The US war in Iraq

[dan_edge]

Andre,

There's no reason to cop an attitude. DarkWaters is correct in noting that there is already a significant amount of "literature on how the War in Iraq is presently a war of self-sacrifice." His criticisms point out both a lack of precision in your thinking and your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject matter. He made these criticisms respectfully, and you should learn to do the same. (Incidentally, if you don't like the condescending tone of my post, then learn to act like an adult.)

Here are some relevant articles that you may want to research:

"Just War Theory" vs American Self Defense

William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory - (Must have subscription to The Objective Standard to read the whole article)

The "Forward Strategy" for Failure

This one is especially important:

"No Substitute for Victory"

--Dan Edge

[Inspector]

Agents of western civilization have fought religious fanatics before, and "showing that we are serious" has never been an effective tool. Ever. If you can point me to a single example, I will eat my hat. Only genocide and hands-on policing work, policing not working on the long term unless a nation building effort is engaged in.

The Barbary Pirates. Would you like that hat with salt?

Edited August 20, 2007 by Inspector

[The Wrath]

2. It is the only way to eliminate the threat of Islam through air power. If you wish to spare the lives of innocent people on the ground, you have to be within sight of them.

And why should it be our goal to eliminate Islam, if we're not going to go after Hinduism and Christianity.

There is no other kind of Islam. Therefore, I would recommend you stick to the short version.

Avicenna and Akbar Ganji would like a word with you. As would the nations of Jordan, Turkey, and Dubai.

Can you give me one example in history of this happening?

Japan.

Oh goody! Please forgive my ignorance and lazyness. Enlighten me so that I may know the truth about the situation we face.

It's not hard. Try watching the news. Learn a bit about the demographics of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Learn their forms of government. Learn which parts of the world are actually centers for Wahhabist ideology/activity. Then get back to me on why would should exterminate the populations of Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Amman.

It is not different at all. The scales change, the fundamentals do not.

Yeah, actually it is. Domestic security involves preventing terrorist threats, once the terrorists are already here. We're not going to bomb our own cities. And if you think that turning the entire Middle East into a parking lot would completely eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism, then I guess there's no point in trying to reason with you.

The childish imaginary line that separates nations and turns good into bad and bad into good is not something objectivists should embrace.

What's childish is your failure to recognize that, while good and bad may be black and white, not all "bads" are created equal. Religion is bad...but please forgive me if I perceive a qualitative difference between Islam and Jainism. Islam is bad...but please forgive me if I see no reason to massacre the Whirling Dhirvish, alongside the Wahhabists and Salafists.

Are you a reincarnation of Robert Kolker? When people express views like these, I usually conclude that there is an element of racism about them. There are many Christians who would impose their views on us with much the same methods and harshness with which Bin Laden seeks to impose Islam. But you don't call for the genocide of Christian nations. Yes, Islam is more of a threat. But, as with Christianity, the majority of Muslims area against Bin Laden's ideology and do not wish to subjugate the entire world and kill all non-Muslims. It is certainly a problem that Muslims don't speak up, as much as they should, against the jihadists. But that hardly puts them on the same moral plane as the jihadists themselves.

I see no other explanation than racism. And, yes, I am accusing you of being a racist. I am as against Islam as anyone else on this board. I am also just as critical of Christianity as I am of Islam. Your call for genocide against the Muslim world, ignoring the difference between peaceful Muslims (yes, they exist) and Wahhabists, leaves me no choice but to conclude that outright bigotry plays a large part in your views.

[Inspector]

Your call for genocide against the Muslim world, ignoring the difference between peaceful Muslims (yes, they exist) and Wahhabists, leaves me no choice but to conclude that outright bigotry plays a large part in your views.

Actually, I don't read what he said that way. I think he is simply claiming that one must support either nation building or genocide and is, himself, supporting the former. This is a false alternative, of course. As detailed by John Lewis in the articles linked to, we need only eliminate State Islam and also make the point clear that we are serious about defending ourselves.

[andre_sanchez]

The Barbary Pirates. Would you like that hat with salt?

Try harder.

"After the general pacification of 1815, the suppression of African piracy was universally felt to be a necessity. The insolence of Tunisian squadron which sacked Palma in the island of Sardinia and carried off 158 of its inhabitants, roused widespread indignation. Other influences were at work to bring about their extinction. The United Kingdom had acquired Malta and the Ionian Islands and now had many Mediterranean subjects. She was also engaged in pressing the other European powers to join with her in the suppression of the slave trade which the Barbary states practised on a large scale and at the expense of Europe. The suppression of the trade was one of the objects of the Congress of Vienna. The United Kingdom was called on to act for Europe, and in 1816 Lord Exmouth was sent to obtain treaties from Tunis and Algiers. His first visit produced diplomatic documents and promises and he sailed for England. While he was negotiating, a number of British subjects had been brutally ill-treated at Bona, without his knowledge. The British government sent him back to secure reparation, and on the 17th of August, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, he administered a smashing bombardment to Algiers. The lesson terrified the pirates both of that city and of Tunis into giving up over 3,000 prisoners and making fresh promises. Within a short time, however, Algiers renewed its piracies and slave-taking, though on a smaller scale, and the measures to be taken with it were discussed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. In 1824 another British fleet under Admiral Sir Harry Neal had again to bombard Algiers. The great pirate city was not in fact thoroughly tamed till its conquest by France in 1830."[4]

[andre_sanchez]

And why should it be our goal to eliminate Islam, if we're not going to go after Hinduism and Christianity.

Because Islam is inherently aggressive and despotic. I know next to nothing about hinduism, but christianity through all it's flaws is compatible with the best of western civilization, or at the very least, poses no danger to it.

Avicenna and Akbar Ganji would like a word with you.

Not knowing Ganji, I looked him up.

"Growing up in a poor district of southern Tehran, Ganji was initially enthused by the 1979 Revolution. He became a member of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and worked at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. But after becoming disillusioned with the regime, he took to journalism, becoming increasingly critical of the regime's suppression of human rights."

Classic! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me about peaceful communists and nazis who worked in concentration camps! The matter of Avicena is less clear, but I would like to remind you that if a great mind is born within the muslim world, he cannot help but be a peaceful muslim because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. Millions even today, and much more so before, carry the "muslim" label simply out of fear and social convention, without any clue or interest into what it means to be a muslim.

As would the nations of Jordan, Turkey, and Dubai.

Turkey, thanks to Ataturk's efforts to abolish islamic influence (by force, in effect, nation-building) in it is a fairly peaceful and free place, but a country sliping dangerously back into submission to Allah and all that entails. I have to admit I was fooled by Dubai too, before studying Islam and contemporary islamic politics more fuly. I have zero doubt that Dubai's wealth helps fund islamic jihad, one way or the other.

Japan.

Thanks for giving me the neo-cons favourite example. Perhaps you are not aware that the country was occupied? It is certainly possible to extract surrender from an enemy by a show of force. However, unless the enemy changes his mentality, this is nothing but a truce, a cease-fire, and often a meaningless one. Your strategy amounts to seeing a murder, pointing a gun to the murderer's head and shouting "Surrender!", then allowing him to leave once he promises to stop murdering. It is irrational.

It's not hard. Try watching the news. Learn a bit about the demographics of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Learn their forms of government. Learn which parts of the world are actually centers for Wahhabist ideology/activity. Then get back to me on why would should exterminate the populations of Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Amman.

Wahabism is certainly a factor. It is -not- the problem. Perhaps you have heard of Hezbollah? The problem is that due to Islam's inherently violent and despotic nature, things such as "wahabism" are inevitable. Oil wealth (not to mention posession of the holy cities) have placed this particular ideology on the vanguard of islamic jihad, but it's hardly it's root.

Are you a reincarnation of Robert Kolker? When people express views like these, I usually conclude that there is an element of racism about them.

You are wrong.

I see no other explanation than racism. And, yes, I am accusing you of being a racist.

I'm a racist because I wish to destroy an ideology? Do you know the difference between the contents of one's mind and contents of one's genes? Because I do.

Your call for genocide against the Muslim world, ignoring the difference between peaceful Muslims (yes, they exist) and Wahhabists, leaves me no choice but to conclude that outright bigotry plays a large part in your views.

I do not call for the genocide of dar al Islam, unless absolutely necessary. I believe in sparing the children and other innocent people from the slaughter, by nation-building. I am -not- happy with the current process of nation building.

[andre_sanchez]

Here are some relevant articles that you may want to research:

Thank you.

[andre_sanchez]

A couple of fallacies in this article:

(I'm dealing only with it's first part here.

"We can see how the end of state support for a movement can destroy the threat it poses in the cases of Communism and Nazism, two militant movements with world-conquering, totalitarian ambitions."

Nazism, rooted as it was on the person of Hitler, is perhaps an abolished threat. Communism is not. To say that without state support a movement ceases to be a threat is to ignore that before state support can be granted (or conquered), the movement by definition has no state support. It is to view the world as nothing but the playground of state leaders, a gross evasion of reality.

"In both World War II and the Civil War, once massive defeats were handed to the enemy, the causes that drove the military threats were thoroughly defeated as political forces. There are no threatening Nazis or Japanese Imperialists today, nor was there any significant political force agitating for the reemergence of the Slave South after the Civil War."

All defeated nations after World War II were occupied and went, as necessary, through a process of nation-buidling. These ideologies were in fact, stopped not by the bombardment, but by the subsequent occupation. People were arrested in Japan for crimes such as flying the japanese flag or singing the national anthem. The south was occupied, and went through a similar process of "nation-building" after the Civil War.

Edited August 21, 2007 by andre_sanchez

[Robert J. Kolker]

A couple of fallacies in this article:

(I'm dealing only with it's first part here.

Nazism, rooted as it was on the person of Hitler, is perhaps an abolished threat. Communism is not. To say that without state support a movement ceases to be a threat is to ignore that before state support can be granted (or conquered), the movement by definition has no state support. It is to view the world as nothing but the playground of state leaders, a gross evasion of reality.

All defeated nations after World War II were occupied and went, as necessary, through a process of nation-buidling. These ideologies were in fact, stopped not by the bombardment, but by the subsequent occupation. People were arrested in Japan for crimes such as flying the japanese flag or singing the national anthem. The south was occupied, and went through a similar process of "nation-building" after the Civil War.

Reconstruction (of the South) was aborted in 1877 for political reasons. After that the Black Codes and Jim Crow were triumphant until the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965. The Ku Klux Klan had its greatest influence -after- the end of Reconstruction when northern politicians threw in the towel for political gains.

The South was made mainline American primarily by economic means, not because Blue Coat Yankees occupied it until it became "well behaved". Old Dixie ceased to exist (finally!) in the late 1970s and subsequently. The end of Segregation hastened this outcome but the causes of Dixie's transformation were primarily economic.

Bob Kolker

[andre_sanchez]

As a quick comment, I would like to note the strange use of the Civil War to defend against "altruist" warfare. The south posed no danger to the north.

[DarkWaters]

These ideologies were in fact, stopped not by the bombardment, but by the subsequent occupation. People were arrested in Japan for crimes such as flying the japanese flag or singing the national anthem. The south was occupied, and went through a similar process of "nation-building" after the Civil War.

Let's look at some examples from history.

Here are some instances where ideological and military enemies were defeated by total war:

• The United States and Allied Forces eradicating Japanese Imperialism during World War II.
  
• Nazi Germany being smashed during World War II.
  
• The rebel spirit of the Confederacy during the United States Civil War.
  
• Romes victory over and subsequent eradication of Carthage during the Second and Third Punic Wars.
  

All of these examples involved one group of nations making life so unbearable for their opponents that to go on fighting was entirely unimaginable.

Now let's consider some examples where only an occupation was imposed:

• The United States in Vietnam.
  
• The French in Algeria.
  
• The Soviets in Afghanistan.
  
• The United States' present conflict in Iraq.
  

None of these examples featuring occupation, without total war, were successful. Clearly, occupation is not sufficient to defeat an ideology. If your position is that overwhelming force is not sufficient to defeat an evil, potent ideological enemy because a subsequent occupation is necessary to deprogram the enemy, this seems tantamount to arguing that such wars also need an ideological front in addition to a military front. I do not expect any of the regular members of this forum to disagree with you on this. Nevertheless, claiming that the "occupation and not the bombardment" stopped the enemies of the civilized world during World War II misses the point. Both elements were essential.

Then it's time to start the genocide of dar al Islam, because the ultimatum will not work now, or ever.

I do not call for the genocide of dar al Islam, unless absolutely necessary. I believe in sparing the children and other innocent people from the slaughter, by nation-building.

I think you need to articulate your position clearer. From your previous post, you claim that DavidOdden's ultimatium is a sufficient condition to call for genocide. However, in your subsequent post you claim that it is not necessary? Then why should we initiate a campaign of genocide? What are the conditions where you think genocide becomes necessary? Why do you think that the solutions proposed by Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. John Lewis and the like (that are detailed in the articles linked by Dan_Edge) are insufficient? Given your calls for genocide, why should all of the ethnic Muslims in Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon and the like also be slaughtered? You have some explaining to do.

I am -not- happy with the current process of nation building.

Neither are we.

I have zero doubt that Dubai's wealth helps fund islamic jihad, one way or the other.

You need to provide evidence of this. Especially if your position is that everyone in Dubai should be slaughtered.

Edited August 21, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DarkWaters]

I would like to note the strange use of the Civil War to defend against "altruist" warfare. The south posed no danger to the north.

The South did not need to. They wanted to preserve chattel slavery. The South had no right to form its own nation on this premise. If you wish to dispute this, there is already a thread on this topic.

Edited August 21, 2007 by DarkWaters

[andre_sanchez]

Let's look at some examples from history. Here are some instances where ideological and military enemies were defeated by total war:[*] The United States and Allied Forces eradicating Japanese Imperialism during World War II.

Occupied.

[*] Nazi Germany being smashed during World War II.

Occupied

[*] The rebel spirit of the Confederacy during the United States Civil War.

Occupied.

[*] Romes victory over and subsequent eradication of Carthage during the Second and Third Punic Wars.

Are you serious? They were defeated time after time, and they rebelled time after time, until the Romans lost all patience and engaged in what can only be described as genocide. Taking the carthagenian example into the scale of modern day states, you are proposing that we destroy every building in and banish the people from Iraq, to die through starvation or be assimilated into neighboring countries. Well, that would certainly take care of the insurgents. That is, if you are only concerned with Iraq, which I am sure you are not. The practical implementation of this would be giving everyone within dar al Islam (or whatever countries you believe are the "bad ones") a month or so to leave, then carpet bombing the whole region every few months for a decade or two.

Clearly, occupation is not sufficient to defeat an ideology.

That would depent on the nature of occupation. The mere presence of soldiers is obviously not enough.

Nevertheless, claiming that the "occupation and not the bombardment" stopped the enemies of the civilized world during World War II misses the point. Both elements were essential.

I'm not sure I can agree with that, but it would change nothing. If both elements are essential, then occupation and nation-building remain necessary.

I think you need to articulate your position clearer. From your previous post, you claim that DavidOdden's ultimatium is a sufficient condition to call for genocide.

His principles lead inevitably to genocide. That is what I was saying. Any nation that refuses to engage in nation-building, will inevitably have to engage in genocide or die. At best there is perpetual war. I suppose it may sometimes rely on others to spare them from this effort, in a parasitical manner and with the same safety as parasites. The same applies to individuals. No, you don't have a "duty" to spread good ideas and crush bad ones, but not doing so is suicide. You don't have a duty to fight criminals, specialy those not attacking you, but not doing so is suicide. Iraq needs to be pacified through ground troops for the exact same reason L.A. and New Orleans needed to be pacified with ground troops. This should be funded by Iraq, immediately through the oil wealth and so forth, and/or in time through national debt.

The South did not need to. They wanted to preserve chattel slavery. The South had no right to form its own nation on this premise. If you wish to dispute this, there is already a thread on this topic.

I have no interest in disputing this and in fact agree with it. They still posed no danger to the north. Edited August 21, 2007 by andre_sanchez

[The Wrath]

Because Islam is inherently aggressive and despotic. I know next to nothing about hinduism, but christianity through all it's flaws is compatible with the best of western civilization, or at the very least, poses no danger to it.

Not knowing Ganji, I looked him up.

You mean that aggressive and despotic Islam is aggressive and despotic. Islam, like any other religion, can be twisted into anything you want it to mean. It is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful.

Classic! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me about peaceful communists and nazis who worked in concentration camps!

Uh...nothing in that quote says that he isn't a Muslim. As far as I know, he is.

The matter of Avicena is less clear, but I would like to remind you that if a great mind is born within the muslim world, he cannot help but be a peaceful muslim because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death.

Right, and the same was true of Christianity for most of its lifetime. In fact...when Christianity was as old as Islam is today, it was still true of Christianity.

Millions even today, and much more so before, carry the "muslim" label simply out of fear and social convention, without any clue or interest into what it means to be a muslim.

In other words, it's a religion.

Turkey, thanks to Ataturk's efforts to abolish islamic influence (by force, in effect, nation-building) in it is a fairly peaceful and free place, but a country sliping dangerously back into submission to Allah and all that entails.

Nevertheless, they are Muslims. They are peaceful Muslims. By your childish and simplistic reasoning, they are living oxymorons.

I have to admit I was fooled by Dubai too, before studying Islam and contemporary islamic politics more fuly. I have zero doubt that Dubai's wealth helps fund islamic jihad, one way or the other.

If you have zero doubt, then I'm sure you have some rather convincing evidence. Let's see it.

Thanks for giving me the neo-cons favourite example. Perhaps you are not aware that the country was occupied? It is certainly possible to extract surrender from an enemy by a show of force. However, unless the enemy changes his mentality, this is nothing but a truce, a cease-fire, and often a meaningless one. Your strategy amounts to seeing a murder, pointing a gun to the murderer's head and shouting "Surrender!", then allowing him to leave once he promises to stop murdering. It is irrational.

Uh...Japan didn't surrender because it was occupied. It surrendered because we blew 2 of its cities off the face of the earth.

Wahabism is certainly a factor. It is -not- the problem. Perhaps you have heard of Hezbollah? The problem is that due to Islam's inherently violent and despotic nature, things such as "wahabism" are inevitable. Oil wealth (not to mention posession of the holy cities) have placed this particular ideology on the vanguard of islamic jihad, but it's hardly it's root.

Yes, I have heard of Hizballah and probably know more about them than you do. The fact that there are violent Shiites and Sunnis doesn't prove that Islam is violent, anymore than you can prove that Christianity is violent by pointing to the IRA (Catholic) and the Ulster Defence League (Protestant).

You are wrong.

No I'm not. I know your type all too well. I don't deny that radical Islam is, currently, the greatest threat to Western civilization. But it is extremely childish to take such an ambiguous and much-debated ideology as Islam and try to cast all of its adherents into a single, monolitch profile.

I'm a racist because I wish to destroy an ideology? Do you know the difference between the contents of one's mind and contents of one's genes? Because I do.

No, I think you're a racist because you call for genocide against a religion that is adhered to primarily by brown people, but will not call for the same against a religion that has done far more damage to civilization (Christianity).

And I am convinced that you are absolutely ignorant about the actual content of Islam. And, no, reading books by Robert Spencer does not mean you know what you're talking about. If you want to understand an ideology, read books by people for and against it.

I do not call for the genocide of dar al Islam, unless absolutely necessary.

Right, and I think you're a racist for not ruling it out altogether. There is no situation imaginable in which genocide, as popularly defined, is justified.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Moose

[andre_sanchez]

You mean that aggressive and despotic Islam is aggressive and despotic. Islam, like any other religion, can be twisted into anything you want it to mean. It is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful.

That is not true. Yes, you can take islamic symbols and isolated facts to turn it into something respectable, absolutely. You can build a new objectivist civilization based on soviet symbols and a gross distortion of communist writings, if you wish. There are also certainly many communists who are "peaceful". Communism remains an inherently violent and despotic ideology.

Uh...nothing in that quote says that he isn't a Muslim. As far as I know, he is.

I have no idea why you are making such a reply. I was merely pointing out the irony of you using a former member of the iranian thought police as an example of a peaceful muslim.

Right, and the same was true of Christianity for most of its lifetime. In fact...when Christianity was as old as Islam is today, it was still true of Christianity.

If you want to make such sily examples, I can play that game too. When christianity was 30 years old, it was a deeply peaceful religion, despite it's moral corruption. When Islam was 30 years old, it was already a deeply criminal ideology.

Nevertheless, they are Muslims. They are peaceful Muslims. By your childish and simplistic reasoning, they are living oxymorons

My reasoning is neither childish nor simplistic. Your equating islam with christianity on the other hand, is.

Uh...Japan didn't surrender because it was occupied. It surrendered because we blew 2 of its cities off the face of the earth.

It's funny how you complain about me accepting the possibility of genocide, yet have no problem with "blowing cities off the face of the earth". Japan issued a surrender because of the bombs and ceased hostilities. Without occupation it would have used the peace as a means to prepare for a new war.

Yes, I have heard of Hizballah and probably know more about them than you do. The fact that there are violent Shiites and Sunnis doesn't prove that Islam is violent, anymore than you can prove that Christianity is violent by pointing to the IRA (Catholic) and the Ulster Defence League (Protestant).

You are right, it doesn't. The fundamentals of Islam do. The fundamentals of christianity do not. It is not the behaviour of any particular adherent to a faith that concerns me. There are fucked up objectivists even. I do not condemn Islam because there are a few islamic terrorists.

No I'm not. I know your type all too well. I don't deny that radical Islam is, currently, the greatest threat to Western civilization.

I don't think it is the greatest threat.

No, I think you're a racist because you call for genocide against a religion that is adhered to primarily by brown people but will not call for the same against a religion that has done far more damage to civilization (Christianity).

The religion under which western civilization rose has done far more damage to civilization than the one which still refuses to accept it?

And I am convinced that you are absolutely ignorant about the actual content of Islam. And, no, reading books by Robert Spencer does not mean you know what you're talking about. If you want to understand an ideology, read books by people for and against it.

I have read many books on Islam, including but not limited to Spencer's. Before actualy studying the matter I had a fairly positive view of Islam.

Right, and I think you're a racist for not ruling it out altogether. There is no situation imaginable in which genocide, as popularly defined, is justified.

Why? What is the popular definition of genocide?

[The Wrath]

That is not true. Yes, you can take islamic symbols and isolated facts to turn it into something respectable, absolutely. You can build a new objectivist civilization based on soviet symbols and a gross distortion of communist writings, if you wish. There are also certainly many communists who are "peaceful". Communism remains an inherently violent and despotic ideology.

Communism is also, necessarily, an economic system and a system of government. Islam, like all religions, is first and foremost a system of faith. Many interpretations of it are also political systems. But no one interpretation is more valid than the other, due to the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the Koran.

You ignore my main point which is: "Islam, like any other religion, can be twisted into anything you want it to mean. It is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful." For every Koranic quote you can find me sanctioning violence/subjugation of infidels, I can find you one that calls for the exact opposite.

I have no idea why you are making such a reply. I was merely pointing out the irony of you using a former member of the iranian thought police as an example of a peaceful muslim.

Key word: former.

If you want to make such sily examples, I can play that game too. When christianity was 30 years old, it was a deeply peaceful religion, despite it's moral corruption. When Islam was 30 years old, it was already a deeply criminal ideology.

And, for hundreds of years, the Islamic world was the bright, shining hope of a world mired in darkness. Round and round we go. Point: the ideology has no inherent meaning and can mean whatever its adherents want it to mean.

My reasoning is neither childish nor simplistic. Your equating islam with christianity on the other hand, is.

No, not really. There are many comparisons that can be made between Islam and Christianity. Islam is more easily compared, however, to Judaism. In fact, Islam is basically just a bastardized version of Judaism. Where is your call for the extermination of Israel?

It's funny how you complain about me accepting the possibility of genocide, yet have no problem with "blowing cities off the face of the earth". Japan issued a surrender because of the bombs and ceased hostilities. Without occupation it would have used the peace as a means to prepare for a new war.

I guess I must have missed where genocide equals "destruction of cities."

The current situation pretty much disproves your idea that occupation always works.

You are right, it doesn't. The fundamentals of Islam do. The fundamentals of christianity do not. It is not the behaviour of any particular adherent to a faith that concerns me. There are fucked up objectivists even. I do not condemn Islam because there are a few islamic terrorists.

Point out the fundamentals of Islam, of which you fancy yourself to have such a vast knowledge, which make it necessarily violent. [sarcasm]Then I will proceed to point out the fundamentals of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism which make them necessarily violent. Then I will proceed to point out the fundamentals of Islam which make it necessarily peaceful.[/sarcasm]

I think you'll find that all of these tasks are equally easy and equally impossible.

I don't think it is the greatest threat.

Then you must have been living in a cave.

The religion under which western civilization rose has done far more damage to civilization than the one which still refuses to accept it?

Western civilization most certainly did not rise under Christianity. The fact that it has, for most of history, coexisted with Christianity is incidental.

I have read many books on Islam, including but not limited to Spencer's. Before actualy studying the matter I had a fairly positive view of Islam.

Kindly post your reading list.

Why? What is the popular definition of genocide?

The systematic killing of an all members of an ethnic/religious group.

[softwareNerd]

The Barbary Pirates. Would you like that hat with salt?

Here's the modern version of Barbary pirates.

Days after the ship was captured, a US ship fired several warning shots across its bow and destroyed three boats the pirates had used in their attack and were towing behind the Danish vessel. But the US ship stopped its pursuit after the pirates navigated the Danica White into Somalia's territorial waters, where the US does not have jurisdiction.

[MisterSwig]

For every Koranic quote you can find me sanctioning violence/subjugation of infidels, I can find you one that calls for the exact opposite.

I'll take you up on that.

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.

They swear by God that they said nothing. Yet they uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it. They sought to do what they could not attain. Yet they had no reason to be spiteful; except perhaps because God and His apostle had enriched them through His bounty. If they repent, it will indeed be better for them; but if they pay no heed, God will sternly punish them, both in this world and in the world to come. They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.

Your turn. The exact opposite of the above would be a quote where God instructs his prophet to make peace with unbelievers and hypocrites, i.e., those who renounce Islam after being exposed to it or after embracing it. I'm not saying that such a verse doesn't exist, but I've got a lot more quotes like the above, and I'm curious to see how many you have.

[DarkWaters]

[DavidOdden's] principles lead inevitably to genocide. That is what I was saying. Any nation that refuses to engage in nation-building, will inevitably have to engage in genocide or die. At best there is perpetual war. I suppose it may sometimes rely on others to spare them from this effort, in a parasitical manner and with the same safety as parasites. The same applies to individuals. No, you don't have a "duty" to spread good ideas and crush bad ones, but not doing so is suicide. You don't have a duty to fight criminals, specialy those not attacking you, but not doing so is suicide. Iraq needs to be pacified through ground troops for the exact same reason L.A. and New Orleans needed to be pacified with ground troops. This should be funded by Iraq, immediately through the oil wealth and so forth, and/or in time through national debt.

I think you have articulated your position better here. I am going to summarize my perception of your position. Please correct me if I am wrong. My intention here is not to be polemical but to be facilitating.

****************** Begin my summary of Andre's position *************************************************************

You are claiming that total war is necessary to combat an ideology but it is not sufficient to extinguish it. Instead, an occupation that involves both the threat of retaliatory force as well as a systematic deprogramming of the virulent ideology is a necessity. All of the examples from history that defeated a vicious ideology involved both a total war element and a significant occupation that involved deprogramming and some nation building.

Furthermore, if a nation will only engage the enemy militarily but not ideologically, then the malicious ideas themselves will not be eradicated, only many of the individuals who support them. Thus, if the ideas are not combatted as ideas, the only way to completely eliminate them is through complete destruction of the population, books and institutions that support the ideas.

******************** End my summary of Andre's position ************************************************************

If this is your position, then it sounds significantly more reasonable than what you initially appeared to be advocating. Of course, the position above is just descriptive and not normative.

While I agree that we certainly have no duty to rebuild the cities that were decimated through total war, it can often be advantageous to do so. When the cities are annhilated, the remaining population is left with nothing and is probably very susceptible to any seemingly promising ideas that will help them rebuild a nation. In many cases, it is arguably in our rational self-interest to ensure that they are rebuilt with the correct ideas; lest they again become enemies in the future.

As for your assertion that DavidOdden's principles amount to pure genocide, I strongly disagree. But I suggest that you take up this issue with him.

Edited August 23, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DarkWaters]

Are you a reincarnation of Robert Kolker? When people express views like these, I usually conclude that there is an element of racism about them.

While I generally approve of you as a member, your insinuation that Robert Kolker is racist is groundless and very inappropriate.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I think the US should send in more troops. More troops, tanks, planes far more than we actually need. Blot out the sun with helicopters. Have guys on every street so the terrorists can't move without being seen. And (and this is important) buy them all brand new shiny uniforms.

Show the Iraqi insurgents than we have so much money, so much equipment, endless, endless resources. And it will break their hearts and they'll give up. It has worked for the US in the past. The reason they keep fighting is the policy of minimal footprint makes them think they have a chance.

We have neither the money nor the manpower to do as you suggest.

We would have to revive the draft to get the manpower commitment you advocate. Do you want a draft?

Our most efficient and affordable weapon is nuclear bombardment, but I don't think our Fearless Leaders have the stomach or the heart for it.

Bob Kolker

[Inspector]

Try harder.

How about you try harder? I was referring to the American reaction to the Barbary pirates.

[-archimedes-]

What do you think needs to be done?

I think that we need to proceed in Iraq in much the same way that has been the time-proven method for imminent war abatement, i.e., sever the head of the snake that is the Al Qaeda/terrorist financial backbone...their drug trade.

I propose that we accomplish this by invading Afghanistan (the terrorist's financial backers), remove their drug trade infrastructure by trashing their bumper crop, and seizing any and all munitions/finances/holdings, etc., of the crime lords there and establish a military front to curtail any potential future redevelopment of a drug-based cartel.

Without Afghanistan supplying them with the finances to continue their campaigns, their "movement" will soon come to a definitive halt, neutered from lack of financial backing.

This will have a two-prong effect as it will also force those of the innermost circles of the cartels and terrorist hierarchy into the open out of the need of cultivating other sources of backing.

It worked with Hitler as it has in several other similar situations (this isn't rocket science or anything, it's always been the same methods and schemas time and time again all throughout history) and it worked most recently with Kim Jong Il in North Korea...we really need to stop beating our political heads against the stone of absurdity and set action to word and put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society.

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."--Ayn Rand

Edited October 12, 2007 by -archimedes-

[Marc K.]

sever the head of the snake that is the Al Qaeda/terrorist financial backbone...their drug trade.

[...]

Without Afghanistan supplying them with the finances to continue their campaigns, their "movement" will soon come to a definitive halt, neutered from lack of financial backing.

I consider the "head" of the snake to be its ideological center. In my opinion, the only way the "movement" will be neutered is by showing its adherents that there is no future in it. By showing them in no uncertain terms that any attempt to spread their irrational ideology by force will be met with unrelenting retaliatory force. By showing them that their ideology means death.

so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society.

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. [...] "--Ayn Rand

Do you not see a conflict between these two statements?

[Mammon]

...we really need to stop beating our political heads against the stone of absurdity and set action to word and put a definitive end to all of the B.S. in this world so that we can more so focus on the progression of mankind as a whole without all of these needless, futile distractions that are only delaying the inevitable capitalist progression of society...all society.

That sounds very facist. Ditto Mark K as well.