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I see an imaginary circle with no real evidence in reality. There is no evidence in history to suggest that is what will happen.

Did we create a "monster" in Japan? Only an industrial, productive monster.

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.

And if we show them how much we mean to help them with that belief, they might decide to change their minds.

"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")

Insert "eastern culture" for "killer" in that last line, and I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Suppose for a moment that we knew, with little doubt, that the Iranians were feverishly working to acquire a nuclear weapon and an ICBM missile to deliver it to the U.S. What would you advocate we do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, after this preliminary round of friendly reminders, I will be using the warning apparatus--enough with the nested quotes. Be as judicious and to-the-point with your posts, meaning don't try to reestablish an entire context every time you post by quoting and quoting and quoting...

Also, respond to one particular point at a time, not every point discussed in the entire thread. Just trying to clean things up around here and make reading the forum more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...