umm. Could you walk me through this plot that makes bankers rich in the face of chaos?
You did not understand the point about deliberately facilitating terrorism vs. not managing to succeed at stopping terrorism. Do you have a clear idea what part of the distinction eludes you?
I do. You seem to be saying that we should tolerate and/or wait until a terrorist-hunting nation has actually failed :nuke: before defensively acting to stop a threat within said nation. But this is strangely difficult to get ahold of and clearly eludes me given that
Defensive actions do not have to wait for a first strike.
Threats should not be tolerated.
If you would, please explain in further detail.
the assumption that [foreign] people believe that they will not meet ruin if they donât threaten the US
Are you implying that this is an invalid assumption?
In short, yes. Giving up some threats would itself be considered ruinous to a foreign nation. And preventing ruin doesnât necessarily coincide with abiding by what the US says constitutes a threat, given that not all threats are explicitly stated to be threats.
[Are you implying]that the U.S. has a history of ruining nations that do not threaten it?
Hmm. That wasnât my intention.
I think people will start to get a clue when the bombing starts.
:nuke: I imagine so, but how is realizing that there are potentially other unstated trigger points going to make foreign nations not trigger the unstated trigger points?
The proper course of action is for the German government to control terrorism within its borders⌠Germanyâs rare failure to be perfect is no proof that they are using terrorism as a means of covertly destroying the US. Tell me what part of that you donât understand.
Why would Germanyâs intentions matter in a case of not neutralizing a threat to us?
The proper course of action is for the German government to control terrorism within its borders, and it does do so, even if it is not omniscient. The Iranian of Talibanian governments are entirely unlike the German government, in this respect. Germanyâs rare failure to be perfect is no proof that they are using terrorism as a means of covertly destroying the US. Tell me what part of that you donât understand.
I think you have misunderstood my point. I am not debating whether Germany is as morally blameworthy as Iran in terms of facilitating terrorism. What I am trying to figure out is how you plan to define âdefensiveâ vs. âoffensiveâ military action. The reason I brought up Berlin was not in the context of whether or not nuking Germany qua Germany is moral, but whether it is âdefensiveâ to nuke three terrorists who just happen to be located in Berlin, such that the fallout and explosion of the bomb will kill millions of German civilians.
The same is of course true in nuking Tehran, based on how I interpret your moral framework. If military action in response to a percieved threat to the US is always defensive, and defensive military action is always moral, then nuking Berlin is just as moral as nuking Tehran. The only difference is the number of innocent bystanders turned to cinders.
umm. Could you walk me through this plot that makes bankers rich in the face of chaos?
Conventional war keeps the money flowing in the international economy. Arms deals, money laundering, drug cartels, and the chaos that keeps international relations in a certain precarious balance, all work to benefit the world bankers in ways that they understand.
Some snippets of news that indicate this is so:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is on its way to brokering about $20 billion in arms sales in the fiscal year that began October 1, steady with last yearâs near-record total, the
Pentagon official responsible for such sales said on Monday.
âWeâre forecasting in the $20 billion rangeâ for fiscal 2007, Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington.
In fiscal 2006, which ended on September 30, foreign military sales notified to Congress reached $20.9 billion, nearly double the $10.6 billion the previous year.
Last yearâs total was second only to 1993, which topped $30 billion, swollen by sales to the Middle East after the first
Gulf War.
I think this quote sums up the bankersâ sentiments on war:
âThe best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.â
-Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild
You seem to be saying that we should tolerate and/or wait until a terrorist-hunting nation has actually failed :nuke: before defensively acting to stop a threat within said nation. But this is strangely difficult to get ahold of and clearly eludes me given that
If you would, please explain in further detail.
This is extremely simple. Nuking a nation is just when that government has systematically failed in its function, by policy, and has gone rogue in attacking other nations. Those are the nations which deserve to be terminated with extreme prejudice. A government which is carrying out its proper functionis different, and such a nation should not be so terminated.
This is extremely simple. Nuking a nation is just when that government has systematically failed in its function, by policy, and has gone rogue in attacking other nations. Those are the nations which deserve to be terminated with extreme prejudice. A government which is carrying out its proper functionis different, and such a nation should not be so terminated.
I think the problem here is that Vladimir and hunterrose are uninformed about the nature and actions of the Iranian Regime.
Think of the Kremlin 40 years ago, training commi-busy-bodies and sendning them all over the world. Letâs say some of those busy-bodies were sent to America to hijack airplanes and fly them into our buildings. We would rightly consider it an attack from Moscow.
Iran trains terrorists and pays large sums to other governments so they can do the same. I know the media isnât talking much about it, but Ted Koppel recently had a special air on Discovery Channel called âIran: the Most Dangerous Nationâ and if Ted Koppel knows about the threat, you can bet the sluggish CIA knows.
But the average man on the street (or thread) is dangerously clueless.
Brandon
Conventional war keeps the money flowing in the international economy. Arms deals, money laundering, drug cartels, and the chaos that keeps international relations in a certain precarious balance, all work to benefit the world bankers in ways that they understand.
This is the âbroken windowâ theory. Basically that desctruction is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Henry Hazlitt dispenses this thought in the first chaper of Economics in One Lesson.
Any banker who understand basic economics knows that this is not true; that in general, the economy is always worsened by destruction. Yes, there may be opportunists out there who can profit, but only in a very narrow sphere of economics. So to hypothesize that a small cartel of bankers who controls things would want war is contradictory. If the cartel is small enough and powerful enough, then they are heavily invested âin peaceâ, i.e. most of their wealth is in the peaceful sector of the economy which is by far the largest. If they can profit from war, across their portfolio, then their portfolio is not large enough to make them powerful enough to control anything.
I agree with what Kendall said, but wanted to address the specific quote:
The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.
This quote uses blood metaphorically. The idea is that the really big buying opportunities come, not when everyone else thinks its time to buy and bids up prices, but when people on average are irrationally selling as if doomsday is around the corner. The quote is just a way of saying âbuy when prices have hit rock bottom and everyone believes theyâre going to stay there foreverâ.
Aside: The âbroken windowâ is now sometimes used as a different metaphor: if one takes care of the small things (like broken windows) they have a larger than expected impact [as was supposedly the case with Gulianiâs approach to crime in NYC].
I think the problem here is that Vladimir and hunterrose are uninformed about the nature and actions of the Iranian Regime.
Think of the Kremlin 40 years ago, training commi-busy-bodies and sendning them all over the world. Letâs say some of those busy-bodies were sent to America to hijack airplanes and fly them into our buildings. We would rightly consider it an attack from Moscow.
Iran doesnât train the sunni al-qaida or taliban. Their relationship is not very good.
looking at a timeline right now, if this info is accurate:
1995 Sept: Iran warns Taliban not to cross its border.
1997: Taliban close Iranian Embassy in Kabul
sept: Iran, Russia, and France accused by Taliban of helping opposition
1998 Aug: Taliban seize Mazar-i-Sharif: eleven Iranian diplomates killed
Allegation by Aytollah Khomeini of plot against Iran by Taliban. Tensions high between Taliban and Iran.
sept: Iran sends 70,000 troops to border with Afghanistan to carry out war games
Tensions escalate between Iran and Taliban: Iran declares it must protect its citizens. Restraint urged by United States
Taliban send 30,000 troops to border with Iran
Oct: Iran violates Herat airspace. War games involving 200,000 Iranian troops begin
1999 May: Joint statement by Iran and Uzbekistan to challenge any takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban
Taliban crush rebellion in Herat. Taliban accuse Iran of arming rebels.
Have there been iranian backed terrorist attacks on the USA?
On Americaâs allies? Israel for sure, not sure if Iraq and Lebanon count as allies.
A government which is carrying out its proper function is different, and such a nation should not be so terminated.
I (and Vladimir?) are saying that your definitions of âthreatâ and âdefensive actionâ make it a moral (qua defensive) act to obliterate the German terrorists that Germany has not yet contained. You are arguing that, while implicitly agreeing that we have the right to, there are reasons why we shouldnât deal with the German terrorists in some ways.
I imagine that everyone here agrees that we shouldnât deal with the German terrorists in some ways, but my point is that you hold it to be within US rights to nuke the German terrorists regardless on whether nuking was ultimately done.
Vladimir and hunterrose are uninformed
The average man on the street (or thread) is dangerously clueless.
You must love irony as much as I do.
The âproblemâ is that I think nuking Tehran is a situation based on a premise that affects far, far more entities than merely the US and the Iranian Regime, and that has more long-term consequences than you may think.
I (and Vladimir?) are saying that your definitions of âthreatâ and âdefensive actionâ make it a moral (qua defensive) act to obliterate the German terrorists that Germany has not yet contained. You are arguing that, while implicitly agreeing that we have the right to, there are reasons why we shouldnât deal with the German terrorists in some ways.
I imagine that everyone here agrees that we shouldnât deal with the German terrorists in some ways, but my point is that you hold it to be within US rights to nuke the German terrorists regardless on whether nuking was ultimately done.
I suggest, first, that you speak for yourself and not take the blame for Berkovâs mistakes. And furthermore, donât take my definition of threat and defensive action, use those words literally, plus everything else that you know about morality and rights. Now explain the proposed situation â something about terrorists plotting in Germany â and what the moral course of action would be, as far as you can tell. Make your argument explicit, and I will be happy to tell you where your argument goes astray, if it does. At some point we might get into a highly refined discussion of whether the initiation of force completely renders the concept of morality null and void, but I donât think that would be the first thing to discuss.
I can only think of three reasons why we shouldnât nuke Iran:
-
Itâll cost too much
-
Its not necessary (ok, maybe this is 1.5)
-
I know people who live in the outskirts of Tehran, and I donât want them dead.
My Justifications:
-
Making a nuclear bomb is expensive. It requires a lot of time, resources, and energy to make a bomb. Moreover, its very difficult to make one given the current political climate, and it will be too risky in case we ever need to use them against China (or another large, powerful country).
-
The US has a large supply of conventual weapons. Why use nukes, when we can use Napalm, and other bombs to do the same thing. We should use nukes against those who propose an airthreat, not those like Iran (yet).
-
This is purely selfish, and shouldnât be factored in, all things considered.
So to answer the question: No, I canât come up with 5 reason why we shouldnât nuke Tehran (but I think I came up with two very good reasons though)
This is the âbroken windowâ theory. Basically that desctruction is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Henry Hazlitt dispenses this thought in the first chaper of Economics in One Lesson.
Any banker who understand basic economics knows that this is not true; that in general, the economy is always worsened by destruction. Yes, there may be opportunists out there who can profit, but only in a very narrow sphere of economics. So to hypothesize that a small cartel of bankers who controls things would want war is contradictory. If the cartel is small enough and powerful enough, then they are heavily invested âin peaceâ, i.e. most of their wealth is in the peaceful sector of the economy which is by far the largest. If they can profit from war, across their portfolio, then their portfolio is not large enough to make them powerful enough to control anything.
That wouldnât seem to rule out influence, however, if not control. A firm or group of investors which is heavily invested in or has the capital to produce essential war goods would easily see how a war would be to their great advantage due to government contracts. These firms (ala Krupp) would not be in a position to control the government, but they would control enough money to be able to contribute heavily to politicians and thus win favor for those who might start a war and then give them vital contracts.
That wouldnât seem to rule out influence, âŚ
It does not rule out influence âin theoryâ; but we see none. Experience shows that â at least in western countries â such influence has almost exclusively been applied to have one type of weapon system be chosen over a competitorâs, and not to start or provoke the use of those weapon systems.
I can only think of three reasons why we shouldnât nuke Iran:
Itâll cost too much
Its not necessary (ok, maybe this is 1.5)
I know people who live in the outskirts of Tehran, and I donât want them dead.
My Justifications:
- Making a nuclear bomb is expensive. It requires a lot of time, resources, and energy to make a bomb. Moreover, its very difficult to make one given the current political climate, and it will be too risky in case we ever need to use them against China (or another large, powerful country).
âŚ
We donât have to make the bomb - we have thousands of them stockpiled, and I mean thousands.
Also, I know people who live in Manhattan, and I donât want them dead. I know people who live in Israel, and I donât want them dead. Screw people who are putting up with the regime in Iran - they deserve to die and canât complain when self-defensive American bombs begin to rain down. And if theyâre freedom-fighters, trying to topple the Iranina regime, then they certainly wouldnât blame us for defending ourselves against their corrupt government (and culture).
Brandon
We donât have to make the bomb - we have thousands of them stockpiled, and I mean thousands.
Also, I know people who live in Manhattan, and I donât want them dead. I know people who live in Israel, and I donât want them dead. Screw people who are putting up with the regime in Iran - they deserve to die and canât complain when self-defensive American bombs begin to rain down. And if theyâre freedom-fighters, trying to topple the Iranina regime, then they certainly wouldnât blame us for defending ourselves against their corrupt government (and culture).
Brandon
I agree. Itâs us or them. We need to use the most effective weapon, while balancing the impact of possible reprisals from other nations. That is a difficult challenge, because, unlike WWII, we are no longer the soul possessor of nuclear weapons.
Just as a note, I got denounced over in OL by Barbara Branden herself for touting the âfrantic ARI viewâ. There are many âsensitiveâ Objectivists who seem to support the current Bush party line, which makes me quite ill just to think that they would favor letting more American soldiers die so that this religious cultâs âinnocent civiliansâ can live.
Donât take my definition of threat and defensive action, use those words literally, plus everything else that you know about morality and rights.
Why?
Now explain the proposed situation â something about terrorists plotting in Germany â and what the moral course of action would be, as far as you can tell. Make your argument explicit, and I will be happy to tell you where your argument goes astray, if it does.
Iâll put the argument as
- A âgoodâ nation (e.g. the US) has the right to (and necessity of) defensive actions against threats
- It is the responsibility of a nation X to neither threaten other good nations nor allow (by inefficacy or intent) good nations to be threatened by parties within X
- If X has not succeeded in this responsibility, a good nation has the right to act (qua defense) against the threat of or within X
As far as I can tell, the moral course of action is, for a good nation, to defend itself against threats.
The situation, as presented by Vladimir, wasnât specific, nor IMO did it need to be. That said, if youâre asking for something a little more detailed, I might use
Terrorists collect key nuke components (personnel, raw material, technology, etc) within Germany. World authorities (German and otherwise) realize this when the terrorists take an airport hostage and kidnap (among others) the German Chancellor and his daughter in the process. The terrorists demand passage, escourted by German fighters, to Iran. Germany, after horribly bungling one rescue attempt, believes it better to attempt to take out the terrorists in Iran (conveniently after they get their Chancellor and other hostages back.) The US strongly disagrees with this strategy, and believes its most effective defensive act is to neutralize the terrorists before they leave the ground.
Or I could just go find the plot for Metal Gear Solid 4 and post it here 
Iâll put the argument as
- A âgoodâ nation (e.g. the US) has the right to (and necessity of) defensive actions against threats
- It is the responsibility of a nation X to neither threaten other good nations nor allow (by inefficacy or intent) good nations to be threatened by parties within X
- If X has not succeeded in this responsibility, a good nation has the right to act (qua defense) against the threat of or within X
As far as I can tell, the moral course of action is, for a good nation, to defend itself against threats.
These three points are generally correct. The one fuzzy area pertains the existing world-anarchy that we live in, where there is no government that protects everyoneâs rights. For example, if you discover that a guy in the apartment across the street from you is planning to break into your place, you do not have the right to blow up his apartment building as a form of self defense. Rather, you must call upon the police who will then take appropriate action. So the initial failure of the government to prevent this threat against you does not absolve you of the obligation to inform the police and let them be the users of force. Similarly, if it is discovered that someone in Berlin is talking about blowing up a building in New York, that does not make it morally right to shout âWoo-hoo! A-bomb city, here we come!â and toast a few million Germans. The right response, when you have knowledge that a person is planning to violate someoneâs rights, is to inform the cogent authorities, so for Berlin that would be Berliner Polizei or the Deutchebundegeheimealgemeinesstadtssicherheirtsuntersuchungsabteilung (or something like that), and it is not right, even for the US government, to nuke Berlin because some person in Berlin talked about attacking the US and the German authorities did not prevent this talk in advance.
So thatâs the answer as far as the non-specific version is concerned, and if youâre considering only a vague, no-context version of âplotting in Berlinâ, this is an example of how the monopoly on the use of force applies. The Germans have a monopoly on the use of force in Germany, the English have a monopoly on the use of force in England, and so on. I canât address your particular hypothetical about the German Chancellor and âhis daughterâ (since she has no children), and itâs based on what I believe to be an entirely unreal assumption, that the Germans would rather let the terrorists escape that risk any lives. I am not sure such a putative quandry could arise (if, indeed, I understand at all what youâre trying to say).
The reason why you shouldnât try to deduce a consequence of my position is that you donât understand my position, so the deduction would be wrong. Rather that chase a flock of wild geese, I thought it would be best to get you to put forth the best argument that you can that the US should nuke Berlin if there is any talk of terrorism.
The right response, when you have knowledge that a person is planning to violate someoneâs rights, is to inform the cogent authorities, so for Berlin that would be Berliner Polizei.
The Germans have a monopoly on the use of force in Germany, the English have a monopoly on the use of force in England, and so on.
If weâre only talking about Germansâ rights being violated, Iâd agree that putting the ball in the hands of Berlin is the right response, and that we have an obligation (if not to inform them, then at least) not to physically impose ourselves.
If Americansâ rights are being violated by groups within Germany, but we ascertain that Germany can and will take care of the threat properly, then thatâs well and fine, too.
On the other hand, given the world-anarchy and the fact that the Polizei do not have the obligation to (or just will not?) protect Americans at the expense of Germans, I donât think it correct to imply that the Germans must be appealed to and depended upon regarding the violation of our rights by intra-German groups.
She has no children, and itâs based on what I believe to be an entirely unreal assumption, that the Germans would rather let the terrorists escape than risk any lives.
No wonder the writers for 24 didnât give me a callback :o 
The reason why you shouldnât try to deduce a consequence of my position is that you donât understand my position.
Is your position that the US ought not use defensive force within a foreign nation that has unsuccessfully contained a threat to the US?
⌠I donât think it correct to imply that the Germans must be appealed to and depended upon regarding the violation of our rights by intra-German groups.
Is this just âas an exampleâ or are you saying that Germany in particular will not act if the US points to terrorists there who are preparing to attack the US?