U.S. Convoy in Iraq Attacked

[Old Geezer]

No access to media does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind.

No, but it prevents them from getting what amounts to perceptual information By which to make judgements about the full horror of Saddam's regime.

"Miseducation does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind"

Why Bother educating your children then?

Also, why have a philosophy of education if it does not matter how one educates?

"Saddam's wrath does not prevent a person from discovering and using his mind."

that wasnt my point RE where Saddam directed his wrath. My point is that people less effected by his wrath would not necessarily choose to kill him,

"Saddam's mendacity does not prevent a person from disscovering and using his mind. "

Yes it does... My physically manipulating who was allowed to be where when, he prevented people from discovering via direct sense data, and by physically limiting people's access to anything but false indirect sense data. he limited their ability pass accurate judgements on those particular situations.

[Richard_Halley]

No, but it prevents them from getting what amounts to perceptual information By which to make judgments about the full horror of Saddam's regime.

Ahhh... but does it not also provide enough reason in itself to reject that regime.

Why Bother educating your children then?

Good education is helpful but bad education is not an excuse for ignorance (although it probably was a factor, it does not dismiss someone from responsibility).

My point is that people less effected by his wrath would not necessarily choose to kill him.

This is quite irrelevant... It is the passive support of attacks/danger on America which is the discussion, not passive support of attacks on oneself (although surely a lack of freedom is attack enough).

he limited their ability pass accurate judgments on those particular situations.

It is what one is/does that matters in this discussion, not how one got there. Now, I sympathize with the people who lived under Saddam, but if someone supports mass killings, they support mass killings. While it is surely a tragedy that they were deluded into doing so, delusion is not an excuse.

[y_feldblum]

Old Geezer, nothing prevents a person from discovering and using his mind save for untimely death. Discovery and use of one's rational faculty is fully one's choice. You can be discouraged or encouraged to think; but nobody can force you to think or not to think: only you can do that to yourself. Everybody ought to have been aware that one cannot live as a slave. Nobody can rightly claim the excuse: "if I had thought about it, Saddam would have hurt me."

[Invictus]

Update:

U.S. Marines lock down Fallujah

[Jessie]

Halley,

Many of your points are irrevalent, in fact many of your opinions are irrevalent as well... You are not welcome here if your points are simply to argue that you are right... Some educated insight would be nice instead

[Old Geezer]

"Halley,

Many of your points are irrevalent, in fact many of your opinions are irrevalent as well... You are not welcome here if your points are simply to argue that you are right... Some educated insight would be nice instead "Jesse

Jesse, how about some "educated insight" into how his points are irrelevant instead of mere attacks on his motives????

"Old Geezer, nothing prevents a person from discovering and using his mind save for untimely death" y feldblum

Physical reality prevents someone from "discovering"... and when access to physical reality is unjustly denied or manipulated, (as Saddam often did) one is physically prevented from "discovery" of that which is relevant to this discussion

"Everybody ought to have been aware that one cannot live as a slave" y feldblum

to an extent, you are living as a slave, why is it you are not willing to die for that cause?

Ahhh... but does it not also provide enough reason in itself to reject that regime. RH

reject yes

Good education is helpful but bad education is not an excuse for ignorance (although it probably was a factor, it does not dismiss someone from responsibility). RH

what do you mean by factor???

"This is quite irrelevant... It is the passive support of attacks/danger on America which is the discussion, not passive support of attacks on oneself (although surely a lack of freedom is attack enough). "RH

it is relevant because unless they were AWARE of unjustices being carried forth on others the only basis on which they would have decided whether Saddam was worth dying for or not was what inustices he carried out that effected them.

[y_feldblum]

Saddam may forbid some actions and mandate others - with chains. But it is physically impossible for him to forbibd some thoughts and mandate others unless his victims allow him to.

[Jessie]

Saddam may forbid some actions and mandate others - with chains.  But it is physically impossible for him to forbibd some thoughts and mandate others unless his victims allow him to.

The problem is Saddam has forbid people to state their thoughts, and they have not "allowed" him to do this, but he has forced them to submit themselves to oppression since if they do state their thoughts, they will be killed. If they were to all state their thoughts I would have no doubt in my mind that millions would die under Saddam's regime.

[Jessie]

One cannot voilate rights which do not exist.  Passively supporting a middle eastern dictator equals passively supporting terrorism equals passively supporting terrorist attacks.  It is not "denigrating" to stop terrorist attacks, and it is not "denigrating" to kill passive terror supporters to do so, if it makes the job safer.

One can, however violate 'rules' that do exist... If an Iraqi were to speak up about their thoughts on Hussein, they would be killed, just as people who openly disagreed with Hitler were punished...

[Socionomer]

Ayn Rand was somehow able to become educated and resist becoming "indoctrinated" while living under the Soviet system. She recognized the reality and possible consequences of continuing to live in such a place. If she stayed she could have died during WWII (that would have been a tragedy). Were she not permitted to emigrate it's not unreasonable to suspect she would have fled in the same manner that Kira tried to in "We the Living".

By choosing her values and acting on them, her story is what we know today and not merely just another anonymous tragedy. People in Iraq, like the rest of us, can choose their values, or not, and can live by those values, or not. But none of us can escape the consequences. That may be "tragic", but it is reality.

[Richard_Halley]

If an Iraqi were to speak up about their thoughts on Hussein, they would be killed, just as people who openly disagreed with Hitler were punished...

This is not the issue. The issue is: do these people have rights or not.

They do not, because: with every bit of productive work they do, the support not only their own demise, but also weapons programs (which were outlawed), as well as terror attacts, etc...

Again, it is a shame that they are put in a situation where their choice is: "Violate the rights of others or die," but it doesn't excuse that they are violating our rights. So long as they live in those conditions, their production is a danger to us, and we have a right to stop them.

[Marc K.]

Richard Halley,

I agree with most of what you have said here except with your assertion that the Iraqi people have no rights.

All people retain their unalienable rights no matter where they live and the only way to prevent them from exercising these rights is by force. The Iraqi people may exercise their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at any time. The problem with living under a dictator is that you risk your life when you do so, so many don't. Indeed they have the right to "suffer while evils are sufferable".

But here's the rub -- Jessie and Young

So long as the Iraqi people choose to "suffer while evils are sufferable" they must live with the moral consequences of their choice. So long as they don't overthrow Saddam:

-- they tacitly allow his tyranny to exist, killing Iraqi and other citizens and threatening other nations.

-- they must be prepared for the casualties of a war that will inevitably occur when another nation decides it won't be threatened any longer.

Over 600 Americans have died and the estimate is that over 13,000 Iraqis have died and Saddam is to blame for every death. The Americans died heroes the Iraqis victims. Think of how much better is would have been for us and them if the Iraqis had chosen to fight Saddam. If millions of Iraqis had demonstrated in the streets would the Iraqi army have killed them all? I doubt it, many of them hated Saddam also. Even if 13,000 had died at least instead of being victims they would have been heroes and the whole country could have rejoiced in the pride of having overthrown the dictator themselves. This is a lesson the Iranian people better learn pretty quick. Iran is building nuclear weapons and pretty soon the Iranian people won't have the luxury of "suffering while evils are sufferable" and they won't experience the pride of self determination.

[Richard_Halley]

All people retain their unalienable rights no matter where they live and the only way to prevent them from exercising these rights is by force.

They do retain their rights no matter where they live, but not no matter what they do. Someone who infringes upon the rights of others gives up his own rights. As such, Saddam has no rights, and those who bank roll him have no rights.

Anyone doing productive work in Iraq, was bankrolling Saddam. While we may sympathize with their situation, and not punish them when Saddam is gone (which would, of course, be a waste of our time). We must not allow our concern for their "rights" to result in the death of any of our men.

[Young]

If that is the case then why have we not destroyed Iraq entirely without a second thought to any of its members. Although your argument would hold for workers in a munitions factory, a good majority of the people who live in baghdad do not directly contribute to Saddam's staying in power any more than people in neighboring countries do. That you live in a country with a dictator does not make you culpable for his crimes unless you are supporting him/her.

[Richard_Halley]

Young:

Lets think this out for a moment.

Anything of value in Iraq belonged to Saddam (it was used to support his regime).

Any productive work produces something of value (by definition).

Therefore, any productive work was in support of Saddam's regime.

Usually it was not intentional support, but it is still support.

By the way, young, I am getting quite tired of you presenting, as though it is refution, the argument which my posts have already answered. Especially since you never give any reasoning.

Other readers of this post: You should read the thread on "fatalism's flaws," if you think that I am being harsh. I have been very patient with this "Young" fellow, and am getting to the end of my rope.

[Old Geezer]

Anything of value in Iraq belonged to Saddam (it was used to support his regime).

not true at the tail end of Saddam's regime.

Any productive work produces something of value (by definition).

Therefore, any productive work was in support of Saddam's regime

By extension anyone purchased anything of value from Iraq would have materially supported Saddam's Regime and therefore bombworthy as you have explained. (buy gas lately?)

[Richard_Halley]

By extension anyone purchased anything of value from Iraq would have materially supported Saddam's Regime and therefore bombworthy as you have explained. (buy gas lately?)

Correct, if we had any reason to bomb ourselves, we would be moral in doing so (discounting that it is suicide and so, immoral).

"Bombworthy," however, is a bad term. I did not say that we should bomb all civilians in Iraq, only that we are morally justified in doing so should it make a ground invasion easier (i.e. save the lives of our men).

not true at the tail end of Saddam's regime.

Explain this. If you are saying that Saddam was loseing his power to take what he wanted--that he lost control of some parts of the country--than we would not be justified in bombing those parts of the country that he didn't have control over. We wouldn't want to anyway.

[Censure the Opposition]

By extension anyone purchased anything of value from Iraq would have  materially supported Saddam's Regime and therefore bombworthy as you have explained. (buy gas lately?)

Probably the smartest comment I've seen in my short time here.

By your logic, Halley, are we to assume that we, as Americans have given up our rights by purchasing petroleum products from Saddam?

[Kukyona]

Probably the smartest comment I've seen in my short time here.

By your logic, Halley, are we to assume that we, as Americans have given up our rights by purchasing petroleum products from Saddam?

That seems to be some sort of a fallacy, seeing as one can not know in any realistic way which gas came from which source. I think Halley meant more direct purchases, such as the people that actually bought oil from Iraq while Saddam was in power.

However, if one had actually knowledge that the gas they were purchasing did for certain come from Iraq while Saddam was in power, well... that is definetly immoral.

[Young]

The point being made is that the current political status of the world in some cases allows for Saddams to be made, and that by being fated to live under an oppressive regime you do not sacrifice your rights.

[Richard_Halley]

The point being made is that the current political status of the world in some cases allows for Saddams to be made, and that by being fated to live under an oppressive regime you do not sacrifice your rights.

By supporting Saddam, you do give up your rights...

Again, I sympathize with their situation, but that does not mean that we should sacrifice our troops to save their lives (which is concerning oneself with civilian deaths in war amounts to).

[Censure the Opposition]

However, if one had actually knowledge that the gas they were purchasing did for certain come from Iraq while Saddam was in power, well... that is definetly immoral.

Like the US government for example.

It's well-known that one of the US' primary oil interests is in Iraq, to claim ignorance as to the source of the specific fuel you put in your car is no defense.

[erik]

Actually you have to clarify what "primary" means. If we didn't buy any oil at all from Iraq which we didn't for awhile would it effect oil prices overall. Only slightly. 6 billion has flowed since the war as of March and previous to that they were "allowed" by the UN to produce only 17 billion a year maximum since 1998.

Top sources for US oil imports

Saudis 17%

Canada 16%

Mexico 15%

Venezuela 13%

Iraq 8%

We produce 35% of our own oil needs domestically. It would be more but large areas are off limits to humans by law.

Russia has the largest oil reserves "known" but does not have the capital to get it out of the ground. If Putin has his way they never will. If not US and British companies can partner with Russian companies to become the USA's largest source of oil in the near future making Middle East oil a non-issue.