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

[Zip]

Historical actions are irrelevant. We do not live in 1950 or even 2001... we live in the here and now and any rights respecting nation that can prove it is being threatened by a slave pen like Iran has a sworn duty to protect the individual rights of its citizenry. If the best way to accomplish that is to remove the threat before it can be actualized then that is what should be done.

Nations like individuals protect their self-interest.

Put it this way... There's a madman in a room swinging wildly your choice is to stop him from doing that or to eventually be pummeled by him. It's your call...

My call would be to kick him in the junk and make sure he is never able to harm me.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Zip

[Andrew Grathwohl]

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.

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.

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

Fine, one by one...

I've already pointed out my objection to the quote of proof you provided. I would love further explanation as to how you could correlate Ms. Rand's descriptions with the present situation in Iran. I understand the justification a nation could get by liberating an enslaved nation if it is justified in doing so and if it's not done selflessly, however I don't feel this applies to the current conflict. The US is hardly justified by any means because it A) is in no financial position to do so; could not possibly achieve success without other gigantic consequences and; C) doing so would result in making us less free. I don't think Iran is any threat to us - they're a third world country which couldn't do any harm to the US without significant improvements in their own conditions overnight.

I think that an alliance with Israel is beneficial, although as another poster said, we live in the present, not in the past, I don't think many foreign nations deserve much of our attention these days. I find that an attack against Iran would be mostly to fulfill a selfless obligation to Israel, as surely we could survive without their friendship? Whereas if we actually did attack Iran, the possibilities for failure are nearly endless, and it would result in, most minutely, severely poor economic and domestic security, and most grandly, warfare emanating from other regions against us in retaliation of our recklessness.

I am fully aware that Objectivism doesn't support taxation, but you must be aware that if we were to bomb Iran tomorrow, or any time in the distant future, it would be done on the American peoples' dollar, right? I think that the financial disaster that would result from a third major conflict arising at the present time would be much more devastating than any possible positive that such warfare could bring about, and again, I see these positives as being slim to most likely none.

Don't give the other vile religions too much credit... see these Old and New Testament passages about holy war:

# The Lord is a man of war. Exodus 15:3

# The LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Exodus 17:16, Deuteronomy 25:19

# And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people ... So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. Numbers 21:34-35

# And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And they burnt all their cities....

And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

# And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Deuteronomy 2:33-34

# And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2, 7:16

# If thou shalt hear say ... Certain men ... saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known ... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:12-15

# When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women ... shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. ... But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them ... as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Deuteronomy 20:10-17

# And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

# So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

# For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. Joshua 11:20

# Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

# Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Psalm 2:8-9

# He teacheth my hands to war. Psalm 18:34

I think it is understandable, but wrong, to suggest that Islam teaches anything more violently than any other religion. You'll find this kind of nonsense too in Eastern religions - in any faith that preaches the slavery to an intergalactic metaphysical dictator. And, am I wrong to believe that this position can be found in the teachings of Ayn Rand?

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?

I found Mr. Odden's answers simply a more well-worded version of the other poster's answers, but I've done as you've asked.

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.

I don't think you're in any position to judge my emotional stability. I am not here to scold - I find community in this board and wish to learn more. I already get gratification from my feelings, so there's no need for me to express them as you assume.

My solution would involve a formal apology to those this country has fraudulently hurt, to write peace treaties with those countries who deserve them, and to ultimately get out of the way of the entire Middle East as a country and as an occupier. I find that occupation is the number one cause for general Islamist hatred of the United States, no matter how vile I find these people and governments irrespective of this. I think that trade and talking can accomplish a lot more than the barrel of a gun ever can, and think that our differences are still reconcilable with many of these nations.

But what's most important is that I don't think we can pursue ANY of these endeavors without first fixing our issues domestically. I think that the American people should not be paying (yes, paying, because there's no way we could wage a war otherwise currently) for additional warfare until we get the government out of the lives of the people here and end the nanny state of looters we presently face in the US.

If you wish to ignore me, you do so at your own loss, not mine. Don't think you're getting an ounce of resentment or feeling of failure out of me. As far as I'm concerned, your "logic" is poison anyway.

Historical actions are irrelevant. We do not live in 1950 or even 2001... we live in the here and now and any rights respecting nation that can prove it is being threatened by a slave pen like Iran has a sworn duty to protect the individual rights of its citizenry. If the best way to accomplish that is to remove the threat before it can be actualized then that is what should be done.

Nations like individuals protect their self-interest.

Put it this way... There's a madman in a room swinging wildly your choice is to stop him from doing that or to eventually be pummeled by him. It's your call...

My call would be to kick him in the junk and make sure he is never able to harm me.

I think Iran is nothing more than a little kid knowing that if he keeps stirring trouble he can get what he wants.

Also, we could just simply choose to leave the room we're in if you're going to use that analogy. Why not get out of the game of Middle Eastern politics? Perhaps if we were better trained to deal with madmen (i.e. better prepared domestically as a nation) we would have the authority to intervene. But, honestly, I don't think we are at the moment, and I don't think we will be in a long time, if ever.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Andrew Grathwohl

[Zip]

I think Iran is nothing more than a little kid knowing that if he keeps stirring trouble he can get what he wants.

I disagree with your belief, but you can hold to that belief as much as you want, luckily you are not responsible for protecting my nation and my rights.

Also, we could just simply choose to leave the room we're in if you're going to use that analogy. Why not get out of the game of Middle Eastern politics? Perhaps if we were better trained to deal with madmen (i.e. better prepared domestically as a nation) we would have the authority to intervene. But, honestly, I don't think we are at the moment, and I don't think we will be in a long time, if ever.

When Iran has Nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology the room I was referring to is the planet.

Politics is global. The idea that ideas can be constrained if we just ignore them is the kind of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise Stalin's butchery of 3--40 million and Communism's expansion in Eastern Europe.

Trained in what? Prepared for what? Who's authority are you going to seek? Who do you expect to stick up for the rights of the individual living in the US? the Russians? The Chinese? NATO? Please don't tell me its the UN.

[2046]

You still are under the impression that Iran has done nothing against the United States, that the teachings of Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Muslim fascism; all anti-American "resentment" is justified and any use of force against Americans is just due only and specifically to American imperialism.

Motivation of fascist Muslims from the first Barbary Wars, to the Iranian Revolution, to 9/11 have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, but everything to do with the evil, vile, hated American imperialists, therefore they are just in killing Americans. Do you disagree?

Using force in self-defense is a moral imperative. Do you disagree?

If you value your life, when facing aggression you have a moral imperative to use retaliatory force against those who initiate it against you. Do you disagree?

The government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Do you disagree?

Americans have much to lose from not demanding that our government protect our individual rights. Do you disagree?

Using defensive force against Iran has nothing to do with going on some altruistic mission to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to Iranians, nor sacrificing one single American soldier to gain any sort of political goal, nor maintaining some sort of militaristic empire.

The only purpose of using military action against Iran is to defend rights of Americans. That's it. It's that simple. What part of that don't you understand?

Therefore:

If I can point out one single initiation of force directly by the Iranian government against Americans, which resulted directly in the violation of rights of Americans, would you support retaliatory action against Iran, yes or no?

Are you a pacifist or not?

[gags]

I think Iran is nothing more than a little kid knowing that if he keeps stirring trouble he can get what he wants.

"On two occasions in 1983, terrorists bombed United States targets in Beirut, Lebanon. The first target, on April 18, was the U.S. embassy, where 63 people, including 17 Americans, were killed. Half a year later, on October 23, the terrorists struck again, this time at barracks that housed members of an international peacekeeping force sent to help restore order in the war-torn nation. Killed in this second attack were 242 U.S. Marines, along with 58 French troops. Until September 11, 2001, the October 1983 assault would remain the most devastating terrorist attack on American citizens, and it remains the bloodiest terrorist assault on Americans outside of the United States. The group Islamic Jihad, affiliated with Hezbollah and ultimately Iran, claimed responsibility for both attacks."

http://www.answers.com/topic/lebanon-bombi...marine-barracks

I don't know why you think Iran is like a petulant little child that can be ignored, but that would be a deadly mistake on our part. Ideas matter and Iran is one of the primary promulgators of a deadly ideaology that aims to exterminate Americans and Jews. We have every right to deal with Iran with as much force as our military deems necessary.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I disagree with your belief, but you can hold to that belief as much as you want, luckily you are not responsible for protecting my nation and my rights.

When Iran has Nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology the room I was referring to is the planet.

Politics is global. The idea that ideas can be constrained if we just ignore them is the kind of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise Stalin's butchery of 3--40 million and Communism's expansion in Eastern Europe.

Trained in what? Prepared for what? Who's authority are you going to seek? Who do you expect to stick up for the rights of the individual living in the US? the Russians? The Chinese? NATO? Please don't tell me its the UN.

I would disagree with your assessment on the reasons for Hitler's uprising. A lot of Hitler's rise had to do with the general vulnerability of the country because of the harsh conditions the Treaty of Versailles put them under. But this is merely history, and the greater point at hand is what I'd like to discuss. I understand that Hitler's rise, Stalin's mass killings, and Communism's expansion into Eastern Europe, are all bad things, but I hate to say that I don't see the relevance to the rational interests of the United States when you mention these things. You make it seem to me that you're resorting to fear mongering with slightly baseless threats utilizing frightful images of past history as your defense. I'd like to know how any of these examples you've provided are rationally in our interest to intervene in. Could it not be possible that certain countries' immoral interventions were legitimate causes for these examples you provide? I think it would be unfair to judge history as if the cause and result could only be one way and not other. Why couldn't it be said that our selfless sacrifices in a time previous to the ones you mention had to do with the problems we faced back then? After all, I think history shows that the selfless US involvement in WWI was a pretty significant factor for all three historic events you mention.

You still are under the impression that Iran has done nothing against the United States, that the teachings of Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Muslim fascism; all anti-American "resentment" is justified and any use of force against Americans is just due only and specifically to American imperialism.

Motivation of fascist Muslims from the first Barbary Wars, to the Iranian Revolution, to 9/11 have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, but everything to do with the evil, vile, hated American imperialists, therefore they are just in killing Americans. Do you disagree?

I think that the teachings of Islam had something to do with it, sure, but only on the level at any religious person is affected by their religious thoughts. The religious people within our own government (a Mr. George W. Bush, perhaps?) also made some pretty fucking stupid decisions with suspiciously religious justifications - I don't think it's fair to assess it merely based on this, as I find a lot me people than just Muslims are guilty of this accusation, and we don't go tearing down other parts of the world for acting on their religious beliefs as we do in the Middle East.

Yes, I disagree with this statement because surely Islam had an affect on these people, but as I said earlier, I see no connection between the Barbary Wars, the Iranian Revolution, and 9/11 in the context of attacking Iran. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Iranian Revolution was GREATLY influenced by our overthrowing of Mossadeqh in the 1950s, and the Barbary Wars were engaged by thugs who happened to be from the MENA region, who may or may not have been motivated by much more than mere religious beliefs (people often justify with religion, as history shows, contrary to the popular belief that people are motivated by it).

Using force in self-defense is a moral imperative. Do you disagree?

I absolutely agree that using force in self-defense is moral. But again, I don't find this reason valid as I don't think we'd be defending ourselves against anything unless the Iranian government attacks the United States before we initialized our strike against them. It should be noted that we have already put STRINGENT sanctions on Iran, which causes them a great deal of economic harm and causes a lot of lives to be lost each year in the country. Considering our sanctions have caused the airline industry in Iran ALONE to be in the gutter, that would account for over 1,500 lives right there. When then compounding that with the ever-present fact that the ability to sustain life in Iran is at times nearly impossible, it is quite clear that US policies against the Iranians have killed a lot more of them than they have of us. I think these sanctions are justified, but we need to be careful because it's quite likely that this is resulting in a lot of hate being directed towards us, since the average immoral Iranian doesn't have anything to do with the extremists who attacked us so many decades ago in Lebanon.

If you value your life, when facing aggression you have a moral imperative to use retaliatory force against those who initiate it against you. Do you disagree?

Completely agree. Again, I don't find this statement relevant, as no Iranian government has initiated force against the United States yet to warrant any action. Any force that has been brought against us has surely been dealt with by the ever-tightening sanctions against that country, which causes a lot more deaths in that region than most here clearly think.

The government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Do you disagree?

Your wording confuses me. If you mean by this, that the government is the only one able to initiate retaliatory force against another country, then I 100% agree with you.

Americans have much to lose from not demanding that our government protect our individual rights. Do you disagree?

Nope, that's quite an agreeable statement. I would check your premises, however, about the way in which our government protects our individual rights.

Using defensive force against Iran has nothing to do with going on some altruistic mission to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to Iranians, nor sacrificing one single American soldier to gain any sort of political goal, nor maintaining some sort of militaristic empire.

The only purpose of using military action against Iran is to defend rights of Americans. That's it. It's that simple. What part of that don't you understand?

If our goal in Iran is not altruistic, then the only alternative is that it's reckless and counterproductive.

Therefore:

If I can point out one single initiation of force directly by the Iranian government against Americans, which resulted directly in the violation of rights of Americans, would you support retaliatory action against Iran, yes or no?

Are you a pacifist or not?

I'd be more specific in answering this by saying yes, assuming you mean that this is a single initiation of force that hasn't already happened yet. I think that our actions taken against the Iranians for prior events that the Iranian government had questionable amounts of relationship to have been sufficient.

I'm absolutely not a pacifist, and pacifism doesn't get anybody anywhere.

"On two occasions in 1983, terrorists bombed United States targets in Beirut, Lebanon. The first target, on April 18, was the U.S. embassy, where 63 people, including 17 Americans, were killed. Half a year later, on October 23, the terrorists struck again, this time at barracks that housed members of an international peacekeeping force sent to help restore order in the war-torn nation. Killed in this second attack were 242 U.S. Marines, along with 58 French troops. Until September 11, 2001, the October 1983 assault would remain the most devastating terrorist attack on American citizens, and it remains the bloodiest terrorist assault on Americans outside of the United States. The group Islamic Jihad, affiliated with Hezbollah and ultimately Iran, claimed responsibility for both attacks."

http://www.answers.com/topic/lebanon-bombi...marine-barracks

I don't know why you think Iran is like a petulant little child that can be ignored, but that would be a deadly mistake on our part. Ideas matter and Iran is one of the primary promulgators of a deadly ideaology that aims to exterminate Americans and Jews. We have every right to deal with Iran with as much force as our military deems necessary.

I don't doubt the history you provided. I simply believe that you're not taking into account what we've already done to Iran because of these incidents. I mean, we did a pretty big number on them without even having to lift a finger militarily. I think that was a very wise and rational thing for this government to do. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was passed completely under US Congress approval without any force via the UN, and was almost too effective in punishing Iran - surely, we've caused the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iranians due to our economic and trade sanctions placed on them. If they attack us, which they would probably never do, then that would surely mean that they haven't learned their lesson and that further action would be necessary - most likely in the form of military attack. And besides, why not just go after the Islamic Jihad group? That's a pretty loose and nondescript connection to Iran you've provided - I'd be pretty logically offended, after all, if somebody attacked the United States due to aggression brought upon them by Israel, or Canada, or Mexico...

I don't care about the Americans, nor the Jews. I happen to be both (rather, I come from Jewish blood, as did Ayn Rand), but I don't care about those roots. I care about myself, and I only think about myself when I think about the situation at hand. If I were thinking about the nation as a whole, or about the "feelings" of the Iranian people, I would most certainly have a far different opinion on this matter. But if I were to be doing this, I'd be rejecting the very doctrine of selfishness that defines the Objectivist movement! As I think I've shown, I find that doing the things you guys are supporting would put me into a more dangerous position - it would make me less safe, and I suspect that it would make all of you less safe too.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Andrew Grathwohl

[Eiuol]

I think you're trying to address to many questions or topics at once. I personally could care less what the ARI endorses or not, but I haven't had an opportunity to think about "foreign policy" in a long time.

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

When it comes to Iran, it is obvious that Iranian leaders hate the western way of life, not just the United States. Of course, this alone would not be something to retaliate against. For a preemptive strike to be justified, there should be a real and imminent threat to one's safety. I understand there are many links between Iran and various terrorist groups. In my mind, it's not -Iran- that's a threat, but the terrorists the Iranian government may support. Whether or not a "first strike" is immoral depends on who or what is being attacked (civilians? military facilities? nuke silos?), and even how a strike is done.

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

Odd point to address. Sometimes acting in the interests of an ally is also at the same time acting in your own interests. I do not think the US government actually thinks about what is in the United States' interests in regards to Israel. Supporting a country or ally should always be conditional. The conditions depend on what the ally wants to do with the support and how they use the support.

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

I think I see what you're saying. Funding to initiate a strike on Iran (or any other country) in this point in time would be with tax dollars. I think I agree with this. The ends of protecting the citizens of the US doesn't justify the means of taxation. I am not saying that the ARI supports taxation. If the military was funded by voluntary means in the first place, there would be no issue. I do not know of any companies or citizens that fund the military without the use of tax money. This can be a dilemma, because there is no US defense force as large as the tax-funded US military. How can a person feel safe without a defense force? What do you do when the only defense force you can get is funded through taxes?

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.

I don't think has to do with anything. It may make for an interesting sociological discussion, but understanding someone's resentment has no bearing on how to respond to the resentment.

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 always thought that "nation building" was unnecessary and an act of non-retaliatory force on innocents. Not all citizens of a country are as guilty as every other citizen of a country.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Eiuol

[DavidOdden]

I would love further explanation as to how you could correlate Ms. Rand's descriptions with the present situation in Iran.

I take it that you believe that Iran is a free nation. You might try studying the last election and how the mullahs refused to certify very many candidates, including serious opposition to Ahmedinejad. If you can locate some surviving victims of Vevak torture, then may be able to make more vivid the workings of their secret police. However, most people do not survive and escape. Still, try locating Iranian refugees to get some empirical perspective. Also look into the machinations of Iran as a agency and instigator of terrorism in many parts of the Middle East, especially through Hamas. They are conducting a proxy war against the US.

The US is hardly justified by any means because it A) is in no financial position to do so; could not possibly achieve success without other gigantic consequences and; C) doing so would result in making us less free.

Point A is relevant only assuming a stupid Iraq-style self-sacrificial ground war. No Objectivist support national defense by a thousand paper cuts. Point C is just arbitrary nonsense. There would be no real consequences to a nuclear strike against Iran, provided that we are committed to what is necessary. We can stand criticism by the French.

Your argument against attacking Iran is valid if you assume the jellyfish government we have now. I certainly would not suggest such a thing right now without a local regime change.

I am fully aware that Objectivism doesn't support taxation, but you must be aware that if we were to bomb Iran tomorrow, or any time in the distant future, it would be done on the American peoples' dollar, right?

Any form of national defense in the immediate present would be supported by tax dollars.

I think that the financial disaster that would result from a third major conflict arising at the present time would be much more devastating than any possible positive that such warfare could bring about, and again, I see these positives as being slim to most likely none.

I see no financial disaster, as long as we make use of existing resources and deliver them (from altitude) with an absolute resolve. What costs money is half-assed military involvement, especially police actions.

Don't give the other vile religions too much credit... see these Old and New Testament passages about holy war:

However, what matters is not abstract texts, what matters is the actual relationship between the religion and the actions of their believers. The actual fact of Islam as it exists here and now is quite violent and dangerous, vastly worse than modern Christianity. Huge swaths of Africa and Asia are essentially laid to waste because of Islamist violence. Yes, a religious Christian nut murdered an adortion provider in Kansas -- get some proportion here. Islam is by practice tens of thousands of times more violent than Christianity.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I take it that you believe that Iran is a free nation. You might try studying the last election and how the mullahs refused to certify very many candidates, including serious opposition to Ahmedinejad. If you can locate some surviving victims of Vevak torture, then may be able to make more vivid the workings of their secret police. However, most people do not survive and escape. Still, try locating Iranian refugees to get some empirical perspective. Also look into the machinations of Iran as a agency and instigator of terrorism in many parts of the Middle East, especially through Hamas. They are conducting a proxy war against the US.Point A is relevant only assuming a stupid Iraq-style self-sacrificial ground war. No Objectivist support national defense by a thousand paper cuts. Point C is just arbitrary nonsense. There would be no real consequences to a nuclear strike against Iran, provided that we are committed to what is necessary. We can stand criticism by the French.

I don't think Iran is a free nation - I think it's a sovereign nation. Your proxy war comment is interesting, but I can't help but draw similarities to the foreign policy we follow now. Would it be rational for Israel to attack the United States just because we also fund their enemies with subsidies and weapons? I'm not attempting to disprove your point, rather, I want to understand it better. Frankly I don't believe we should be subsidizing anybody, let alone Israel and her enemies, but I would imagine that a lot more wars would have been brought upon us already by now if this proxy war idea were such an effective justification for war. I think that you may underestimate Iran's importance to some powerful nations in the world, and certainly the Saudis and others who we unfortunately depend on for natural resources would be outraged. Also, a nuclear strike on Iran would likely incite hatred from more than just the French; the entire WORLD would hate us for it. I can't honestly ever think of a time when a nuclear weapon would be in our self-interest, as we should likely want to only defeat our enemy - not all of the helpless brats and monsters they hold in their ideological jails.

Your argument against attacking Iran is valid if you assume the jellyfish government we have now. I certainly would not suggest such a thing right now without a local regime change.Any form of national defense in the immediate present would be supported by tax dollars.I see no financial disaster, as long as we make use of existing resources and deliver them (from altitude) with an absolute resolve. What costs money is half-assed military involvement, especially police actions.However, what matters is not abstract texts, what matters is the actual relationship between the religion and the actions of their believers. The actual fact of Islam as it exists here and now is quite violent and dangerous, vastly worse than modern Christianity. Huge swaths of Africa and Asia are essentially laid to waste because of Islamist violence. Yes, a religious Christian nut murdered an adortion provider in Kansas -- get some proportion here. Islam is by practice tens of thousands of times more violent than Christianity.

My apologies, but I thought everything we've been discussing was in terms based on reality and grounded in objectivity. I was under the impressions that make-believes made the burden of proof on the make-believer. To clarify: I am talking about a real-world foreign policy, not a world in which local regime change would ever happen in any time conducive to a nuclear-first strike against a Middle Eastern country in the near future!

I understand your point of view regarding the relationship between Islam and the violence their believers engage in, but I find this nothing more than consequential of the times in which we live. If we were looking back a couple centuries ago, the "quite violent and dangerous" sect of religious nuts would have been the Christians, indeed. It's all relative to what positions certain religious groups are in at the time. Islam is just the violent religion of choice at the moment, but some would also say the Jews are getting up there as well, and there will most certainly be a new religion of violence in future times. Also, because we're supposed to be running under this objective, realistic premise, it would probably be best to treat our enemies the same way by not stooping down to their level and basing their characteristics on which absurd and ridiculous version of the same nonsense they choose to follow and swear their miserable, worthless lives to. I only say this based on my interpretations of what I've read from Ayn Rand, and from what I've studied as an Objectivist. I hope I can continue this dialog peacefully from now on in order to learn and grow more, and I thank you, Mr. Odden, for being so helpful in this respect.

[Zip]

but some would also say the Jews are getting up there as well,

Who? when was the last time a Jew blew himself up in a crowd of civilians? Who was the last Jew to call for the eradication of an entire race? Show me the Jewish state sponsoring terrorism in another country.

[DavidOdden]

Would it be rational for Israel to attack the United States just because we also fund their enemies with subsidies and weapons?

Well, that is a point worth considering. Strategically irrational because we would presumably open a huge can of whup-ass on them, but the fact of the matter is that the US has been subtlely enabling the destruction of Israel -- part of our irrational equal-opportunity foreign policy. The question is whether the US is doggedly determined to destroy Israel, or have we simply become incompetent at executing a rational foreign policy. I think it's the latter, in contrast to the case of Iran whose president called for the oblitertion of Israel.

Frankly I don't believe we should be subsidizing anybody, let alone Israel and her enemies

I don't support subsidizing Israel; what Objectivists support US subsidy of Israel? "Support" is not subsidy.

I think that you may underestimate Iran's importance to some powerful nations in the world, and certainly the Saudis and others who we unfortunately depend on for natural resources would be outraged.

I don't think I do; the real point is that their opinion does not count. What counts is what is right.

As far as a concrete means of dealing with the Iran problem is concerned, this is a fairly hypothetical discussion, since we would first need a government which was willing to take a moral stand and actually make it clear that we will not tolerate further aggression. We should not negotiate with Iran, we should inform Iran. We should make clear and specific threats, and back them up with force as necessary. I'm not totally convinced that nukes are the best option, and I am convinced that flattening Qom would be a good way to indicate "We are serious". Since the fact is that we have a new jellyfish in charge of foreign policy, the strongest thing we can hope for now is that Mrs. Clinton will strongly urge the mullah regime to reconsider its promulgation of terrorism. Iranian bombs will continue to go off in Israel and the American public will continue to not care. At some point the Iranians will launch a nuke at Tel Aviv (through their Hamas positions in Lebanon or Gaza), and then we will see is Americans care at that point.

If we were looking back a couple centuries ago, the "quite violent and dangerous" sect of religious nuts would have been the Christians, indeed.

And these are the times we live in. I assume you don't have a portal to 500 years in the future.

Also, because we're supposed to be running under this objective, realistic premise, it would probably be best to treat our enemies the same way by not stooping down to their level and basing their characteristics on which absurd and ridiculous version of the same nonsense they choose to follow and swear their miserable, worthless lives to.

For example, what you will notice is that Objectivists do not advocate infiltrating Tehran, Kabul, Lahore, Beirut, Cairo with thousands of random suicide bombers aimed at doingg nothing more than instilling terror in the heards of the citizens of these cities. You do not find Objectivists advocating kidnapping Muslims and sawing their heads off on video tapes, as a way to emphasize their fundamental brutality. Watch the Nick Berg beheading if you want to concretely understand the nature of the enemy. Objectivists do advocate the use of force to stop these aggressors, but we do not advocate barbarism.

Refer to Rand's statements on pacifism to understand where we stand on the use of force. It is proper for a government to use force in retaliation for the initiation of force, and Objectivism is fundamentally opposed to pacifism. There is a major difference between using force and being barbaric.

[Capitalism Forever]

Also, a nuclear strike on Iran would likely incite hatred from more than just the French; the entire WORLD would hate us for it.

Do you figure they would hate us enough to stop drinking Coca-Cola?

[Axiomatic]

I actually need help to understand why Iran hasn't been obliterated with nukes yet. Seriously, it would be the best thing for Israel and the best thing for the free world.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Axiomatic

[Eiuol]

I actually need help to understand why Iran hasn't been obliterated with nukes yet. Seriously, it would be the best thing for Israel and the best thing for the free world.

Because there are plenty of people in Iran who didn't do anything wrong.

[Axiomatic]

Because there are plenty of people in Iran who didn't do anything wrong.

There were plenty of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that 'Didn't do anything wrong". What is your point?

[Eiuol]

There were plenty of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that 'Didn't do anything wrong". What is your point?

That's why Nagasaki and Hiroshima should not have been nuked. It is possible an innocent person can be inadvertently killed in violent conflict, but "obliterating Iran with nukes" would involve so many people that are completely innocent of any wrongdoing that it could not be justified. I'm talking specifically nukes here, not tactical precision bombings where innocent deaths would be close to 0.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Eiuol

[Axiomatic]

That's why Nagasaki and Hiroshima should not have been nuked. It is possible an innocent person can be inadvertently killed in violent conflict, but "obliterating Iran with nukes" would involve so many people that are completely innocent of any wrongdoing that it could not be justified. I'm talking specifically nukes here, not tactical precision bombings where innocent deaths would be close to 0.

Tactical bombings would not have stopped WW2.That 'Just war' nonsense is the kind of irrational altruism that Bush subscribed too. If you go to war, you go to war to win. Civilians are the responsibility of their governments, not invading forces. If a government initiates aggression against a free nations government, then that free nations government has a 'moral' right to use all force necessary to obliterate that threat.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Axiomatic

[DavidOdden]

That's why Nagasaki and Hiroshima should not have been nuked. It is possible an innocent person can be inadvertently killed in violent conflict, but "obliterating Iran with nukes" would involve so many people that are completely innocent of any wrongdoing that it could not be justified. I'm talking specifically nukes here, not tactical precision bombings where innocent deaths would be close to 0.

That's why Japan should not have been an aggressor. That's why the Japanese people should not have tolerated their government's aggression.

I have no objection to using bombs that kill only mullahs, government agents and supporters of the regime. However, such weaponry has not yet been perfected. Therefore, we should use whatever means is necessary to change the fundamental facts of Iran.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Do you figure they would hate us enough to stop drinking Coca-Cola?

I see your point. I think that the results of a nuclear-first strike on Iran would result on US not even being able to drink Coca-Cola. I think it would be the start of a new era of massive death and destruction.

That's why Nagasaki and Hiroshima should not have been nuked. It is possible an innocent person can be inadvertently killed in violent conflict, but "obliterating Iran with nukes" would involve so many people that are completely innocent of any wrongdoing that it could not be justified. I'm talking specifically nukes here, not tactical precision bombings where innocent deaths would be close to 0.

"Tactical precision bombings" have already been performed by Mr. Obama with a severely high ratio of innocents killed in Pakistan. Unfortunately, not even precise bombings get away with killing zero innocents. Not that I disagree with tactical precision bombings as a premise, but how they've been used recently hasn't been very effective in doing anything but pissing off Pakistanis even further.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Well, that is a point worth considering. Strategically irrational because we would presumably open a huge can of whup-ass on them, but the fact of the matter is that the US has been subtlely enabling the destruction of Israel -- part of our irrational equal-opportunity foreign policy. The question is whether the US is doggedly determined to destroy Israel, or have we simply become incompetent at executing a rational foreign policy. I think it's the latter, in contrast to the case of Iran whose president called for the oblitertion of Israel.I don't support subsidizing Israel; what Objectivists support US subsidy of Israel? "Support" is not subsidy.I don't think I do; the real point is that their opinion does not count. What counts is what is right.

So you support defending Israel? What exactly is so important about them that we must risk our standing in the world to protect them? With Israel gone, how much worse off could we possibly be?

I didn't mean to imply that any Objectivist would support subsidy of Israel. My apologies if that's how it came off.

Well, wouldn't one need to factor in what a travesty it would be if we were to bomb another country like that in the present state? Wouldn't that overall influence a decision as to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do?

As far as a concrete means of dealing with the Iran problem is concerned, this is a fairly hypothetical discussion, since we would first need a government which was willing to take a moral stand and actually make it clear that we will not tolerate further aggression. We should not negotiate with Iran, we should inform Iran. We should make clear and specific threats, and back them up with force as necessary. I'm not totally convinced that nukes are the best option, and I am convinced that flattening Qom would be a good way to indicate "We are serious". Since the fact is that we have a new jellyfish in charge of foreign policy, the strongest thing we can hope for now is that Mrs. Clinton will strongly urge the mullah regime to reconsider its promulgation of terrorism. Iranian bombs will continue to go off in Israel and the American public will continue to not care. At some point the Iranians will launch a nuke at Tel Aviv (through their Hamas positions in Lebanon or Gaza), and then we will see is Americans care at that point.And these are the times we live in. I assume you don't have a portal to 500 years in the future.For example, what you will notice is that Objectivists do not advocate infiltrating Tehran, Kabul, Lahore, Beirut, Cairo with thousands of random suicide bombers aimed at doingg nothing more than instilling terror in the heards of the citizens of these cities. You do not find Objectivists advocating kidnapping Muslims and sawing their heads off on video tapes, as a way to emphasize their fundamental brutality. Watch the Nick Berg beheading if you want to concretely understand the nature of the enemy. Objectivists do advocate the use of force to stop these aggressors, but we do not advocate barbarism.

Nuclear bombing would probably be just as ruthless and aimless as suicide bombing, no? I understand the "enemy", but the "enemy" as you describe them in the Nick Berg incident is not Iran. I find it highly unlikely that Iran will bomb Israel. These people live in a third world nation! How could they possibly do any harm to a country which has arguably one of the best defenses in the world and has some of the most sophisticated anti-missile and anti-nuclear technologies on the planet?

Refer to Rand's statements on pacifism to understand where we stand on the use of force. It is proper for a government to use force in retaliation for the initiation of force, and Objectivism is fundamentally opposed to pacifism. There is a major difference between using force and being barbaric.

I must repeat that I take strong opposition to pacifism, because that's just as bad as neoconservative warmongering. However, I fail to see much of a distinction, still, between the neoconservative foreign policy and the one that some here subscribe to. I see the one here being a bit more logical in nature, and still approves with the basic premise that it's in our interest to tell other countries how to live when we cannot even make our own country run properly (notwithstanding, however, your comments above, which I cannot dissect to find any suggestions on how to move forward in the real world). I agree that government should use force in retaliation for the initiation of force, but we haven't gotten there yet, and probably never will. We can still take a proactive approach to this, but perhaps without the violence. What if we actually talk to Iran and work something out? What about trade agreements and peace treaties? There's no reason why we cannot take advantage of their oil, while they take advantage of our management skills and technologies. Trading with Iran would probably accomplish what war games could never accomplish. Even though Iran is wrong, what's the harm in taking this approach? Maybe they don't deserve it - but do we deserve the opportunity to have as many friends as we do? Hardly... it is in our interest to not have enemies, and to benefit from one another's specializations. If we take an economic approach to this, we would be much more profitable if we gained something from the Iranians, rather than waste human lives, the people's money, and lots of valuable time, trying to take down a stubborn and powerful Islamic regime in one of the most powerful countries in the MENA region. Wouldn't that be acting rationally?

[Zip]

Form the sounds of the last few posts Andrew and Eiuol missed the login page for Libertarians are us and ended up on oo.net instead.

Eiuol I'd like you to actually use what Rand wrote on the subject of war to justify your position that "That's why Nagasaki and Hiroshima should not have been nuked."

[DavidOdden]

So you support defending Israel? What exactly is so important about them that we must risk our standing in the world to protect them? With Israel gone, how much worse off could we possibly be?

What is this concern with "standing"? That's a completely inverted morality. Would you suggest that invading Germany and liberating the Nazi death-camps would be wrong if it would damage our "standing" in the world? Especially given how unreliable or overtly hostile other nations in the area are to the US, it is inconceivable that we would abandon out only ally.

I understand the "enemy", but the "enemy" as you describe them in the Nick Berg incident is not Iran.

Do you mean "the specific individuals who sawed his head off? Why does that matter? You have to look at what causes this behavior -- Islamist radicalism, of all sects.

I find it highly unlikely that Iran will bomb Israel. These people live in a third world nation! How could they possibly do any harm to a country which has arguably one of the best defenses in the world and has some of the most sophisticated anti-missile and anti-nuclear technologies on the planet?

I think you underestimate Iran: it is a rather advanced nation, they have tested missiles capable of hitting Israel, they have the technical knowledge to build nuclear weapons. And, with the current lunatic in charge, they have both the will and the insanity.

I see the one here being a bit more logical in nature, and still approves with the basic premise that it's in our interest to tell other countries how to live when we cannot even make our own country run properly

No, it is not in our best interest to tell other countries how to run their lives. It is in our best interests to tell other countries how they may not run their lives.

What if we actually talk to Iran and work something out?

There is nothing to work out. Iran has absolutely no right to live its life the way it has been. They simply have to stop being an aggressor and a sponsor of terrorism. When they do that, we will have the basic rational common ground required for discussion and possible trade agreements. Supplying the enemy during time of war is not rational behavior; were you not aware of that?

[Eiuol]

Tactical bombings would not have stopped WW2.That 'Just war' nonsense is the kind of irrational altruism that Bush subscribed too. If you go to war, you go to war to win. Civilians are the responsibility of their governments, not invading forces. If a government initiates aggression against a free nations government, then that free nations government has a 'moral' right to use all force necessary to obliterate that threat.

I should clarify that without a specific context of what is being nuked, it's hard to go any further into the discussion of whether or not nuking Iran is right or wrong. I'm not saying the civilians are the responsibility of the invading force. It's simply that it's not the civilians you're retaliating against. You definitely should use all force necessary to obliterate the threat. But the civilians are not the threat. I'm not saying that "if one civilian dies, that is bad enough". I doubt you would ask the military to come and carpet bomb a serial killer's neighborhood. Given existing technology, it is certainly possible to attack the specific threat and ignore everything else. I do not believe nukes are as accurate at eliminating specific targets.

If tactical bombing existed in WW2, I'd feel confident in saying that tactical bombings would have been enough to end WW2. I'm not sure how much destruction was expected from dropping the nukes, but I don't believe they were targeted at military or government targets specifically. It's not exactly the nuking I have a problem with, just what was nuked (cities rather than government or military facilities).

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Form the sounds of the last few posts Andrew and Eiuol missed the login page for Libertarians are us and ended up on oo.net instead.

Nonsense. I've met plenty of big names in the Objectivist community who take a foreign policy position of non-interventionism.

It must be said, additionally, that Libertarianism in the US takes most of its influence from the Objectivist way of thought. The classical liberalism / minarchist government models that most of them subscribe to come directly from Ayn Rand's ideas regarding the use of force by the State - that the only proper role of government is police, courts, and national defense.

Beyond that, of course, there's the split in libertarianism - those who believe it for moral reasons, and those who believe it for practical reasons. My understanding is that my belief in the moral code of Objectivism and the principles of rational thought can lead me to agreeing with a minarchist government system. A lot of old-school Objectivists, I find, don't understand that they are libertarians, too. My thoughts, like yours, do not spawn from a populist/collectivist basis like that of Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater. They are formed by putting Ayn Rand's philosophy into practice.

One other thing I'd like to mention is that I think it's horribly damaging to one's argument to say "Ayn Rand said ..." because she herself recognized that she wasn't infallible. I think it's a rejection of logic to take her written testimony on one foreign policy controversy and then translate that specific instance into a means of generally supporting some other specific instance. Nowhere in the Objectivist code (ethics, metaphysics, reason, politics, or aesthetics) does it definitively give an objective answer regarding this foreign policy that many here seem to prescribe to. The only mentioning of it by Rand without going into specific conflicts during the time when she was alive was in regards to the only moral force being retaliatory force. As has been shown, there has been no reason to attack Iran yet, because they have not directly threatened the individual rights of the citizens of the United States yet. Indeed, if Iran's government formally declared tomorrow "Death to America!" then there would be obvious and sufficient reason to engage in, as Mr. Odden said, informing Iran. But until then, we're sacrificing the blood and treasure of the United States with little to no gain, and also run the high risk of starting a much greater conflict than intended.

As I said, if we were living in Galt's Gulch, the positions I hold would apply to a much different practical outcome. But we live in a world that doesn't even come close to achieving this, so I think that applying this type of logic without the appropriate contexts is a surefire way to destroy the few individual rights we have left.

[TheEgoist]

I'll answer your original questions, Andrew. My answers will be in bold in the quote box below

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.

Utter non-sense. Both of those nations, Iraq under Saddam and Iran under it's various leaders, have sponsored Islamic terrorism against the United States. Not to mention that a completely unfree nation does not deserve any respect as some sovereign entity that can enslave citizens and hog natural resources.

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

Quite a statement. I'd say something like that ought to be elaborated upon before it can be answered.

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

We live in an imperfect system currently. However, to not take any action because it is funded by taxation would be an even greater evil that would lead to the eventual end of the American government

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.

Ummm...No? Every religion does not teach Mohammed preached. In fact, Islam is the only one. Certainly no religion can ever be considered good, but there is such a thing as levels of evil.

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.

Iraq and Iran both sponsored terrorist activity against America. Iran was much more successful in their actions. As a matter of fact, they've been at war with us for quite awhile now.

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!