Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rudy Guliani

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think the Objectivist movement has completely bought into all of the sensationalism going on in politics to further the neo-con agenda, for perpetual war. Of course Objectivists don't accept "perpetual war" on that pretense, but in the process of evading the fact that when the neo-cons handle war, thats what it becomes, they allow themselves (through narrowness of perspective) to become accomplices to them.

Meanwhile it ignores how completely ill informed and ineffectual the neo-cons attempts at handling problems you percieve to share are. The middle east is a sham on purpose. Who do you think is writing the debilitating rules of engagement, and why?

Do a smudge of research into the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1) Iran is a third world country without a significant military. Are you aware of what that means?

It means the only impact you can have in that country is turning into a police state for a few years like Iraq, and then giving them "the gift" of democracy, i.e., doing absolutely no good at all except giving them a convenient nicely packaged enemy figure to unite against and actually fight.

2) They are a decade away from developing nuclear technology.

All of the, "OMG They're Making NUKES OMG" is sensationalism, and you've apparently bought into it.

1) Iran's military employs over 900,000 servicemen. The last I checked, with reserves and national guard, we have around 2,000,000. Iran's military has enough to pose a unique threat, moreso than any nation, and they have already initiated force against us in Iraq with their Al Qud forces, whether it be through training of Terrorists or direct action.

2) So we wait until the weapons are in full stock? Now theres a good plan!

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...68112&hl=en[/gvideo]

I agree with Ron Paul, we're likely to get another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and it will likely occur to affect public opinion, swaying it into largely supporting a war with Iran - where none is necessary.

You're blurring the difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam, by allowing your hatred of faith based religious ideologies clump them together. I agree they are equally terrible, but not equally threatening.

Not to mention if we do go to war we'll do it in the name of, "Spreading Democracy."

Instead of anything worthwhile.

Thats working out well in Iraq btw.

Fact: Iran should be delt with.

Fact: U.S. foreign policy is incapable of dealing with Iran correctly, and we will exacerbate the problem by getting involved militarily.

Perhaps GIULIANI is not the ideal candidate, but from your perspective neither is Paul. You rightfully consider Iran a threat but say " Oh well, we can't do anything about it because we are currently bound by strict rules of engagement "

Then you fight the rules of engagement. You don't just sit and elect the most pacifist member out of the entire batch of candidates.

You point out Giuliani's moral outrage towards abortion, but to neglect to face the fact that Ron Paul would rather have it outlawed, on a state level.

Now, RvW and abortion, along with other detractors from real issues like " gay rights " aren't at all important to me. I think Abortion is going to stick where it is, and I don't plan on having any abortions any time soon, so I don't really care.

You're correct in my analysis that I am a one issue man, for the most part. I will vote in the man with the most aggressive foreign policy so long as he isn't goosestepping through the streets. It's sad we have to pick between Paleoconservative Pacifists and Big Government Republican scumbags but that's how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also in favor of Ron Paul this election cycle. I will be the first to agree that he isn't perfect, but he would be a step in the right direction. A Ron Paul presidency would at least advance the ideas of individual rights and just government, and set the stage for even better politicians to rise in the near future. What purpose is served by suffering through an endless line of socialist Democrats and neocon Republicans until the absolute perfect Objectivist candidate comes along? How would that hypothetical perfect candidate even have a chance of being elected in a country that had become dependent on government handouts? It is better in my eyes to take small steps in the right direction than to keep marching on the path to destruction hoping for Ayn Rand's clone to save us before we arrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[iran is] a decade away from developing nuclear technology. All of the, "OMG They're Making NUKES OMG" is sensationalism, and you've apparently bought into it.

For those of you who might not know how to respond to this, please note that Spaghettim0nst3r has not provided one fact from reality on this matter.

Here is an excerpt from Alireza Jafarzadeh's book The Iran Threat:

The most important thing to understand about [uranium enrichment] in terms of Iran is that it takes much more time and resources to enrich uranium to LEU levels than it does to subsequently enrich LEU to HEU levels. The vast majority of the work is done in producing the LEU, and once that is accomplished, the cascades can be rearranged in a matter of weeks to use LEU as feed material to produce HEU. :::SNIP::: Therefore, by the time that Iran successfully produces LEU on a large scale, it will have done 80 percent of the work in producing HEU for use in nuclear weapons, putting Iran only a screwdriver's turn away from building the bomb.

So what is Iran's capability on low uranium enrichment? Just the other day, CNN announced that Iran has reached its target of running 3,000 centrifuges.

Of course, in addition to operating a nuclear fuel cycle Iran also needs a weapons construction program to produce nuclear weapons. All of the following information in the next two paragraphs is also extracted from Alireza Jafarzadeh's book.

The Iranian Ministry of Defense's laboratory at Malek-Ashtar Industrial University in Tehran produces beryllium oxide, the metal component of a neutron initiator. The neutron initiator can be used as a trigger for the fission chain reaction that produces the explosion in a nuclear weapon. This is composed of polonium-210 and berylium. The process of creating polonium-210 involves irradiating bismuth metal, which according to IAEA records, has been done at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center from 1989 to 1993.

Furthermore, an Iranian regime also has access to hot isostatic press machines, which can be used to shape the uranium spheres of a nuclear bomb. Lastly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' nuclear research center began experiments for producing ceramic matrix composites, a lightweight, heat-resistant and very strong graphite material that can be used in heat shields for missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

For those interested, the book also contains detailed information on estimates on the Iranian regime's arsenal of missiles. This includes 400-500 short range Scud missiles, 30 medium range Scud missiles and at least six (long range) cruise missiles that were purchased on the black-market from a former Ukranian secret service officer that has a range of 1,860 miles and can carry a 200-kiloton warhead.

All of this evidence suggests that Iran has made substantial progress in all critical aspects of nuclear weapons technology.

Just for the record, I provided this information not for Spaghettim0nst3r but for anyone else who is interested. I do not wish to engage in discussion with someone who openly stated that Objectivists are "evaders" of the Neoconservative agenda. Clearly this comes from an individual who has not been reading the op-ed's from the Ayn Rand Institute, reading The Objective Standard or listening to the more recent ARI lecture series.

It is better in my eyes to take small steps in the right direction than to keep marching on the path to destruction hoping for Ayn Rand's clone to save us before we arrive.

If this is your opinion then do not vote for Ron Paul. Plenty of arguments against him have been presented in this thread. I will not repeat any such arguments but I would be more than happy to help clarify them for you, if you need further explanation.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) So we wait until the weapons are in full stock? Now theres a good plan!

As I mentioned over in the Ron Paul thread, when the game plan becomes clearer.. when you're dealing with an actual state instead of "the terrorists" things change. When faced with the prospect of mutual destruction, from both the United States and Israel vs Iran, they will opt out of the conflict and peacefully coexist as did the Soviets.

It's much easier to see this individual Jihadists going off, because they are isolated radicals... but a State is a target we're capable of focusing on... and individual radicals will bare in mind that they carry with them the capability to provoke mutual annihilation on a civilizational scale.

Perhaps GIULIANI is not the ideal candidate, but from your perspective neither is Paul. You rightfully consider Iran a threat but say " Oh well, we can't do anything about it because we are currently bound by strict rules of engagement "

Right, and while the Neo-Cons (like Giuliani) remain in power those rules will exist to perpetual an endless cycle of war.

Ron Pauls solution for non-intervention, declaring war, and waging war... are ideal.

Instead we spearhead all operations in the middle east instead of laying back and allowing the world to hold itself accountable. We the United States should not assume the role of world police, we need to engage in the business of self-defense instead of this intense offense. We are postured off the coast of Iran to provoke a conflict as I write this, and tensions would ease if we were to give them some breathing room, some air to think... and consider what the consequences of their actions are. As I said, individual cells of radical jihadists will behave much differently than a state.

Then you fight the rules of engagement. You don't just sit and elect the most pacifist member out of the entire batch of candidates.

You also shouldn't elect a candidate that will most certainly bring about the provocation of the war. We didn't need to provoke the Soviets in order to deflate the situation, and yet that's exactly what the Neo-Cons are doing to Iran... attempting provocation.

Let them attack Israel (a nuclear armed country) and Israel will retaliate in an appropriate way. (personally I think Israel should have wiped out Palistine before it was even a state)... by why should we pay for their abstaining from justifiable self defense? Their pandering to the U.N. (Neo-Con One World Government) is a big reason the middle east hasn't been "delt with" yet.

You point out Giuliani's moral outrage towards abortion, but to neglect to face the fact that Ron Paul would rather have it outlawed, on a state level.

Giuliani's immoral stance on abortion is no different. "I hate abortion, I wish abortion would never happen, I want to discourage abortions"

Giuliani's inept economic platform is my biggest problem, and his goal of provoking a war with Iran, before it's necessary is my second biggest problem.

Now, RvW and abortion, along with other detractors from real issues like " gay rights " aren't at all important to me. I think Abortion is going to stick where it is, and I don't plan on having any abortions any time soon, so I don't really care.

Same here, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and no one is going to deny the right either way.

You're correct in my analysis that I am a one issue man, for the most part. I will vote in the man with the most aggressive foreign policy so long as he isn't goosestepping through the streets.

Is it necessarily the most rational position to deal with irrational nations in an aggressive way with such a rush? When you take the example of the Soviet conflict (because I think it's exactly the same as Iran will be)... there are clearly other options available other than conquering more countries, establishing more bases over seas, becoming far more spread, far more entangled, than self-defense can justify. The notion of mutual self-destruction is a powerful one... the Soviets were not prepared to march down the road to nuclear winter, and neither will the Iranians.

It's sad we have to pick between Paleoconservative Pacifists and Big Government Republican scumbags but that's how it is.

I don't think you correctly understand Ron Pauls foreign policy if your perception is, "paleoconservative."

Ron Paul is not against going to war when it is necessary, but he is against going to war in way that prolongs wartime... i.e., not declaring the war through congress, applying strict rules of engagement to limit our effectiveness. He is for getting it done as quickly as possible when it is called for, just like true non-interventionists should, we don't need to spend another 4 years policing the people in Iraq for them to grow up and deal with themselves. If they mutually self destruct, thats no skin of my nose... if they form another threatening state that needs demolished, we will destroy them again... but the worst thing we can do is continue this half-assed effort which is doing very little more than emboldening the very enemy we're trying to snuff out. Neo-Con foreign policy will continue that trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to rush to the conclusion that these weapons are inevitably going to be used for warheads,

You want to assume no persuasion is possible after, or before, they attain said warheads.

You don't want to consider the immense benefit a third world country will gain from nuclear power.

How about some less sensationalist facts for consideration.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/the-fa...ium-enrichment/

This sensationalism and fear mongering (for the purpose of furthering the Neo Con agenda) has been occuring for a long time.

Middle of last year they were talking about, "Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news

Not enriched low grade Uranium, they were certain Nuclear Warheads were rolling out... but that (seemingly immanent threat) never materialized did it?

This one won't either.

Don't let them terrorists win guys. Way to go.

*** Mod's note: Moved responses about Iran (not specifically Guiliani's policy) to the Iran thread. -sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Added moved-responses note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to ...

You want to ...

You don't want ...

How about some less sensationalist facts ...

This sensationalism and fear mongering ...

Don't let them terrorists win guys. Way to go.

Who, specifically, are you addressing with this post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also in favor of Ron Paul this election cycle. I will be the first to agree that he isn't perfect, but he would be a step in the right direction.

I suppose this depends upon what you think the "right direction" is. A man who claims that 9/11 was the result of blowback, and who adheres to the Libertarian idea of self-defense is bad enough in peace time, but he'd be a disaster in the context of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Even his virtues, such as his anti-IRS position are meaningless, since he can't DO anything about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but he'd be a disaster in the context of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism.

The Neocons are the real disaster for our national defense.They have led us into a half-hearted war where our goal is not victory, but "not losing." We have been wasting time and lives for five years now in a conflict that could be ended very quickly with an overwhelming application of force. Such a war can not be sustained indefinitely, it takes it's toll on the military's readiness and the tolerance of the citizens back in the US. What good will it do us to engage Iran in the same manner? I agree that Ron Paul would be less likely to push for war with Iran or other Islamofascist states, but I also believe that if he is put into the position where it becomes necessary, he will not try to make us fight with our hands tied behind our backs like Bush has done. In the long run we would be better served by fighting one war with the intention of winning than three or four while trying to be sensitive and respectful toward our enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Moved responses about Iran (not specifically Guiliani's policy) to the Iran thread. -sN ***

This is just like any other Heavily Moderated Fundamentalist forum, descenting voices are silenced through deletions or breaking their posts apart detracting from their meaning.

I'm not posting on this forum any more.

My advice:

Social Skills - Get Some

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just like any other Heavily Moderated Fundamentalist forum, descenting voices are silenced through deletions or breaking their posts apart detracting from their meaning.

I'm not posting on this forum any more.

My advice:

Social Skills - Get Some

I've got plenty of opinions I'm sure counter what the mods and admins hold to be true. However, I do not go crying off into the night about it if one of my posts gets edited for different reasons NOT RELATED to what was said in the thread.

As DarkWaters said, good riddance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Why is he despicable? Given the list of possible '08 candidates, he's my first choice.

1) He destroyed Michael Milken, Drexel, et al. He's got to do a HELL of a lot more than say "I'm sorry" to fix that one. I know that happened a "long" time ago, but he never did redeem himself from that one.

2) He lies here and there and pretends to be more knowledgeable in foreign affairs/policy than everyone else running.

3) He has stated publicly that he wanted to appoint a Republican to his former position rather than let people vote.

...shall I go on?

Edited by prosperity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) He lies here and there and pretends to be more knowledgeable in foreign affairs/policy than everyone else running.

Dont they all do that? Can you imagine a man running for president who said, in reply to a question of foreign policy: "I'm really not the right person to answer that question. You might ask my opponent. He is more 'knowledgeable' in that field than I am." As for Rudy's ability to handle the single most important foreign policy problem facing America today--Islamic fundamentalism--he seems to have made the case (at least to me) that he is better equipped than most others, particularly than the democrats. Hillary, Obama, et. al. would seek UN Security Council blessing abroad and political consensus here at home before giving Chemlawn the go-ahead to attack the chinchbugs in the White House lawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evangelicals are nervous about Guiliani. If he is nominated, future GOP candidates will get the message: the evangelicals can be ignored. Then, if the evangelicals come out and vote GOP anyway, with Guiliani on the ticket, there will be no doubt about the message.

The NYT is reporting that the evangelicals are toying with supporting a third-party candidate if Guilinai is elected. Right now, this might be a threat, hoping that other parts of the GOP do not put Guiliani on the ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evangelicals are nervous about Guiliani. If he is nominated, future GOP candidates will get the message: the evangelicals can be ignored. Then, if the evangelicals come out and vote GOP anyway, with Guiliani on the ticket, there will be no doubt about the message.

This sounds like a great reason to continue to support Rudy in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article I saw today regarding Guiliani and the Christian right...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09...d-party-effort/

Yeah, it would put these people in a bit of a pickle--who do they support? Will moving to a different party cause a Democrat--even worse from their point of view--to get elected? Gosh, they have quite a dilemma on their hands.

I'd insert the sound effect of the world's smallest violin playing, if I had one.

I remember back in my days as an economic conservative Republican, an effort being pushed by the grass roots in this county, to make sure every candidate nominated believed in, and would uphold, the Republican party platform. I was all in favor of this; any conservative Republican is disgusted with the RINOS (Republican In Name Only) who vote for more and more government once they are safely elected.

Then it turned out the only plank of the platform they really cared about was the "pro-life" plank. And folks, this was at the county and state level--one to two levels below where the abortion issue would have to be fought by those wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

An inevitable result of basing your worldview on a fantasy. They regard the sufferings of a fetus or an embryo as more important than anything that might happen to an actual human being; and at their worst it doesn't even have to be an embryo yet (see the Catholic Church on contraception).

This is more important to them than the fact that we are killing our economy with taxation, spending, and regulation--and they claim to care about this issue; this is more important to them than the war against Islamic radicalism--and they claim to care about that issue, and some are even honest about the nature of the enemy; this is more important to them than anything else. They need to get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like a great reason to continue to support Rudy in 2008.
True; but, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. If their threat works, Rudy could firm up his promise to give them a SCOTUS judge, or something like that. That could re-affirm their strength.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True; but, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. If their threat works, Rudy could firm up his promise to give them a SCOTUS judge, or something like that. That could re-affirm their strength.

I agree. Any support given to Rudy at present should be conditional on that he does not increasingly appease the religious right up until the primaries.

Given how nearly all major politicians are Pragmatists, I suspect that the Giuliani campaign has analysts working around the clock to estimate if he will receive more votes by appeasing the religious right or by maintaining his current platform.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Rudy Giuliani spoke to religious conservatives this morning. According to CNN.com, his goal was to ensure the religious right that "they should neither fear him nor expect he would moderate his positions for political advantage."

After scanning the CNN.com article, here are some points of concern:

He pledged to appoint federal judges in the mold of conservatives such as the current Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts, and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

I hope that this does not mean he will appoint a judge who will oppose abortion rights. Even in this speech, Rudy Giuliani hinted that he thinks abortions should be legal to some extent. However, just appointing one more socially conservative justice could lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This is a dangerous issue.

While acknowledging differences with his audience, he repeatedly invoked his faith. He expressed support for social conservative touchstones such as school choice and made clear his opposition to the removal of religious icons and phrases from public places or public discourse.

The description that he repeatedly invoked his faith just shows that he deigns to some slimy political tactics of pretending to have significant religious influence. Given his pretty secular run as New York City's mayor and the fact that all of the major presidential candidates are now (at least) pretending to be religious, I would focus on examples of what he indicates he will do than on his rhetoric.

For example, in the above quote, Rudy Giuliani indicated that he opposes the removal of religious icons and phrases from public places. This could potentially be bad. What does he mean by this? Does he mean that he merely opposes removing a symbol of the Ten Commandments on a federal building that is displayed alongside the Code of Hammurabi? Or does he mean that he will support individuals like Judge Roy Moore who want to install a new, large Ten Commandments display in a state courthouse? My guess is the former, which is not relatively so bad, but I still encourage paying attention to Rudy on these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been listening to the debates the GOP. almost all of them, and I came to the conclusion that Rudy Giuliani is truely the best candidate. believe me, I REALLY did my homework here, and took everything into consideration. Because my worst fear is that I'd vote Giuliani only becaus I am biased as a newyorker.

So I made sure that I really listened to all the candidates. Ron Paul has some amazing capilalist ideas, but he is unrealistic about the threat posed to us from the haters of freedom. (terrorists) during one debate, Giuliani got really angry at him and told him to take back the comment he made. I hate Mit Romney's idea about healthcare, and also some other things. I just don't like his face - he looks dishonest. (do you really believe he's changed his views on abortion just like that? - and what's more - the REASON he was pro choice in the FIRST place was because he knew a friend who dies having an illegal abortin. that shows how he makes decisions in his heart rather than his own mind!

McCaine is great too, but I disagreed with him about a few things including immigration.

so we are left with all the others who are not even fore-runners AND are rediculously relligious. and willl force their relligious vies down our throughts.

Besides for that, I found Giuliani to be the most honest and the least afraid to be "politically incorrect" among the republicans. (I especially enjoyed his comment while talking about gay marriage, that he "made 210 weddings as mayor and all of them were between man and woman" and after a pause he said "I hope" the audience were laughing as I was. :lol:

One more point: he is the only person I know who had an office of power, and was not corrupt. meaning, he DID HIS JOB now, maybe here I am not being fair, because I don't know how well the other candidates did their jobs in their offices, but from my own experience, when Rudy was my mayor, he did the job he was hired to do. (OK, so he didn't succeed in abolishing the board of Education, which is unfortinate), but if you listened to his "state of the city reports" every year starting from 1994, and to all his management reports, he accomplished alot. he is not lazy, and will do everything he promises to do.

If any of you are from Arizona or from other states where you can name a candidate who was as serious about their job as Mayor Giuliani was, please let me know. about your experience. Mine is this: groing up I was so afraid to walk the streets at night, and traffic was terrible and taxes were high (well, my parents say so) anyway, now after two business men (Giuliani, Bloomberg) running it, the prices of homes trippled and trippeled again. so much so, that when I was dreaming about getting my own house in 1995, a typical home would be 100,000. now that same house or a similar one would be 700,000 at least if not 800,000 and this is with the housing market DOWN everywhere else in the country. I let my children play in the streets, road construction made the flow of traffic much better, property tax in NYC is 5 times less than in NYS! and tax on clothing is gone.

Alright, I will stop ratteling. but as much respect as I have for McCain because he served in the army and all, it takes a businessman's head to run a country like the USA.

(BTW isn't it extremely appropriate that a business-man is now running the city of business? - just an interesting fact that Ayn Rand would have liked to know)

Edited by Marty McFly
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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