Iran Has Backed Down

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
41

We should care because mass attacks on civilians are not an effective way to defeat a country. The firebombings of Japanese and German cities in WW2 showed that. They did not encourage the survivors to overthrow their governments and surrender; they merely hardened their resolve. Since the moral implications of slaughtering millions of men, women, and children do not trouble you, perhaps the practical problems will.

Apparently there is no context that you cannot sunder from the reality to which it applies, and from which it was derived. I did not suggest massive population destruction as the general and best way to “defeat a country” and win a war, though in fact there are many instances where such an approach is both moral and practical. I suggested an approach that makes sense in the context of today’s world, where for too many years wishy-washy appeasers with a misplaced sense of morality have spouted out the sort of nonsense that you have been promulgating here, nonsense which has inverted right and wrong and has made the most moral and powerful nation on Earth – the United States of America – vulnerable to what would otherwise be an impotent evil.

I proposed a wholesale method to rid us of terrorists who seek to kill us, an approach which is necessary to change the course of the world. Let the tyrannical and savage nations of the world know that the wrath of the United States will obliterate those who support, harbor, and export the terrorism that seeks to kill us. If they do not acquiesce and deliver the terrorists then a major strike on a population center is required to let them know that the decades of appeasement is over and that we mean business. I don’t give a damn if they hate us, as long as they quake out of fear for our retribution. These people are impotent cowards when we do not enable them; do this once to the sickly evil that is Iran and the rest will follow.

As to your distorted view of history: the supposed “resolve” of the German’s was so great that the war ended three months after Dresden; the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima August 6th, on Nagasaki August 9th, and the “resolve” of the Japanese must have lasted a full six days since they surrendered on August 15. So, if we are to go by the facts, if anything, contrary to your view, they show that the harder the hit the faster the end. Your sense of the practical is just as distorted as your sense of the moral.

On the wider point, I reject the idea of collective guilt implied in treating all Iranians as if they were a single entity. It is acceptable for innocent civilians to be killed accidentally as a result of our defending ourselves against the Iranian regime, but not to target civilians deliberately as if all Iranians were equally evil.

You’re choice of words just further reveals your distance from Objectivist morality. Instead of reading the leftist and altruistic tripe which you have bought into, you instead should read Ayn Rand and other actual Objectivists, like this provided by ARI. Note that I find so many of your comments in other posts in this thread to be so wrong and so offensive, that I do not even want to dignify them with a response.

42

As for the idea that destroying one country would convince the others not to attack us, history does not seem to support that idea. We did massive damage to Germany and Japan in WW2, yet after the war the USSR and China did not hesitate to act against us in various ways. We destroyed the Taliban and Saddam regimes, yet Syria and Iran still oppose us. Israel has attacked terrorist groups ruthlessly, yet they still carry out attacks.

Actually, history supports exactly that idea. The time you are using in WW2 is way too late in the game. We never would have been in Europe in the first place if the Nazis hadn’t gotten their cue from Chamberlain and others that he was free to pursue his aims. Even earlier than that, when he started violating the Versailles treaty left and right. When we went to Germany in 1936 to the Olympics sanctioning Nazi Germany as a civilized society, thus condemning millions of Jews to death.

The USSR and China did not attack us directly. But, what they did do we let them know they could get away with it. Starting from Truman, and the allowing of the annexation of most of eastern Europe. To Eishenhower (sp?), and his non-intervention/containment policies. Have you ever heard the pitiful story of the last radio broadcast from Hungary as the Soviet tanks were rolling in. As I’ve heard the story the last broadcast was, “Hello? Is there anyone out there? Help us…” Lights out. Silence.

It was also Eishenhower that inaugurated the Middle East policy by his behaviour in the “Suez War”. This was cemented by, of course, our grungy former President Carter.

Of course Syria and Iran still oppose us. Weakness, uncertainty and fear are the easiest things for these people to sniff out. We show it all the time. We are not going to have the premise that Bush has demostrated implaccable resolve, are we?

And do you not think that the Iranians find it odd that they know that we know that they are at the top of our list of terrorist sponsoring states, and that given the unrest of their own populace, they should have been the very first target? That theirs would have been, not only the one most demonstrably worthy of removal, but also the easiest? Don’t you think they noticed that?

Do you not think they voted a few weeks ago to commence with enrichment to the shouts of, “Death to America!”, because they know we will not do anything? If they thought we had the cajones to do anything, do you think they would have done that?

I like to use the analogy of the school bully. If you smash one bully in the face, the first time, or stand up to him resolutely the first time, do you think you are going to have a continued problem with bullies? No, of course not. But, he that turneth the other cheek will have a miserable time. And the longer he lets it continue, the more inextricable his situation.

43

I’ll also add to the above that we have 50 years of total appeasement in the Middle East. Weakly plucking out two very minor players in the war will not get them shaking in their boots.

44

The USSR and China did not attack us directly. But, what they did do we let them know they could get away with it.

Not only that, but Russia acquired whatever power it had BECAUSE of our support. It was the aid from the Western world which empowered Russia. Left to their own they would have self-destructed, as is true of evil in general. There is a wonderful old book by W. Keller titled East Minus West = Zero: Russia’s Debt to the Western World, 862-1962. Keller traces the Western support throughout the dates indicated in the title. Our lend-lease program alone shifted billions of dollars of goods to Russia, and we re-eqipped their entire transport system, which had broken down. And for China, our wonderful economic “partner,” it is obscene that we ever let those Communist bastards develop the weapons they now have. It is precisely because of moral inversion – the rule of altruism – that we got into the mess we are in now, and GodlessCapitalist, whether he knows it or not, is promoting more of the same. Shameful!

45

I like to use the analogy of the school bully. If you smash one bully in the face, the first time, or stand up to him resolutely the first time, do you think you are going to have a continued problem with bullies? No, of course not. But, he that turneth the other cheek will have a miserable time. And the longer he lets it continue, the more inextricable his situation.

But terrorists are not school bullies.

Terrorists don’t want to live. They want to die. They enjoy it. They think they’ll go to heaven.

I don’t any amount of population damage is going to stop the terrorists. A better idea could be to destroy their religious symbols, threaten to wipe out Islam off the face of Earth. At least the religiously motivated terrorists will stop then.

46

But terrorists are not school bullies.

Terrorists don’t want to live. They want to die. They enjoy it. They think they’ll go to heaven.

I don’t any amount of population damage is going to stop the terrorists.

You miss the point. The idea is to put enough fear of retribution into those others who do want to live that they will root out the terrorists from their midst. Let those who value their life know that we value our own lives so much that we will destroy those who support, harbor, and export terrorism.

47

I am no longer going to respond to anything stephen_speicher posts. His personal attacks are quite disappointing. I expected better from him.

The USSR and China did not attack us directly. But, what they did do we let them know they could get away with it. Starting from Truman, and the allowing of the annexation of most of eastern Europe. To Eishenhower (sp?), and his non-intervention/containment policies. Have you ever heard the pitiful story of the last radio broadcast from Hungary as the Soviet tanks were rolling in. As I’ve heard the story the last broadcast was, “Hello? Is there anyone out there? Help us…” Lights out. Silence.

Of course Syria and Iran still oppose us. Weakness, uncertainty and fear are the easiest things for these people to sniff out. We show it all the time. We are not going to have the premise that Bush has demostrated implaccable resolve, are we? 

And do you not think that the Iranians find it odd that they know that we know that they are at the top of our list of terrorist sponsoring states, and that given the unrest of their own populace, they should have been the very first target? That theirs would have been, not only the one most demonstrably worthy of removal, but also the easiest? Don’t you think they noticed that?

Do you not think they voted a few weeks ago to commence with enrichment to the shouts of, “Death to America!”, because they know we will not do anything? If they thought we had the cajones to do anything, do you think they would have done that? 

You have some good points. Do you think, though, that Iran did not notice that the US attacked 2 countries right next to them? No, we did not destroy those countries, but we killed or captured their leaders, which should concern Iran’s leaders. Why would they think there is no way they will be next?

Note by the way that Saddam seemed to believe his own delusional claims that Iraq would defeat the American invasion. Hitler had similar delusions. It’s likely Iran’s leaders feel the same way. Trying to intimidate some people by crushing others assumes a level of connection with reality that may not be there.

Anyway, I think I am done with this topic.

48

I am no longer going to respond to anything stephen_speicher posts. His personal attacks are quite disappointing. I expected better from him.

Since Godless Capitalist seems to prefer to hide behind a manufactured excuse, rather than answer to the facts that I presented, his unwillingness to respond is quite understandable.

49

You have some good points. Do you think, though, that Iran did not notice that the US attacked 2 countries right next to them? No, we did not destroy those countries, but we killed or captured their leaders, which should concern Iran’s leaders. Why would they think there is no way they will be next?

Because of the wishy-washy semi-altruistic garbage that keeps spewing from those who will not take an uncompromising stance against our enemies. The demented minds of the religious fanactics who rule Iran feed off of any weakness they perceive in their enemy, and they play us and the altruistic world to the hilt. Pathetic.

50

I’m intrigued by the distinction between moral and practical. Early on, I figured that while Brook clearly outlined what is moral, I still needed to figure out if nuking civilian populations and leaving them to recreate their government is at all practical.

As for nuking populations, I definitely agree that we shouldn’t take Lind’s approach of doing everything we can to not anger the locals or create a backlash here in the states. He says we’ve lost every asymmetric engagement so far because we didn’t take the “moral level” into consideration, turning both the local populous and the American populous against the war effort. I think this is wrong, because (1) the local populous can think what it wants, as long as it is afraid of us, and (2) the Americans will not backlash, because a philosophical change would’ve already taken place before an Objectivist ever reached the White House.

As for leaving them to recreate their government, it seems clear that Japan is the economic powerhouse that it is because we didn’t leave them to recreate their government. In his book, Tom Barnett suggests that all our national security threats originate from the fact that third-world goverments are oppressive, and so they keep their countries disconnected from the globalizing world. He suggests that occupying a country after invading it, to direct them to something more free, will make us safer. However, I also know that a cultural change always preceeds a political change, so perhaps a more covert approach of helping the freedom fighters do it themselves will be more effective. Any thoughts?

51

I’m intrigued by the distinction between moral and practical.

The moral is the practical.

Early on, I figured that while Brook clearly outlined what is moral,

By “Brook” do you mean Yaron Brook? If so, what particular writing of his are you referring to?

I still needed to figure out if nuking civilian populations and leaving them to recreate their government is at all practical.

Clearly that depends entirely upon the specific circumstances. Obviously it would be of benefit to us to live in a world where each nation had a rights-respecting government. But there are cultures that have an ingrained philosophy such that they could not and would not maintain a free society if the opportunity were presented to them. Our first and foremost concern is the protection of our citizens, which means we must first never allow any tyrannical nation to develop the means by which they could do harm to us. We have every right to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure this concern. The transformation of a tyrannical nation into a rights-respecting one is a secondary issue, one which could be beneficial to us, depending on the cost. For instance, it might not be worth risking American lives and spending billions of dollars on a faraway nation with little hope that that nation could sustain freedom, but it might be worth the risk and dollars for a nearby neighbor that has the potential for sustaining a free society. The principles are clear but the particular action taken depends on the particular circumstances.

52

But terrorists are not school bullies.

Terrorists don’t want to live. They want to die. They enjoy it. They think they’ll go to heaven.

It was an analogy to illustrate a principle. The same principles come into play whether you are talking about terrorists, bullies, psychological dominators, con-artists. Certain actions will be read differently by certain people.

A lack of integrity and fortitude is smelled out by all of these groups.

53

The moral is the practical.

It seems like you were making a distinction in this post.

By “Brook” do you mean Yaron Brook? If so, what particular writing of his are you referring to?

Yes, Yaron Brook’s audio called the Morality of War.

The principles are clear but the particular action taken depends on the particular circumstances.

This is what I meant by the distinction between moral and practical. Replacing a non-free government with a free one is always moral, but whether or not it is practical depends on the circumstances.

54

This is what I meant by the distinction between moral and practical. Replacing a non-free government with a free one is always moral, but whether or not it is practical depends on the circumstances.

Okay. If this is the sense in which you meant it then we are in complete agreement. My point in emphasizing the moral as the practical was to forestall any implication of pragmatism, which flies the flag of “practicality” without it being attached to a pole of principled morality.

55

Replacing a non-free government with a free one is always moral, but whether or not it is practical depends on the circumstances.

Replacing a non-free government with a free one would be moral if it served our self-interest.

If let us say, replacing the government resulted in the loss of a large amount of life, we have to see whether not taking such a step would result in an even bigger loss in the long term.

If it does, then it would be moral and practical to set up a new government.

Otherwise it would be neither moral nor practical.

Okay. If this is the sense in which you meant it then we are in complete agreement. My point in emphasizing the moral as the practical was to forestall any implication of pragmatism, which flies the flag of “practicality” without it being attached to a pole of principled morality

I don’t understand your point here. Isn’t the moral always the practical.

Could you please elaborate further?

56

Replacing a non-free government with a free one would be moral if it served our self-interest.

I do not think there is any disagreement here. I take Oakes as saying that we always have a moral right to overthrow a non-rights-respecting government, but whether we exercise that moral right or not is a choice depending on our evaluation of the circumstances.

I don’t understand your point here. Isn’t the moral always the practical.

Could you please elaborate further?

Yes, as I said more than once, the moral is the practical. I am here contrasting that fact to pragmatism which, as a philosophical doctrine, advocates the “practical” without ever establishing the moral base that would truly make actions practical. In other words, pragmatism as a philosophical doctrine advocates whatever “works” but it never establishes a code of values based on its standard. In a sense, pragmatism is amoral.