Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ready To Choose Your Poison?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The Sailor, are you saying that only people who serve in the military have a right to make decisions on foreign policy.
No, I do not recall saying anything like that, and I have re-read my posts several times. I do not see how you made that connection.

If your going to say George Bush didn't defend America you can't say Kerry did.

Yes I can. There is documented proof that 1).President Bush never served in a war zone. 2). Kerry, has both served in a war zone, and awarded several decorations for valor under fire.

In my limited knowledge of objectivist views, I have learned, accurate statements are important. I was simply refining the posters statement, and maybe a little, because I don't like President Bush. I don't like Kerry much either, but at least I understand him.

If I were to make a point. It would be that, Kerry, is less likely, to go to war, because of his personal, first hand knowledge of war, and it's consequences. Not being involved in a war, is important to me on a personal level, and one of the things, I look for in a President.

I was involved in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Bosnia. I can start explaining what it was like from now, until next year, and never provide an adequate understanding, to some one who has not been in a war zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I were to make a point.  It would be that, Kerry,  is less likely,  to go to war, because of his personal, first hand knowledge of war, and it's consequences.  Not being involved in a war, is important to me on a personal level, and one of the things,  I look for in a President.

I was involved in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Bosnia.  I can start explaining what it was like from now, until next year, and never provide an adequate understanding, to some one who has not been in a war zone.

As "someone who has been in a war zone," what would you suggest doing about 9/11?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailor, have you ever been to Switzerland? It only takes one trip to see why it hasn't been invaded lately. Geography, not economics, IMO!

Yes I have, and if could, I would move there. Have to learn to speak, German, French, or Italian.

I thought it was a lovely country. Unemployment is 1.9 %, inflation is .5%, what else could you want.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read the Norquist article a couple posts back, and it seems like a lot of Orwellian doublespeak to me. "Tired of crazy government spending? Here's the solution: re-elect the guy who's doing the spending!" Most of the article only serves to cite examples of Bush's crazy spending and debunk the myth that a national debt is a "Good thing" because it's just "money we owe ourselves." It adds at the end that Bush is pushing a whole bunch of reforms that will reduce the debt, but I don't buy it. Our money is not his to use for funding charities and building schools in Iraq. The man has spent more than any Democrat in history, and while a lot of it was on the legitimate war in Afghanistan, more was on the pointless war in Iraq that deviated from proper targets in the struggle for security. I don't think anyone on this forum has offered a legitimate defense of how Iraq benefited America - people just point out that Bush was "willing to defend America." If he was willing to defend America, he'd have invaded Iran, the country that's ruled by ACTUAL Islamic Fudamentalists, with CLEAR ties to terrorism, and REAL nuclear weapons baking in the oven.

Given that he's done nothing right, it would be difficult for Kerry to be worse. Because his social-program initiatives would be decimated by the Republican congress, I don't see how he could do much damage. (The Norquist article makes the interesting point that with a Democrat congress and Republican house, spending always decreases. Our military languishing in Iraq and spending billions on building schools isn't helping American security, so I don't see why the troops should stay there - especially since many, perhaps most, Iraqis want us out ANYWAY.

I would also suggest that people read the sailor's post closely. While I know he will be attacked for sounding like a "peacenik" with his war-is-bad language, he has a point. War isn't frivolous, and willingness to go to war isn't necessarily a good quality in and of itself. (I feel that people on this forum sometimes suggest military action, even the use of nuclear weapons, frivolously, without realizing that such solutions sometimes create worse problems, as in Iraq.) Willingness to go to war when necessary is a good thing. Willingness to start wars loosely connected to something that "might" benefit American security, but mainly waged in the name of "compassion", is not. A nation's self-interest doesn't always mean going to war, and Iraq is clearly a situation of war gone altruistic and self-sacrificial.

I hope I have made somewhat clearer the reasons why I believe Bush has no merit whatsoever as a president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to make a point.  It would be that, Kerry,  is less likely,  to go to war, because of his personal, first hand knowledge of war, and it's consequences.

Being more or less likely to go to war doesn't establish whether the right decision is going to be made when the time comes. War may well be the correct response to a threat so how is "less likely to go to war" going to help anything?

I'm not sure which is the greater mistake, to let the action be carried out, or to go to war prematurely. The difference as I see it is a matter of who takes the initial casualties.

VES

Link to post
Share on other sites
As "someone who has been in a war zone," what would you suggest doing about 9/11?

Not having the information that the president has available, it would be difficult to say, but for starters, I would fire the Director of the CIA, and the FBI.

If for no other reason then the Taliban used to be called "Freedom Fighter", remember that little thing a few years ago with Oliver North. Our CIA trained the Freedom fighter, and bank rolled them, to get rid of the Shaw of Iran, and de-stabilize the region. Then we left them hanging. My point being, the problem goes back further then 9/11.

After the fall of the Shaw, I was in the Gulf, we sold the Iranians F-14 and trained their pilots, then every time they flew missions to Iraq, we warned Iraq they were coming. All in effort to de-stabilize that entire region. Why are we now surprised, that these people are pissed at us. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having the information that the president has available, it would be difficult to say, but for starters, I would fire the Director of the CIA, and the FBI.

[Past history of our military aid in the Middle East.]

Why are we now surprised, that these people are pissed at us. :confused:

Besides firing two government officials and blaming Americans for 9/11, is there anything else you would do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
After the fall of the Shaw, I was in the Gulf, we sold the Iranians F-14 and trained their pilots, then every time they flew missions to Iraq, we warned Iraq they were coming.  All in effort to de-stabilize that entire region.  Why are we now surprised,  that these people are pissed at us. :blink:

Could it be that entire middle east is dominated by mysticism, irrationalism and death worship?

Why else did they cheer when the WTC was blown up?

And why do they blow themselves up as well?

Or is that America's fault as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I do not have any particular plans to vote for Kerry, I think an argument can be made for his superiority over Bush. The main reason people on this forum claim Bush is better centers around one thing: his "willingness to defend America." Yet look at his record. He invaded AFghanistan - something which, given the overwhelming amount of popular support for military action at the time, Kerry would have done as well. Then, he invaded Iraq, which has thus far done nothing but cause our soldiers to die. It is highly likely that the WMDs are in Syria, thus changing little for American security. And Bush now wants to keep our troops in Iraq to serve the cause of compassion. He has no plans to attack Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any of the other countries that most people on this forum want to see regime change in. (I personally do not believe there is currently a satisfactory militarty solution to the North Korean conflict, but that is another topic.) And even as he restrains our soldiers so they die at terrorist hands, he allows Iraq to come closer to becoming an Islamic state . . . . .

It's easy to say Kerrey would have invaded Afghanistan---and impossible to verify. I say he would not have done anything of the kind. In fact the invasion of Afghanistan was decried by nearly everyone in the media. Look at what happened to the Soviets and the British, they said. If we are to take him at his word, Kerrey would have gone to the UN and asked them what to do. And they, of course, would have passed a resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Sabbath, you are right in pointing out that the cultures of the Middle East seem to share an obsession with death and the mystical. However, this doesn't refute the Sailor's point. While it does not justify 9/11 or any other form of terrorist retaliation, I think America's foreign policy in the region was, and for the most part still is, hugely unprincipled. We did fund the militaries of both Saddam and the Iranians during their war - the morally proper thing to do would have been to stay out of a conflict between two evil regimes, not fund and arm both, especially when we know how willing either side would be to commit atrocities with the weapons we'd give them. Our support of Saudi Arabia is another unprincipled problem. Even during the Gulf War - we removed Saddam, then placed the Kuwaiti monarchy, who are no lovers of freedom, back into power.

I'll admit that the people of the Middle East seem to hate us to an absurd and irrational level, which is caused in part by our culture and our support of Israel. But I don't think you can deny that they also have legitimate gripes with things we've done in the region.

As to Kerry not invading Afghanistan, American support for military action at the time was 90% or something similar. Kerry will do whatever's popular in the polls to boost his own image. Besides, the invasion of Afghanistan was executed very poorly. It destroyed some terrorist camps, and technically deposed the Taliban, but the new government is no better, and the Taliban are still around, because we didn't ruthlessly eliminate them. Same goes for Al-Queda - I think the claims that we've "killed 2/3's of their leadership" are greatly exaggerated. The one thing we DID do is blow up a lot of towns and accidentally kill women and children, contributing to more anti-American sentiment. In my opinion, constant, sustained bombing campaigns in a region like Afghanistan only serve to kill the wrong people. You've got to spend more time on the ground if you want to get the right ones. The point is, Bush didn't accomplish much in Afghanistan anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll admit that the people of the Middle East seem to hate us to an absurd and irrational level, which is caused in part by our culture and our support of Israel. But I don't think you can deny that they also have legitimate gripes with things we've done in the region.

So you agree that the murder of 3000 (mostly) Americans on 9/11 is the fault of America, not the fault of the murderers?

Among the things "we've done in the region" is the discovery and development of the region's oil reserves, which has been about the only thing that has kept many people in the region from starving. This is to be ignored?

The billions of dollars we pour into the region in foreign aid (which should be stopped immediately!) counts for nothing?

Destroying two of the most hideous, evil regimes in history -- the Taliban and Hussein -- counts for nothing?

You can make strong arguments that some of the things we've done were improper because it did not benefit America. But to paint the United States as the bad guys -- and the Islamic terrorists as "justifiably upset" -- is obscene.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy to say Kerrey would have invaded Afghanistan---and impossible to verify. I say he would not have done anything of the kind. In fact the invasion of Afghanistan was decried by nearly everyone in the media. Look at what happened to the Soviets and the British, they said. If we are to take him at his word, Kerrey would have gone to the UN and asked them what to do. And they, of course, would have passed a resolution.

Great point, Kitty Hawk. If Kerry had been president, the Taliban would still be training terrorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides firing two government officials and blaming Americans for 9/11, is there anything else you would do?

I'm still wating for an answer to Betsy's question. What would you guys do?

Why is it that you always have enough information to know that what Bush has done in the war on terror is wrong, but never enough information to know what should be done instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to make a point.  It would be that, Kerry,  is less likely,  to go to war, because of his personal, first hand knowledge of war, and it's consequences.  Not being involved in a war, is important to me on a personal level, and one of the things,  I look for in a President.

Being less likely to go to war doesn't mean that Kerry would not go to war in defense of America's self-interests.

It doesn't even necessarily mean that he would exercise more restraint than Bush regarding this issue.

Recall that Kerry did vote to go to Iraq, and did vote in favor of Afghanistan, so what he posts on his website regarding foreign policy is not all that far-fetched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sailor: you said Kerry defended America. Vietnam is not part of America. Bush served in the National Gaurd and didn't see combat (like 90% of people who serve their country) so he didn't defend America??? My point is your splitting hairs.

Oliver North???

Are you talking about Iran-Contra, that didn't have anything to do with Afghanistan.

The CIA???

Do you mean the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. That's a different country from Iran. You even got the decades wrong, the Shah of Iran fell in the 70's and the freedom fighters of Afghanistan was the 80's.

We didn't sell the Iranians any planes after the fall of the Shah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not having the information that the president has available, it would be difficult to say, but for starters, I would fire the Director of the CIA, and the FBI.

[Past history of our military aid in the Middle East.]

Why are we now surprised, that these people are pissed at us. :blink:

Besides firing two government officials and blaming Americans for 9/11, is there anything else you would do?

My opinion is that taking such action is woefully shortsighted.

It places the blame on the FBI and the CIA rather than place it on unprincipled foreign policy.

So the real persons to fire regarding unprincipled foreign policy?

Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton are all out of the picture. So, thankfully, is Richard Clarke.

I'll also clarify my position by saying that the real blame for 9-11 goes to the Islamic Fundies who waged these terrorist attacks upon us, as well as the nations who sponsored them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides firing two government officials and blaming Americans for 9/11, is there anything else you would do?
I do not blame Americans for 9/11, I blame the CIA agenda and unknown members of the CIA, who happen to be America. I think these people have been allowed to play their little secret game and hidden agenda for far to long. It is causing serious problems now, and needs to stop.

As to what else to do, I don't know. I said before, I do not have sufficient information. Would I go to war, maybe, but I do not think it would be against Iraq. If I held any one countries government responsible, it would be Saudi Arabia. The majority of the attackers were Saudi, Ben Linden is Saudi, most of the members of Al-Queda are Saudi.

Among the things "we've done in the region" is the discovery and development of the region's oil reserves, which has been about the only thing that has kept many people in the region from starving. This is to be ignored?

I am still unsure of this statement, but my immediate thought is, these people were living in the region long before oil was discovered, and they were not staving then.

The wars in this region have been going on for thousands of years and are religious in nature, which is to say irrational by nature.

What is the objectivist view of what should done about 9/11 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
We didn't sell the Iranians any planes after the fall of the Shah.

YES, we did sell them planes, I know this for a fact. We also sold planes, ships, and weapons to saudi arabia. We have sold weapon to just about everybody in the region.

I consider this irrational behavior on our part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Sailor: you said Kerry defended America. Vietnam is not part of America. Bush served in the National Gaurd and didn't see combat (like 90% of people who serve their country) so he didn't defend America??? My point is your splitting hairs.

Oliver North???

Are you talking about Iran-Contra, that didn't have anything to do with Afghanistan.

The CIA???

Do you mean the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. That's a different country from Iran.  You even got the decades wrong, the Shah of Iran fell in the 70's and the freedom fighters of Afghanistan was the 80's.

We didn't sell the Iranians any planes after the fall of the Shah.

The shah was depose in 1979, and replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini (an Islamic fundamentalist), whose organization the "Iran Contra's", were responsible for the regime change.

Iran-Contra involved a network of aides acting like a separate government and sold missiles to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, this where Oliver North came into the picture.

These people later broke from Khomeini, forming a new agenda, moved to Afghanistan and became the Taliban, and Al-Queda.

All of the above was funded by the CIA to de-stabilize the region. To what end? I only have one idea, and is purely my opinion.

I do know that we could work with the Shah, and the Shah could care less about Iraq. If the CIA had some agenda concerning Iraq, even if Khomeini was impossible to work with, he hated Iraq. Maybe the CIA just screwed up, and did not realize that Khomeini could actually take power. But his taking power did lead to the Iran/Iraq war. possibly when Iran couldn't get the job done, then maybe that is why we had to get involved. I do not think it had anything to do with 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kerry is another Jimmy Carter. If elected, he will spend the next four years apologizing to the world for America's existence.

He is the ultimate pragmatist. He will promise anything to anyone. His web site even includes a promise to shrink the size of the federal government and "reign in out of control spending".

Bush retains something of the American sense of life -- diluted by his devotion to religious altruism and polluted by his own streak of pragmatism -- he is at least willing to take military action in the face of enormous opposition world-wide and domestically.

Kerry's sense of life is that of an elitist, sneering down his nose at any of us simple-minded enough to think that America is anything special.

I don't like Bush's domestic agenda any more than the rest of you -- and I think we have been far too timid with our military action. However, we can ultimately repeal bad legislation -- and a willingness to take action is a prerequisite for taking the correct action.

A Kerry victory will be viewed in the Muslim world as a surrender in the war on terror, it will be seen by the Europeans as "Those ignorant Americans have finally regained their senses -- now they'll return to the fold and recognize us as the superior cultures we really are." Kerry the politician will play to all those sentiments.

The best thing that could happen would be for Bush to win in a landslide. Such a victory would seriously demoralize the terrorists and their allies. It might embolden Bush to take much more aggresive military action against state sponsers of terrorism. And it would be an expression by the American people that we want our country defended, not prostrated before that sickening collection of thugs, theocrats, two-bit dictators and smiling mass-murderers known as the United Nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the objectivist view of what should done about 9/11 ?

I cannot speak for Objectivism per se, but my own answer is that those responsible for 9/11 should be annihilated, which means destroying the regimes that support Islamic terror -- Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria -- using any and every means necessary, including thermonuclear weapons.

Our initial focus should be on hostile regimes developing weapons of mass destruction. There is considerable evidence that the regime in Iraq was -- and the regimes in Iran and North Korea still are -- actively seeking nuclear weapons -- for use against America. While the probability of private individuals developing nuclear weapons is small, the probability of a state-supported effort doing it cannot be ignored. And since these regimes publicly call for the destruction of America, it is folly to ignore such a threat.

These regimes need to be destroyed. Not necessarily the entire country, not the entire population, but certainly the regime, its leaders, and all of the infrastructure that could be used to support a nuclear weapons program.

How to identify what should and should not be destroyed requires good intelligence. How best to go about doing this is obviously debatable. Nuclear attack? Invasion and occupation? Conventional bombing? Special forces operations? These are issues for military experts. But I would not rule out anything.

The overall goal of eliminating -- or at least minimizing -- the terrorist's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction is beyond question. And that means eliminating the regimes that are actively working toward precisely such a threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll admit that the people of the Middle East seem to hate us to an absurd and irrational level, which is caused in part by our culture and our support of Israel. But I don't think you can deny that they also have legitimate gripes with things we've done in the region.

Support of Israel?

America is the one restraining Israel from wiping the floor with it's enemies.

The Arabs hate America because they are consistently taught an anti-life creed and they practice it consistently. They know that America stands, albeit inconsistently, for reason and freedom and production.

Even if it were true that Arabs had a legitimate gripe against America, it speaks volumes that they do not demand freedom but more power for the state and more faith in Allah. They target not their own oppressors, nor even military targets but consider innocent civilians their main prey.

As for Kerry, he did a fine job as a soldier in Vietnam and then came back to America and devoted his time to smearing his own side and helping the far left.

His whole election strategy has been 'Vote for me! I'm not George W. Bush'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailor, everything you said after "The shah was deposed in 1979" is wrong.

But I must say "These people later broke from Khomeini, forming a new agenda, moved to Afghanistan and became the Taliban and Al-Queda." Doesn't make any sense at all.

Link to post
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...