The War In Iraq (and WMDs)

[Richard_Halley]

Tryptonique:

Are you suggusting that, because we have not invaded every country that we should, that we may not invade any of them?

I hope that this is, in fact, not what you are suggusting.

[Tryptonique]

what I was hinting at....was that we would be MORE justified in invading Saudia Arabia than Iraq as there is more of a direct connection (at least in my mind as it was previously stated that bin Laden and the majority of the hijackers are from Saudia Arabia as well as the fact that Saudia Arabia directly sponsors such terrorism.).

Iran is actually developing their nuclear capacities. Why not invade them?

Since we have become the global police we might as well do it right, no?

Of course we have the right to determine when and where the conflict shall be (and if it is in our best interest) unless the terrorists define the conflict before we do with another attack on our soil/assets.

This is right in line with PNAC...our favorite conservative think tank.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

This think tank wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to invade Iraq.

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

What do you think on this issue?

Should we sit by and let Iran and Saudi Arabia chill?

We have more justification for going to war with those countries than we ever have for Iraq.

Since when has Iraq taken American citizens hostage for a year?

There are regimes that are FAR more hostile to American interests.

Maybe it is time to take out the trash, hmmmm?

[Richard_Halley]

Since we have become the global police (altruistically it might seem, sacrificing US troops with US tax dollars for a non US interest) we might as well do it right, no?

When you say this, you do so in ignorence of all the non-altruistic reasons to invade Iraq presented in this thread, other threads on this forum and Op-Ed's on the topic from ARI. If you are going to say something like that, you had better provide some evidence.

And, yes, we should do it right, we should hit Iran--we should have already hit Iran in my opinion--we should hit Saudi Arabia and we should hit a number of other countrys in the middle east and elsewhere.

However, all of this is not an argument against the Iraq war, so I don't see its relevence to this topic.

[Tryptonique]

I was responding to Mrs. Speicher when she mentioned Iraq funding homicide bombers.

I was not aware of that as I had thought that sponsoring those groups was in the hands of the Saudis and not Saddam.

I was wondering about that particular fact.

As for the altruism point...I edited that out of my original post because I realized some interests that we definitely have that have been threatened by Iraq.

I didn't mean it to be wrong (which is what it would have been as you pointed out) which is why I changed it prior to your post.

[Old Geezer]

I was responding to Mrs. Speicher when she mentioned Iraq funding homicide bombers.

Yes, I have seen these reports (Up to $50,000) and seen them in multiple sources. The rest of the Global

Terrorism Claims (about Saddam) are not credible enough for me to believe, but this one I believe.

As for the Saudi Funding, The way I understand it is this; the government has failed to make a substantial effort to see where the money (which is largely raised in Saudi Mosques in the name of aiding the poor) goes. This has been the bulk of their sin. The house of Saud have of course contributed monies to these shady funds, but they do not exist solely within Saudi Arabia

[student]

That is horrendously wrong. There is absolutely no excuse for evil. Period.

You do know that the only sentence you quoted from my post is the one which is most unrecognizable without its context. It was a parody of one of your sentences, not an argument, and it was not to be taken alone.

Sorry if I misquoted you. I'm new here and am trying not to offend, as I see that as bad form for a newbie. However, as to my points you simply stated "false" to them and then went on with the Bush party line or some such, stating things like: ..."deserves is execution - long, slow, and torturous."

After reading that and other things you wrote I didn't think you wanted to be taken seriously.

Now after I state that 9/11 happened because of our one-sided support for Israel you say I am making excuses for 9/11. Who is misquoting whom? Do you want to be taken seriously?

Betsy, I don't want to get into it here with you about Israel unless it's a matter of you stating that we were justified in going to war with Iraq because Israel did not like Saddam and considered him a threat. If so, how many other countries should we attack if Israel considers them a threat? Any or all of them? Should we attack France if Israel says so? I'm sure many French citizens are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

The Iraq war is illegal, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of objectivism. They did not harm us. They did not threaten us. We were wrong about the WMD. We were wrong about how the Iraqis would treat our boys in their country. We are not there to liberate them but to impose our(Israels) will upon them. Ayn Rand hated lies and deception. What were the reasons for this war if not based on lies and deceptions? How many hundreds or thousands of young American boys and girls, (not to mention the hundreds of Billions of dollars) are you willing to sacrifice to make the world safe for ersatz(greater) Israel? Terrorism would end tomorrow if Israel would return to the green line. It is because of rabidly fundamentalist rabbis in the Israeli Knesset that Israel won't do that. The mystics that Ayn was so contemptuous of, and here the people who are charged with her legacy seem to be willing dupes to the mad priests out of some sort of greater agenda. I would like to know what that agenda is, please

[redfarmer]

If my language in my original post is unclear, let me apologize. I did intend this to be a "what if" type of post. I don't know for sure if he lied or not and, in fact, I'm very devided on the subject right now.

I am looking for any and all sources which may help me clarify this issue in my mind.

BTW, what about the suggestion we do a major investigation of the war, if for no other reason than to shut the liberals up? I think this is a good idea.

[Richard_Halley]

The Iraq war is illegal, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of objectivism. They did not harm us. They did not threaten us. We were wrong about the WMD. We were wrong about how the Iraqis would treat our boys in their country. We are not there to liberate them but to impose our(Israels) will upon them.

They did threaten us, in various ways which have already been descirbed on this thread, on other threads here, and in various Objectivist Op-Eds...

As for imposing our will upon them, if that is how you describe ending a dictatorship in favor of a democracy, than yes, that is what we are there for.

As for their treatment of "our boys"... well, thats not how my cousin, who is there, tells it.

Terrorism would end tomorrow if Israel would return to the green line.

This is absurd, the hatred for America in fundemental Islam comes from the fact that we are productive, non-islamic, infidels. Israel is little more than an excuse.

Furthermore, if Israel returned to the "green line" than tomarrow Hamas would demand they recede farther back, and farther back after that, etc...

But even so, none of this is relevent, as Israel should not "return to the green line" merely because a bunch of wackos will blow them up otherwise, they should fight back, instead.

[BlackSabbath]

Now after I state that 9/11 happened because of our one-sided support for Israel you say I am making excuses for 9/11.  Who is misquoting whom?  Do you want to be taken seriously?

Betsy, I don't want to get into it here with you about Israel unless it's a matter of you stating that we were justified in going to war with Iraq because Israel did not like Saddam and considered him a threat.  If so, how many other countries should we attack if Israel considers them a threat?  Any or all of them?  Should we attack France if Israel says so?  I'm sure many French citizens are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

The Iraq war is illegal, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of objectivism.  They did not harm us.  They did not threaten us.  We were wrong about the WMD.  We were wrong about how the Iraqis would treat our boys in their country.  We are not there to liberate them but to impose our(Israels) will upon them.  Ayn Rand hated lies and deception.  What were the reasons for this war if not based on lies and deceptions?  How many hundreds or thousands of young American boys and girls, (not to mention the hundreds of Billions of dollars) are you willing to sacrifice to make the world safe for ersatz(greater) Israel?  Terrorism would end tomorrow if Israel would return to the green line.  It is because of rabidly fundamentalist rabbis in the Israeli Knesset that Israel won't do that.  The mystics that Ayn was so contemptuous of, and here the people who are charged with her legacy seem to be willing dupes to the mad priests out of some sort of greater agenda.  I would like to know what that agenda is, please

This is drivel and you are making excuses for terrorism.

The whole premise of your post is that terrorism is somehow provoked.

Terrorism is a matter of ideology not of political or economic circumstance.

9/11 happened because past presidents did not take the threat of terror seriously enough and led Osama Bin Laden to think he could get away with it.

[Socionomer]

I'm surprised that no one has yet made the argument that the United States also supports terrorism and should be "taken out".

I say this because I just heard on the news that the U.S. will be increasing foriegn aid to Saudi Arabia by some 300 million dollars this year (or next fiscal year). What controls are there to prevent members of the Saudi family/gov't from disbursing some of OUR tax dollars to those that will be killing more of us in the future?

This is INSANE. Our foreign policy is completely incoherent. I'm surprised the terrorists actually tried to hit Washington D.C. Our own government is their best friend!

[Old Geezer]

This is INSANE. Our foreign policy is completely incoherent. I'm surprised the terrorists actually tried to hit Washington D.C. Our own government is their best friend!

Actually, one of BL's biggest enemies is the House of Saud. The problem in SA is a triangle of corrupted influences, none being particularly Favorable

Faith Based

(BL and Crew)

Family Based

(There are approximately 12 major tribes in SA some of which are very influential)

Fortune (Business) Based

(Welcome to the Corrupt Socialist Utopia Sultan, Bandar, Abdallah)

As far as I can ascertain, the short term option with the least consequences would be strengthening the more secular tribal leaders in the places nearest the oil fields and the political power bases.

Another option will be to begin to diplomatically leverage SA to reform with a serious effort.

Course another option would be to develop engines that run off of mid-east propoganda.

[Betsy]

Betsy, I don't want to get into it here with you about Israel unless it's a matter of you stating that we were justified in going to war with Iraq because Israel did not like Saddam and considered him a threat.  If so, how many other countries should we attack if Israel considers them a threat?  Any or all of them?  Should we attack France if Israel says so?  I'm sure many French citizens are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Sorry, but I will not be distracted with something I wasn't saying. Why don't you address something I DID say such as:

In fact, despite its faults, Israel is the only democracy and the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East. All other countries are either actual racist theocracies (Iran, Saudi Arabia) or dictatorships. Israel isn't a laissez faire uptopia, but they recognize individual rights -- including the individual rights of its Arab and Muslim citizens -- better than any other country in the region. They are also America's only reliable ally in the Middle East.

Now THERE's a good reason to defend Israel.

The Iraq war is illegal, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of objectivism.

I daresay I know a lot more about the principles of Objectivism (note the capital "O") than you do.

Terrorism would end tomorrow if Israel would return to the green line.  It is because of rabidly fundamentalist rabbis in the Israeli Knesset that Israel won't do that.  The mystics that Ayn was so contemptuous of, and here the people who are charged with her legacy seem to be willing dupes to the mad priests out of some sort of greater agenda.

I daresay Ayn Rand (note the respectful, non-familiar use of her full name) understood the issue better than you do. During the 1967 Six Day War, Ayn Rand was a guest on the most popular late-night TV show in America: The Johnny Carson Show. Addressing the nation, she made a strong, clear defense of Israel, said it was an issue of civilization (Israel) vs. barbarism (the Arabs), and got a standing ovation when she declared she was not only supporting Israel morally, but that she had also sent MONEY to the Israeli cause.

[student]

..."address something I DID say such as:

In fact, despite its faults, Israel is the only democracy and the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East...

...but they recognize individual rights -- including the individual rights of its Arab and Muslim citizens -- better than any other country in the region. They are also America's only reliable ally in the Middle East.

I daresay I know a lot more about the principles of Objectivism (note the capital "O") than you do.

I daresay Ayn Rand (note the respectful, non-familiar use of her full name) understood the issue better than you do.  During the 1967 Six Day War, Ayn Rand was a guest on the most popular late-night TV show in America: The Johnny Carson Show.  Addressing the nation, she made a strong, clear defense of Israel, said it was an issue of civilization (Israel) vs. barbarism (the Arabs), and got a standing ovation when she declared she was not only supporting Israel morally, but that she had also sent MONEY to the Israeli cause.

Betsy, I call myself a student because I am here to learn. I don't pretend to know a lot about Objectivism or philosophy, just enough to want to learn more. I have read most or all of Rands work, (I have been educated in the introduction board on the proper way to address Ayn Rand, and sorry for the familiar usage, something common among some of the people I discuss her work with alas. Seems one can almost get to "know" her), and I defer to your obvious knowledge and experience in the matter.

That said, I must say that based on what you've written, I know more about what kind of "democracy" Israel actually has. And as far as individual rights are concerned, with the exception of some of the sub-Sahara African countries, Israel ranks at the bottom of respect for human rights, unless of course you are a Jew, in which case they will bestow upon you all kinds of American taxpayers supported benefits and privileges.

If Ayn Rand supported the 6 day war, guess what, so did I, and I still strongly support Israel’s right to exist and to defend herself. I just don't support the use of my country to as a tool for madmen like Ariel Sharon to murder and steal his way to world wide record infamy for nazi type land theft and genocide. I'm also a little pissed about the USS Liberty and Rachel Corries murder going uninvestigated. But that is for another thread or even perhaps another forum. The point is the war on Iraq was wrong and we Americans were misled into it. I'm angry about the death of our young people and the seemingly infinite billions (that we don't have) to keep the president from admitting he was wrong.

[y_feldblum]

I'm also a little pissed about the USS Liberty and Rachel Corries murder going uninvestigated.

The US Government investigated The USS Liberty incident no less than ten times - and found Israel not at fault every time.

I don't think anybody needs to investigate Corrie's death - come on, intentionally getting in front of a moving bulldozer?! - she could have asked for it no more eloquently than that.

I'm angry about the death of our young people and the seemingly infinite billions (that we don't have) to keep the president from admitting he was wrong.

You should be angry that this country's politicians don't have the guts to nuke 'em (or MOAB, or whatever it takes to rid a city of its insurgents within five minutes). You should also be angry that this country's politicians don't have the guts to say explicitly: This is in our self-defense; and instead need to summon up the weasely appeal: We're gonna be military-grade social workers.

[Richard_Halley]

I just don't support the use of my country to as a tool for madmen like Ariel Sharon to murder and steal his way to world wide record infamy for nazi type land theft and genocide.

Nobody here has stated that Israel is the reason for going into Iraq. If you had looked at the threads and articles which I have now mentioned many--was it 3 or 4?--times, you would know to quit suggusting it.

[student]

Nobody here has stated that Israel is the reason for going into Iraq.  If you had looked at the threads and articles which I have now mentioned many--was it 3 or 4?--times, you would know to quit suggusting it.

..."you would know to quit suggusting it."

I know no such thing. I know you might prefer that I not think and just parrot the party line, but that would mean that I would have to break a long held conviction of mine against being a sheep. I have a mind and I will use it, think you very much. And BTW, it seems to me it is the sheep around here that are suggesting that Israel was the reason for the war by insisting that because Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers we had to go to war with him. See, the flock are repeating their catechism and I only point out that Israel is not the USA and our interests are not one and the same, no matter how many shills for George Bush or Ariel Sharon come out of the woodwork.

I am deeply disappointed at this forum and it's members. What I thought would be an educational and interesting exchange has turned into an Orwelian nightmare of thought police for anyone who dares to crimethink- question the official dogmas and lies.

The war on Iraq is the greatest crime of the perhaps a century, and it's only the beginning. You Zionazi's seem ready to spend every drop of young American blood and treasure to secure your insane delusion of a greater Israel and world slavery to some sick New World Order. And you would pervert every philosophy and idea in your beligerent and impossible goal of racial supremacy. Well guess what, GET A CLUE!

[MinorityOfOne]

Whoa.

[Charles]

I for one dont appreciate the fact that often people in this forum stand behind objectivism as a defence for making money in any way or form - there is a social side to objectivism, a selfish, but nevertheless social.

As for the post two before this: appropriate member name...

[BlackSabbath]

I am deeply disappointed at this forum and it's members.  What I thought would be an educational and interesting exchange has turned into an Orwelian nightmare of thought police for anyone who dares to crimethink- question the official dogmas and lies.

The war on Iraq is the greatest crime of the perhaps a century, and it's only the beginning.  You Zionazi's seem ready to spend every drop of young American blood and treasure to secure your insane delusion of a greater Israel and world slavery to some sick New World Order.  And you would pervert every philosophy and idea in your beligerent and impossible goal of racial supremacy.  Well guess what, GET A CLUE!

Well so far, we have someone who claims to be a student of objectivism who has said nothing positive in favour of anything but has merely opposed the war in Iraq and condemned israel while spouting standard leftist drivel.

We are now being called Zionazis or Zio-National Socialists while Student ignores the racist jihads declared against the west by Al-Qaeda and their allies.

What is this but standard leftist drivel that we've all seen millions of times before?

We are also being accused of being cultists and who hasn't had that accusation levelled against them as an Objectivist?

Again more left-wing drivel.

And the last part appears to be a recycling of the old capitalist imperialism bit.

This is recycled Marxism and certainly not Objectivism.

[BlackSabbath]

I for one dont appreciate the fact that often people in this forum stand behind objectivism as a defence for making money in any way or form -

Who does this?

And give examples.

[student]

Well so far, we have someone who claims to be a student of objectivism who has said nothing positive in favour of anything but has merely opposed the war in Iraq and condemned israel while spouting standard leftist drivel.

We are now being called Zionazis or Zio-National Socialists while Student ignores the racist jihads declared against the west by Al-Qaeda and their allies.

What is this but standard leftist drivel that we've all seen millions of times before?

We are also being accused of being cultists and who hasn't had that accusation levelled against them as an Objectivist?

Again more left-wing drivel.

And the last part appears to be a recycling of the old capitalist imperialism bit.

This is recycled Marxism and certainly not Objectivism.

Well so far, we have someone who claims to be a student of objectivism who has said nothing positive in favour of anything but has merely opposed the war in Iraq and condemned israel while spouting standard leftist drivel.

Well, I must say that at this point I am shocked that I have not been banned yet for posting opinions that run counter to the party line. Perhaps I was hasty in my rancor. Now, that said, as far as the quote above, I have stated that I agree with most of what Objectivism stands for and consider Ayn Rand to be one of the giants of Western thought. But I didn't come here to be touchy feely with yes people all agreeing on everything. Boring. I post my opinions where I see the most disagreement, and you might have noticed, as far as the morality of the war on Iraq goes, I'm not at a loss on this thread for that.

We are now being called Zionazis or Zio-National Socialists while Student ignores the racist jihads declared against the west by Al-Qaeda and their allies.

What is this but standard leftist drivel that we've all seen millions of times before?

The reasons for Islamic terrorism are due in most part to Israel's genocidal disregard for basic human rights in Palestine. Perhaps you are unaware of that. I don't know. The United States of America's foreign policy is determined by neo-con Israeli firsters. This is the reason for the war on Iraq and the future wars against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea,(who's only crime that the neo-cons care about is the potential of selling nuks to one of Israel’s myriad enemies. Israel is not hated because of the Jews that live there, Israel is hated because of what they do; murder and expel Arabs and steel their land. I'm only waiting for someone on this forum to explain to me that God gave the land to the Jews after all. No more American blood or treasure because of the power of AIPAC on our government is all I'm saying. Is that so beyond the pale?

Again more left-wing drivel.

And the last part appears to be a recycling of the old capitalist imperialism bit.

This is recycled Marxism and certainly not Objectivism.

Marxism enslaved Russia, the Ukraine and half of Europe for generations, at least the ones that it didn't genocide anyways. I'm hardly a Marxist. I'm an American who loves freedom and truth above all else. Objectivism is one of the tools rational people use to achieve both. That is why I posted here.

Although there are many stooges here for the powers that be, I have to confess that my previous post was perhaps unfair. I was warned against straying from the party line and offending some of the posters here, so I was hasty in my criticisms. I expected to be banned and the fact that I'm not means that I was wrong. I stand corrected.

[MinorityOfOne]

If you're banned, it'll be because you called the participants in this forum Nazis, and not because you "didn't toe a party line". (Which phrase, incidentally, is another gratuitous insult.)

[Richard_Halley]

I know no such thing. I know you might prefer that I not think and just parrot the party line, but that would mean that I would have to break a long held conviction of mine against being a sheep.

You are being absurd... I said absolutly nothing even remotely similar to this.

What I said was that nobody Objectivist is arguing that Israel is the justification for going into Iraq. I asked you, many times now, to read up on why we actually claim we should go into Iraq. Either you have not done so, or you are dileberatly putting up a straw-man. Either way, you would do better to stop arguing against Israel as the reason for the war, as no one is going to defend that reason.

[BlackSabbath]

"The reasons for Islamic terrorism are due in most part to Israel's genocidal disregard for basic human rights in Palestine."

No it isn't. It is because the Arab countries of the middle east are dominated by mysticism, irrationalism and death worship. That is why they choose to commit suicide when they bomb. They are also the ones who are genocidal in wanting to drive an entire nation into the sea. And no, they weren't provoked into it by Israel.

"Perhaps you are unaware of that. I don't know. The United States of America's foreign policy is determined by neo-con Israeli firsters."

I was unaware of that because it isn't true. Israel is not genocidal.

And where exactly are all these freedom-loving Arabs anyway? They're certainly well hidden in all the dictatorships surrounding Israel.

" Israel is not hated because of the Jews that live there, "

Yes it is. The Islamists have called for war on the Christians and the Jews worldwide.

"Marxism enslaved Russia, the Ukraine and half of Europe for generations, at least the ones that it didn't genocide anyways. I'm hardly a Marxist. I'm an American who loves freedom and truth above all else. Objectivism is one of the tools rational people use to achieve both. That is why I posted here. "

For someone who is hardly a Marxist, you are parrotting all the Marxist drivel that the average leftie usually spouts.

Notably, when you have been in favour of anything, it has been brief and vague and then you come straight to the foreign policy section to tell us that Israel is racist and genocidal and that America has provoked terrorism by supporting Israel.

The reality is that the war on terror has been decidely half-hearted because of President Bush's contradictory premises.

The war was declared on the West by militant Islam a long time ago and it wasn't provoked by the West except in the sense that it was never taken seriously by anyone until very recently.

[Charles]

No it isn't. It is because the Arab countries of the middle east are dominated by mysticism, irrationalism and death worship.

That may be so, but it doesnt help that our dear and beloved GWBush hardly ever rationally justifies himself and constantly pulls religious rhetoric on us. That there's seldom a speech made by this man without the numbers '911' mentioned might lead one to see an exploitive death worship of his own at work...