Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

[KurtColville]

No, I can't, because Iraq wasn't a legitimate threat. Would it have been okay to attack Germany before WWI simply because it would eventually become Nazi Germany during WWII?

Saddam had developed, acquired, and used chemical and biological weapons, and lied to the civilized world about their existence. Upon agreeing to kid gloves terms ending the Gulf War, he immediately and substantially violated those terms, flying in No-Fly Zones, obstructing international inspectors, locking radar on and firing at our patrolling aircraft, stalling the release of prisoners of war, and on and on. He attempted to assassinate President G.H. Bush. He gave sanctuary to terrorists fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan. He set up a terrorist training camp near Baghdad. He rewarded families of jihadists with large sums of money. And more.

Each of these actions were acts of war aimed directly at the US. Iraq wasn't the biggest threat, but it definitely was a legitimate one.

[EC]

If imperialism is a right then Germany was the good guy in WWI. If imperialism isn't a right then America is the bad guy in the Iraq war. You can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What in the world does "imperialism" have to do with the "Iraq War" (which I wouldn't even call a "war" but rather now an extremely non-important, wasteful and needless policing of a crappy third world country)? We have never and would never try to build an "empire"except hopefully an "empire" of greed, liberty, and selfishness. But those are all proper distributions of intellectual ideals not "empire-building".

[TuringAI]

What in the world does "imperialism" have to do with the "Iraq War" (which I wouldn't even call a "war" but rather now an extremely non-important, wasteful and needless policing of a crappy third world country)? We have never and would never try to build an "empire"except hopefully an "empire" of greed, liberty, and selfishness. But those are all proper distributions of intellectual ideals not "empire-building".

I was responding to Kurt Colville when I was talking of empire building. He seems to think that it's okay to annex Iraq.

It is also proper for a free nation to conquer and annex a slave pen, like Cuba, if the free nation's aim is to extend the protection of its citizens rights to the new land. Everyone wins. The citizens of the free nation now have more land to exercise their rights on and the citizens of the slave pen are now free. The key principle is, the decision to conquer an authoritarian state that is not a direct threat to you rests on whether it is in the free nation's rational self-interest, which means an extension of every citizen's rights to the new land.

Sorry that I made things sound confusing.

[FeatherFall]

No, I can't, because Iraq wasn't a legitimate threat. Would it have been okay to attack Germany before WWI simply because it would eventually become Nazi Germany during WWII?

I didn't ask if Iraq was an example you could give (well, actually I did, but not specifically). I asked if you could give me an example of it happening -- anywhere, ever.

The purpose of my question was to explore whether or not there is historical precedent for your position. Of course, a lack of precedent does not mean your scenario can't happen; only that such a scenario is unlikely. If you want to respond to my question effectively, your job is to find an example that confirms your position or a reason as to why your position is likely despite the overwhelming historical weight against it.

[Marc K.]

We didn't destroy Japan with our nuclear weapons, we merely ended up weakening it.

You are rewriting history here. The island archipelago currently known as Japan was not and could not be destroyed. The political entity known as the Empire of Japan (a theocratic monarchy ideologically similar to Iran) was completely destroyed by us and hasn't been heard from since. We destroyed the embodiment an irrational idea and replaced it with a nation founded on a rational idea -- much to our benefit and much to the benefit of the Japanese people. And this is the only way we will win the current war.

Our war, however, is against a specific group of peoples along with those nations providing aid and sanction. The only people in Tehran aiding the Al-Qaeda are the politicians so far. Unless it can be argued that everyone in Tehran was somehow aiding the Al-Qaeda, which is our REAL enemy, nuking it only serves as a symbolic gesture and a way to eliminate specific enemies which could always be eliminated using some other means.

Wars are fought by nations but the roots of war are ideological in nature. What we are fighting is an idea: the idea that force is the way people should deal with one another. Iran is the national embodiment of this idea and it is the Iranian people who have allowed it to happen. They may suffer these evils to their heart's content. However, as soon as the nation they allow to exist threatens us we may destroy it showing them the same concern they have shown us. And Iran has more than threatened us; they have perpetrated, directly and indirectly, acts of war on us and they must be made to stop.

Using an atomic bomb to end their aggression will not only save more American lives (which should be our only concern) than not using it, but it will probably save more enemy lives than if we didn't use it (as happened in WWII). The idea being that once they and their ideological brethren are shown the complete futility of their irrational ideology and the death and destruction that necessarily are its effect, they will all cease and desist.

[LiberTodd]

Well here's my half-serious attempt

1) This isn't Command and Conquer. you don't win the game by blowing everybody else up.

2) We could just use a fuel-air bomb which has less chance of fucking over bordering areas (although Iranians may be resistant to fire from living in the desert so long; more research needed)

3) If we miss a single one of their secret missle bases they will probably start blasting all their shit at Israel

4) We'd have to wait for the radiation to go away before we can plunder their oil fields.

5) We'd have to endure ten thousand years of liberal bullshit. Leftarded teenagers would rise up in some awkward psuedo-rebellion and start breaking shit because MTV says they should. People would start organizing relief funds to help the "poor, helpless victims" of the "evil, greed-driven" bombings done by America. Idiots would send money and food to the same people that would have sent pipe bombs and anthrax to us if they had our addresses. Schools would force kids to learn about what a sensitive, peaceful religion Islam is and why we should feel sympathy for the jackasses who wouldn't quit building bombs and talking shit about cool countries like USA. Muslims in America would bitch and moan and blow themselves up in the super market. Bono from U2 would right a really shitty song and it would be on the radio for-fucking-ever. Everyone on every internet message board would have "RIP OUR IRANIAN BROTHERS" in their signature. Barack Obama would be elected President. System of a Down would get back together. The rational world as we know it would come to an end because people are too damn stupid and lazy to check the facts and do some research before deciding what they think is right.

Quick note: I'd like know what this forum thinks about strategically eliminating Iranian politicians instead of dropping huge bombs. It's risky since they could blame Israel and retaliate, but who knows, maybe if we take out all the crazies at once they'll give up the dogmatic warpath.

Edited August 6, 2008 by LiberTodd

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I doubt that would be beneficial since there are a LOT of Iranians who buy into the ideology. Others would step forward to fill their leaders' turbans and they would have martyrs to point to.

[Colonel Rebel]

Quick note: I'd like know what this forum thinks about strategically eliminating Iranian politicians instead of dropping huge bombs. It's risky since they could blame Israel and retaliate, but who knows, maybe if we take out all the crazies at once they'll give up the dogmatic warpath.

Politicians will be politicians. The politicians in Iran today don't have, as of yet, the fanatical argument that Iran and Islam must be defended against western aggression and that they must be proactive in thier response. As soon as you terminate the Iranian politicians with LGB's, the persons who would step into thier place, obviously, will have such backing and fervor and support.

A show of force is never an argument. It proves nothing but that you have the ability to drop bombs. Educate them (the people) of the merits of a free market economy, of individual rights, and you spread this influence for decades and longer. I think the best way that one can establish these principles and ideas in the Middle East is through the support of the people. I think this is the spirit of what Rand's work was about.

To 'nuke' Tehran is to incinerate all of the demonstrators, the students and civilians, and thier work, against the theocratic rule in thier country. I cannot believe that some of you have said these persons deserve to suffer because they were not successful. But I must be mistaken: apparently it is acceptable, no, appropriate, for a government to kill millions of innocents to simple eliminate a few dozen power-brokers. By this reasoning, it would have been acceptable to detonate nuclear weapons in the general locales where the concentration camps were set up. The end result of what some of you have proposed would be no different.

I cannot fathom why this question was brought up, or that it took 20+ pages to sort out. It speaks of such small-mindedness and simplicity.

[Marc K.]

The politicians in Iran today don't have, as of yet, the fanatical argument that Iran and Islam must be defended against western aggression and that they must be proactive in thier response.

The politicians are the fanatics and you're right they don't talk about defending themselves, they talk about wiping every infidel off the face of the earth.

Educate them (the people) of the merits of a free market economy, of individual rights, and you spread this influence for decades and longer. I think the best way that one can establish these principles and ideas in the Middle East is through the support of the people. I think this is the spirit of what Rand's work was about.

These people have killed many Americans in numerous acts of war and you want to educate them? In other words if you were in a room with a murderer and he had a gun pointed at you, your response would be to smile and try to educate him on the merits of respecting your rights? I don't think this will work. All of this educational material is available for anyone to see, they have not availed themselves of it. How do you think the Mullahs will react to you setting-up a school in their country dedicated to individual rights?

First the people of the Middle East have to be shown that their way, the initiation of force, leads only to death and destruction and then, if you want, maybe you can set up a school over there and educate them safely.

The spirit of Ayn Rand's work is to: work for yourself, provide for your well being, defend yourself. Not: sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others or turn your other cheek to those who would kill you.

I cannot believe that some of you have said these persons deserve to suffer because they were not successful. But I must be mistaken: apparently it is acceptable, no, appropriate, for a government to kill millions of innocents to simple eliminate a few dozen power-brokers.

This obviously is not the reality of the situation. If there were only a few dozen bad guys and most of the country didn't want their rule then it would have been an easy matter for the good guys to overthrow the bad.

The truth is that many of the good guys have left already and if they haven't, they should. But regardless, the people who stay in Iran allow it to exist as the murderous theocracy that it is today and they should get what they deserve. Whether that is torture or imprisonment by the government they allow to exist or an atomic bomb blast by a country defending itself from the government they allow to exist so be it.

I hope these dissidents are successful but they better hurry. And if they are not successful then yes, just like all of us, they must suffer the consequences of the government they live under.

I cannot fathom why this question was brought up, or that it took 20+ pages to sort out. It speaks of such small-mindedness and simplicity.

Like the small mindedness of one who would pass out candy and diplomas to mob of gun toting savages chanting "death to America".

[Colonel Rebel]

oh i'm convinced. thanks. kill them all. every. last. one.

[singeroi]

interesting.. thanks for the post anyways.. very helpful

simulation assurance vie

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Please, fellow Objectivists, tell me how any of you can support the neo-conservative foreign policy endorsed by the Ayn Rand Institute?

1. Initiating the first strike on a sovereign nation (Iran, Iraq) would indeed mean that the US was acting as the aggressor.

2. Acting in the interests of Israel is not in the interest of the United States.

3. Taxing the people to pay for this war would also be initiating force against the people domestically in the US.

4. Every religion teaches the violent teachings of Mohammad - the mere fact that certain governments practice this religion over another is not a realistic or objective justification for believing their religion is what is fueling their resentment to the western world.

5. Mere resentment to the western world is not aggression. None of the countries in question (Pakistan, Iraq, Iran) have come close to committing an aggressive act against the US. The Afghani government, on the other hand, knowingly harbored terrorists intending to harm America - the difference is sufficient. Regardless of the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, we stayed to nation-build and give more reasons for Muslims to resent America.

I cannot see how any Objectivist could promote a foreign policy of nation building, military interventionism, and first-strike assaults. Please, somebody, for the love of science and logic, show me Objectivist literature endorsing this evil and horrifically inhuman practice!

[KendallJ]

Just a point of etiquette. What Objectivist (i.e. selfish) reason could you give for someone who you've just accused of endorsing something "horrifically inhuman" actually wanting to "help" you out? Are you honestly asking for help as in "please help me"? Cuz you've just slapped anyone in the face who might actually be interested in being benevolent toward you. Your points are full of errors, which if you'd taken a few minutes to read some of what I'd suggested you, you'd at least know how foolish you look saying them.

What you'll get (read: earn) from this sort of opening is people who are mostly angered by what you've said and will treat you somewhat hostilely.

[DavidOdden]

1. Initiating the first strike on a sovereign nation (Iran, Iraq) would indeed mean that the US was acting as the aggressor.

No, that is not true. A nation has the obligation to defend itself, even preemptively when a foreign country threatens the rights of its citizens. Furthermore, with respect to dictatorships, Rand observes ("Collectivized 'Rights'"):

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

2. Acting in the interests of Israel is not in the interest of the United States.

Do you mean "necessarily" or are you referring to actual facts of reality. In the context of the actual choices in the Middle East, not acting in the interests of Israel is, in fact, acting contrary to the interests of the US. As Rand pointed out in "The Lessons of Vietnam",

Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.

3. Taxing the people to pay for this war would also be initiating force against the people domestically in the US.

You may want to read some Objectivist literature. Objectivism does not support taxation. See for example "Government Fionancing in a Free Society".

4. Every religion teaches the violent teachings of Mohammad - the mere fact that certain governments practice this religion over another is not a realistic or objective justification for believing their religion is what is fueling their resentment to the western world.

No, actually, the teachings of the Qur'an (filtered through certain prevalent perspectives) is vastly worse than the mild tendencies towards violence that you will find in any other religion. However, if your point is that cause and effect is not clearly established, I might agree that the spread of Islam was enabled by rotten philosophical foundations which have anti-Western fanaticism as a further consequence. If, indeed, what you're saying is that rotten philosophy caused two things, rather than saying that Islam caused anti-western foaming. We would have to look into the details of the spread of Islam to decide the true root cause.

5. Mere resentment to the western world is not aggression. None of the countries in question (Pakistan, Iraq, Iran) have come close to committing an aggressive act against the US.

In fact Iran has, rather clearly. Pakistan is a coin toss right now. Iraq, well, who know what it will be, but as you presumably know, Objectivists don't support the current self-sacrificial "war" in Iraq. I myself am skeptical that we had any interests threatened in 2003, but clearly we did in 1990 (and the government screwed that up seriously). Nevertheless we had the right to remove Hussein from power.

[2046]

1. Initiating the first strike on a sovereign nation (Iran, Iraq) would indeed mean that the US was acting as the aggressor.

Who has suggested initiating force first? Last I checked, fascist Muslims were the initiators against the United States beginning with the Barbary Wars and continuing ultimately in attacks on WTC and the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA in 2001. The most recent example (against the US) is the drive by shooting of a 23 year old Army recruiter in Little Rock, AR on June 01, 2009.

2. Acting in the interests of Israel is not in the interest of the United States.

No one suggested sacrificing our interests to Israel. Just that Israel be allowed to act in the interest of Israel against initiations of force.

3. Taxing the people to pay for this war would also be initiating force against the people domestically in the US.

No one suggests taxation to pay for... anything. Ever.

4. Every religion teaches the violent teachings of Mohammad

Every religion teaches the teachings of Mohammad? That's a new one.

- the mere fact that certain governments practice this religion

Are enough to make that government a theocracy which violates the rights of its own citizens.

over another is not a realistic or objective justification for believing their religion is what is fueling their resentment to the western world.

ORLY?

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:14 Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

9:73 O Prophet! strive hard [wage war] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed.

Hadith 19:4294 "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war."

Hadith 1:35 "The person who participates in Allah's cause (namely, in battle). . will be recompensed by Allah either with reward or booty or will be admitted to Paradise."

Hadith 9:4 "Wherever you find infidels kill them; for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

Hadith 9:50, 57 "No Umma (a member of Muslim community) should be killed for killing a Kafir (an infidel). . Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Sahih Muslim 4363: "You (the Jews) should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle and I wish to expel you from this land (Arabia)

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian Shiite mullah

Need I go on?

5. Mere resentment to the western world is not aggression.

Blowing up towers, hijacking planes, setting off bombs, suicide attacks, opening fire on crowded buses, launching rockets into cities, etc. is aggression.

None of the countries in question (Pakistan, Iraq, Iran) have come close to committing an aggressive act against the US.

Iran has never come close to committing an aggressive act against the US? November 04, 1979 ring a bell for you? Are you blind to Iran's terror proxies killing Americans in Lebannon, or the assassination attempts in New York and London, or the bombings in Saudi Arabia? Or when the 9/11 commission specifically linked Al-Qaeda cooperation with Iran? (and elements in Pakistan?)

Iran is the Nazi Germany of fascist Islam. Iran is the most active state sponser of terrorism (according to the US State Department.) All states that sponsor terrorist acts against the US should have war declared upon them and be ended. Anything less is pacifism.

The Afghani government, on the other hand, knowingly harbored terrorists intending to harm America

Intending? I think Al-Qaeda has gone slightly beyond "intending" to harm Americans.

- the difference is sufficient. Regardless of the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, we stayed to nation-build and give more reasons for Muslims to resent America.

Nation-building (and all neoconservative foreign policy) is altruism.

I cannot see how any Objectivist could promote a foreign policy of nation building, military interventionism, and first-strike assaults. Please, somebody, for the love of science and logic, show me Objectivist literature endorsing this evil and horrifically inhuman practice!

Objectivism promotes a selfish foreign policy in which the goverenment of a nation is required to protect the individual rights of its citizens against initiations of force or fraud; nothing more, nothing less. Whatever you are describing it is not Objectivism.

But by "neoconservative" you really meant "Jew" didn't you? Stop being a coward and say what you really mean.

Edited June 4, 2009 by 2046

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Thanks everyone for their responses thus far.

Who has suggested initiating force first? Last I checked, fascist Muslims were the initiators against the United States beginning with the Barbary Wars and continuing ultimately in attacks on WTC and the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA in 2001.

Well, we did resolve the First Barbary War with a peace treaty, and the second was resolved mostly by the European powers colonizing the MENA regions involved, if I remember correctly. Quite frankly, I would hardly doubt that the Barbary pirates have anything to do with the present Muslim extremists we deal with. It would surely be irrational to wage a forceful war against an entire group of people merely because they practice the same religion or live in the same area as the Barbary pirates did centuries ago, no?

And wouldn't it be simple ignorance of history, though, to forget how the US has attempted to colonize the Middle East for many decades, dating as early back as the 1950s? This must account for a significant amount of the general hatred against the United States within that region, no? Ayn Rand says that our only true responsibilities are to get out of the way of others - I cannot imagine that our actions in the late 1950s in Iran, for example, was anything other than the antithesis of this concept. Why shouldn't we expect poor results from when we refuse to just let people be? I simply wonder how the quote that Mr. Odden provided could be Objectivist considering history has shown us that there was no significant backlash against the United States until after we began overthrowing elected governments there and began instituting our own methods and opinions on their ways of living.

No one suggests taxation to pay for... anything. Ever.

I have read through a substantial amount of Objectivist literature, yet I fail to see how we could ever pay the trillion dollars a year it costs us to run a militaristic empire through anything but socialist monetary policy and coercive fiscal policies. I'd be interested to hear a proposal as to how we could afford that sort of thing.

Every religion teaches the teachings of Mohammad? That's a new one.

From a broader perspective, I think it would be foolish to think that the precise verbiage of a religious text were any more valid of an excuse for one's actions in the MENA region than a Christian or Jew who uses the Old and New Testaments to validate an anti-abortion policy. But if it were the true reasoning for a small band of men to engage in such horrible violence as we've witnessed (and believe me, I've witnessed it - I was in Manhattan on 9/11), I think it would be foolish to attack entire governments, as the ARI provides that we should. Why not go after the specific people who committed these crimes against us? Why inevitably punish the people becoming slaves to their militantly-fueled religiously-fascist regime governments, who would so desperately wish to live in a free society as we do? Would not the rational method be to not entice our enemies and to lead by example? Why is it wrong think, as I've been led to believe by so much of what I've read by Ayn Rand, that one should never use force unless it is specifically retaliatory against the person who initiated it?

Blowing up towers, hijacking planes, setting off bombs, suicide attacks, opening fire on crowded buses, launching rockets into cities, etc. is aggression.

But governments never initiated these acts - individuals did. I find it irrational to punish an entire State based on the actions of a few.

Objectivism promotes a selfish foreign policy in which the goverenment of a nation is required to protect the individual rights of its citizens against initiations of force or fraud; nothing more, nothing less. Whatever you are describing it is not Objectivism.

But by "neoconservative" you really meant "Jew" didn't you? Stop being a coward and say what you really mean.

I hate to say it, but I simply cannot see how a lot of the things the ARI supports could be considered Objectivist - particularly their policies against Iran. As I've shown, I think that the actions we've taken against a lot of the Middle Eastern countries were initiations of first-strike interventionisms, or are just far too vaguely connected to justify what I consider very immoral and irrational actions taken against entire countries of people - people who are for the most part innocent.

No, I didn't really mean Jew. There are plenty of non-Jews, and even atheists, who are neoconservatives (Christopher Hitchens, for example). There are also plenty of Jews who are not Zionists. And don't call me a coward; I've already taken the courage to speak up against a system of thought which I have otherwise completely pledged my 100% unconditional support to, and to me that took courage. It pains me to think that I am in any way seen as irrational or immoral by a large (though, not an entire) group of Objectivists.

By the way, Mr. Odden....

It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

Surely, you don't think the United States is a free nation, do you? Because if you do, boy are you mistaken. And even if we were, considering the disastrous debts and domestic policy blunders as of lately, do you really believe it is in the nation's self-interest to engage in such a reckless foreign policy as the ARI prescribes to?

[KendallJ]

That's too bad. You answered the guy who gave you pretty crappy answers and you ignored the guy who gave you about the best that there are.

[DavidOdden]

Surely, you don't think the United States is a free nation, do you?

Surely I do. I take it you're a libertarian utopianist and believe that a nation is a dictatorship if it violates the rights of its citizens. Let's make a terminological distinction, since you're talking about something totally different. I was quoting Ayn Rand, and the US is an example of a free nation, which contrasts with a dictatorship such as the Soviet Union. You can talk about libertarian utopias if you want, but don't change the meanings of words. Call then "Libertopias" if you want, and contrast them with free nations which you could call "Statopias". You can make up your own terms for whatever concept you have in mind.

Again, I urge you to consult the writings of Ayn Rand to understand the difference between a free nation and a dictatorship. Focus on the role of censorship, which I believe will help you understand the difference.

[brian0918]

I highly recommend this lecture from Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum, if you haven't already seen it: http://forum.wgbh.org/node/3228

Just watch out in the Q&A for all the trolls. Some of the comments are just disgusting (for the sake of being disgusting).

Edited June 4, 2009 by brian0918

[D'kian]

Surely, you don't think the United States is a free nation, do you? Because if you do, boy are you mistaken.

The US is more free than most other nations. If you don't believe me, try visiting other countries.

I've ived in mexico all my life. We are more free now than we were, oh, twenty years ago. At the time there was a government monopoly on newsprint. Any papers that fell foul of the government (including those who criticized the government too much), lost their supply of newsprint. TV and radio were strictly controlled, with periodic "surprise" audits to renew licenses and such. Even something as innocuous as rock concerts were banned until the late 80s.

And still every time I travel to the US I can't help but see the freedoms Americans simply take for granted which we still lack. One example, in Mexico you cannot run for any elective office unless you do so under the auspices of a political party. Such offices are effectively a closed shop.

If you like I can post more about how the Electoral Institute went from being an arbiter of fair elections to a censor of political ideas.

[Chris.S]

Brian, thanks for helping me by posting that link!

[IchorFigure]

Brian, thanks for helping me by posting that link!

Ditto. I'm keen on most of Yaron's lectures but I've never heard this one before (with Q&A).

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I appreciate that lecture given by Dr. Brook - it was very insightful, but because I can't ask him questions, I'd like to reiterate my thoughts to you guys.

I'd say that by almost all definitions, I'm a pretty good example of an objectivist. Having read pretty much every non-fiction book of Ayn Rand's, and every fiction book, I think I have a reasonable grounding in terms of what I believe is objectively and rationally correct in terms of applying the objectivist moral code to present issues. However, I cannot still understand the foreign policy position that Mr. Brook takes. I cannot see how it is in our self-interest to initiate first-strike attacks against Iran.

As far as I've seen it, we were the first aggressors when we overthrew Mosadeqh in the 1950s. I see the Iranian Revolution as having occurred due to resentment against the US caused by influential parties, having had hatred inflicted upon them by our foreign policy actions, coercing the people of Iran to think that way. I see the war in Iraq as having further angered them. I see the enormous irony in now supporting the Iranian sect of Islam after opposing them for decades in order to appease the US friendship with Saddam Hussein. And I see all of this irony and nonsense as having derived from truly unreasonable, non-objective actions that were not in the best interest of this country. Furthermore, I contest the very notion that we could in any way bring down a sovereign nation's government without being either forced to occupy that nation, or instead suffer vehement resentment from very powerful countries that would attack us in retaliation, causing us to be involved in a much more severe conflict than we anticipated. I remember hearing people say that Iraq would be a cakewalk, and that we'd be done with it in a few months - now, those same very people are heading the movement intending to strike Iran.

I see the results of attacking Iran as being an enormously catastrophic event, which would never be in our self-interest. I see no conceivable way that we could retrofit an attack in Iran to being in our self-interest, as I see any possible action we take against this government (and similar ones) as ultimately ending in inevitable failure. As the objectivist would gladly leave the citizens of his own country alone, I feel the same must be pursued in the global sense. I understand that Ayn Rand advocated military action against the soviet Russia and Cuba, but I still don't find that she herself understood the level at which the United States government was defying the very wonderful principles that she purported. I don't at all consider the United States a free nation, and comparing us to other countries doesn't do anything to validate any point against that. Sadly, Mexico does not prove that we are a free nation - it merely proves that Mexico is a less free nation than us. But I truly find that Ayn Rand spoke of a free nation in regards to how the United States SHOULD BE - not how it actually is. I don't find that any quasi-free nation such as the US could find any objective justification to get involved in the affairs of others when it cannot even manage the affairs of its own domestic blunders.

I am having immense amounts of trouble understanding how we could treat an entire region of this world in such a collectivist manner, affirming and backing up our foreign policy decisions by referencing events that happened long ago, performed by people who had no connection to the present players involved, and often times involved in completely different sects of the Muslim faith. I would never call any of these religious people moral (nor any of them that live in countries like Iran and Iraq), but I know that Ayn Rand would never allow a government to force amoral people into thinking differently at the barrel of a gun. I know that she knows that this type of action, no matter how poorly Dr. Brook asserts it has been pulled off, is precisely why we keep on fueling the Iranians and the Saudi people to think so viciously and violently of us. I also see the irony in how we despise the way that religious folk pervert their morals into collectivist ways of thought, but then turn around and think in the same perverted manner of others across the globe. This type of thinking - the type of thinking not focused on the individual - is precisely what gets anybody into trouble, and the United States is no exception!

I am desperately trying to understand how so many of you could advocate a position different from mine, because now I am getting the idea that so many leading figures in Objectivism have horribly distorted the beautiful message Ayn Rand taught us to cheaply advocate for, and justify in the guise of objectivity and rationality, a foreign policy of barbarianism and caveman brutality. I truly believe I am thinking in the self-interest of this country when I think that Dr. Brook's foreign policy would be horribly damaging to this country. I feel no selfless feelings for the monsters living under the totalitarian regimes of the radical Islamist countries in the MENA region - I speak only in what I believe to be the objective self-interest of my own safety and the safety of my country, when I say that it would be absolutely foolish to advocate the policies that Dr. Brooks advocates.

So please, I ask again, can somebody help me out here? I need to understand how this works.

[KendallJ]

So please, I ask again, can somebody help me out here? I need to understand how this works.

David Odden already dealt with this. Yet you haven't engaged him in a singled discussion point.

Why would you issue a fresh call for someone to come "help you" when you won't engage one of the best Objectivists on the board?

[Jake_Ellison]

I am desperately trying to understand how so many of you could advocate a position different from mine, because now I am getting the idea that so many leading figures in Objectivism have horribly distorted the beautiful message Ayn Rand taught us to cheaply advocate for, and justify in the guise of objectivity and rationality, a foreign policy of barbarianism and caveman brutality.

Your position is so different from ours because you're an emotional wreck who can't even identify the purpose of his immediate actions: you're here to scold us, seeking gratification from expressing your feelings. You are not looking for help from any of us, despite fraudulently announcing it in the deliberately vague thread title.

If you can't be honest about that, how could you possibly be honest about issues such as what it takes to defend this country, or about the positions of a group you irrationally hate such as ARI? You can't and here's your answer as to why our positions are different, in terms you could understand: we're thinking and you're ranting and raving like a lunatic, focusing on calling us names.

By the way, the issue you raised is how to defend this country, and you did not offer a solution. You don't actually have a position, other than the insulting rhetoric you spewed, addressed not at the issue but at ARI and at us, while pretending to seek a conversation.

Consider the above an explanation as to why I'll be ignoring you in your future endeavours, even if they start with "Please help". You cannot be trusted to be truthful even regarding something as basic as an appeal for help.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Jake_Ellison