Hi, here is the latest Yaron Brook’s call to action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjxZAwVwLAc
It’s not the first time i hear him saying that USA should declare war on Iran.
I like what he says about other things, but here i have to disagree. It is easy for a guy who sits comfortably in his office to say - go and crush our enemies. However war is the hell on earth and i would never agree with the war initiation.
So, is this war propaganda compatible with Objectivism or it is just ARI lies?
I like what he says about other things, but here i have to disagree. It is easy for a guy who sits comfortably in his office to say - go and crush our enemies. However war is the hell on earth and i would never agree with the war initiation.
Iran started the war long ago, when it kidnapped the staff of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. It continued the war backing terrorist actions agsint America and her allies through the past 30 years. Now it’s developing atomic weapons. So there is ample moral reason to take the war to iran.
So, is this war propaganda compatible with Objectivism or it is just ARI lies?
You might want to read some Objectivist writing on aggressor nations and pacifism: Objectivism is not at all compatible with pacifism.
It is easy for a guy who sits comfortably in his office to say - go and crush our enemies.
Ad hominem.
war is the hell on earth
Typically liberal attempt at passing off a metaphor as valid argument.
So, is this war propaganda compatible with Objectivism or it is just ARI lies?
Loaded question.
Until you have any arguments to bring to the table (if you even know to distinguish logic from the fallacious arguments you’ve enchanted us with so far), Yaron Brook’s position is the only argumented position on a rational course of action regarding Iran, mentioned in this thread.
Your position, in contrast to that, is strictly dogmatic. Not only have you not brought arguments to defend your pacifism, you declared that it is to be assumed correct as is, you have no need for any arguments.
Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
I wouldn’t be so hasty to walk away from learning about Objectivism just over this. I think the point of disagreement between you and Jake/David is exactly who is initiating the aggression, and that’s the point you need to focus on.
That said, not everyone on this board necessarily agrees with ARI’s position on foreign policy. I am one of those who sometimes does not and I have gotten into this argument with the hawks on the board before. But I still urge you to look carefully into the question of who exactly initiates the aggression because I agree with the others that it is the crucial point.
Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
You’re welcome. I’m also a computer programmer, and generally a fan of computers. There’s no doubt what the implications of that are for your future plans, what remains now is finding a fool proof way of getting rid of all pesky computer equipment in your home ASAP. My suggestions are either a woodchiper or an industrial grade shredder (you do have to disassemble it and shred one component at a time, but it’s worth the effort).
P.S. Once your done, I have some more bad news for you. I’m Caucasian, so if you are too, we already estblished that it can lead to war initiation, which means living is not for you. This will sound gruesome at first, but with the help of a friend and a stiff drink, the woodchipper you bought for the computer might just be up to this task as well. It’s quicker than you’d think.
P.S. Once your done, I have some more bad news for you. I’m Caucasian, so if you are too, we already estblished that it can lead to war initiation, which means living is not for you. This will sound gruesome at first, but with the help of a friend and a stiff drink, the woodchipper you bought for the computer might just be up to this task as well. It’s quicker than you’d think.
A brilliant and insightful analysis, unique in its quality and rare even in the annals of the internet.
You’re welcome. I’m also a computer programmer, and generally a fan of computers. There’s no doubt what the implications of that are for your future plans, what remains now is finding a fool proof way of getting rid of all pesky computer equipment in your home ASAP. My suggestions are either a woodchiper or an industrial grade shredder (you do have to disassemble it and shred one component at a time, but it’s worth the effort).
P.S. Once your done, I have some more bad news for you. I’m Caucasian, so if you are too, we already estblished that it can lead to war initiation, which means living is not for you. This will sound gruesome at first, but with the help of a friend and a stiff drink, the woodchipper you bought for the computer might just be up to this task as well. It’s quicker than you’d think.
It is very easy to refute your reply:
**ck off!
It is very easy to refute your reply:
**ck off!
Don’t take it personally. He alienates board regulars as well as newbies. His has been reported.
Don’t take it personally. He alienates board regulars as well as newbies. His has been reported.
Assuming participants have a sense of humor is not against forum rules, sorry. Being off topic is though.
Report received. Yes, Jake was not exactly polite, but threesixty was simply being irrational, so what kind of a response can you give to that? Also, since he was about to leave the forum anyway, I don’t think Jake’s response can be called alienating.
Jake isn’t wrong. The way I read it it sounded like making a sarcastic example that pretty much anything and everything has been used as a justification of war making… (perhaps especially seeking peace!, and certainly seeking peace at any cost).
I guess the point with regard to Iran is not who is the aggressor but what action is in the interest of, and what are the implications for the nation, now and in the future.
Establishing aggression is the easy part, the other is tougher.
Okay, I have some actual ideas to discuss.
What is the proper course of action, in terms of actual practical actions, that the US should take right now in terms of foreign policy?
Would you withdraw totally from Iraq and Afghanistan, and why?
Would you declare war on Iran, and why?
Would you send troops into Iran, or bombard it from the sky with everything it took to get an unconditional surrender, and why?
Would you occupy Iran afterwards, or engage in any nation-building? What would you do?
Would you withdraw all American troops from all or some foriegn countries?
What do you think of the old, classical liberal, “America First” foreign policy such as in the first 100 years of US history?
What does the phrase “Perpetual war for perpetual peace” mean to you and how does it apply to the mainstream political establishment of today, in respect to the current foreign policy?
Would you declare war on Iran, and why?
Would you send troops into Iran, or bombard it from the sky with everything it took to get an unconditional surrender, and why?
Would you occupy Iran afterwards, or engage in any nation-building? What would you do?
Maybe those should be merged with the 50 page Iran thread?
Actually, each of the other questions almost make separate topics themselves.
Jake isn’t wrong. The way I read it it sounded like making a sarcastic example that pretty much anything and everything has been used as a justification of war making
Sure, now that you put it that way. But it also might have been just an excuse to insert a mention of death by wood chipper into an unrelated conversation. What would be truly childish is if I now set out to do that four more times before the end of the month.
Sure, now that you put it that way. But it also might have been just an excuse to insert a mention of death by wood chipper into an unrelated conversation. What would be truly childish is if I now set out to do that four more times before the end of the month.
Betch’a can’t… Betch’er chicken 
:o
I was always unsure as to why Ayn Rand wanted War with Iraq over oil, and why many objectivists say so.
Accoridng to Ayn, Iraq stole the oil from us. When did they do that?
After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
It’s a shame you are quitting so soon. There are (at least) two problems with the reasoning you list in this response;
You say “IF” it leads to acceptance of war initiation which suggests you don’t know that it actually does lead to that… and you won’t because you are unwillingly to learn further.
IF Objectivism did lead to acceptance of war initiation, it might provide sound reasoning for doing so… which again you won’t know because you are unwilling to learn further.
In short, you are abandoning your learning of Objectivism prematurely. IF a philosophy presented a position to you which reflected reality, why would you not want to learn it? Simply because right now you hold a opposing viewpoint that you don’t want to abandon no matter what?
I was always unsure as to why Ayn Rand wanted War with Iraq over oil, and why many objectivists say so.
Accoridng to Ayn, Iraq stole the oil from us. When did they do that?
Back in the 1950’s.