Tabernac Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 Interesting thread. But, nuking?! How about targeted assassination of key leading figures? In oppressive states, huge amounts of power rest on the shoulders of a very small number of people. The middle-ranking agents of oppression only engage in oppression out of fear of retribution from those at the top. Take them out and the system would collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted August 13, 2012 Report Share Posted August 13, 2012 In oppressive states, huge amounts of power rest on the shoulders of a very small number of people. If this was true it would be an easy matter to overthrow oppressive states. How about targeted assassination of key leading figures? This won't work because you have reversed cause and effect. Philosophy is what drives history. It is the fundamental ideas a society holds that determines its course. Leonard Peikoff has written an excellent book entitled The Ominous Parallels that describes this phenomenon in the case of Nazi Germany. The fundamental ideas driving the leaders of a society are the same fundamental ideas held by the populace. In this sense a country gets the leaders it deserves as a function of the ideas it holds. The politicians and leaders of a country do not set the direction of a country, they follow the direction set by the culture. Because of the ideas they held the Weimar Republic got Hitler, in fact they voted for him. The extent to which the people of the US believe that we should be our brother's keeper is the extent to which we have welfare statism. Most of the Middle East is a cesspool of bad ideas, they don't understand, accept or respect individual rights, they get the leaders they deserve. If you assassinate or remove their leaders there will be plenty of people to replace them who hold the same ideas. Look at Egypt, do you think their new government will be more or less aggressive than their former government? This is not to say that a culture can't change, it can. People have free will and can choose to accept different ideas but this takes a revolution, a revolution based on different ideas. But people don't typically change their ideas unless they are shown how destructive those ideas are to their lives. War is only necessary when a country's ideas and culture are aggressive. Once a culture becomes aggressive force is usually the only way it can change. The destruction their culture is inflicting on others must be brought home to them. Iran is the embodiment of the most destructive ideas that exist in the Middle East. It has not only initiated force against its own citizens but also against the US and there is no reason we must stand by and suffer for their bad ideas. The Iranian people will not change their ideas until they are shown in drastic terms what those ideas lead to: death, their death. milked 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 This may be the most disappointing discussion on this web site. Why is it necessary to go on for 37+ pages in response to a question that is so fraught with fallacy? "Preemptive" force is initiating the use of force. That is immoral. No "state of war" exists between the US and Iran because no provocation has risen to the level our seriously broken political system would have the moral fortitude or coherent protocols to actually declare a war. Slinging nukes like some deranged crusader is a surefire route to more world problems not less. The enemy is NOT a country. The battle field is IDEAS, and most of what I read here would tend to indicate we have already lost, since warmongering claptrap seem to pervade. If you are so anxious to fight go join a military service. After you have experienced combat then come back and explain why killing people is so much fun. Blaming Iran for 911 is less cogent than blaming Lt. Calley for Mie Lai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 This may be the most disappointing discussion on this web site. Why is it necessary to go on for 37+ pages in response to a question that is so fraught with fallacy? "Preemptive" force is initiating the use of force.You should read some of the thread. Turns out that your revolutionary, 37 page thread defeating argument has been addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.