Time To Fight The Real War

Current Events
21

When supporting these wars, it’s not only important to keep in mind what should be done, but also what will be done.

For instance, if we go to war against Iran, we’ll probably pussy-foot around any aggressive manuveur, apologize for all the things we should be doing, and generally not run the war well. Afterwards, we’ll try to nation build with some bs democracy in a population of ethnic groups and religious fanaticism (generally speaking).

Yes, we should go to war if it’s done properly, but since it won’t be done properly, i say we wait around and hope that nothing bad happens before everyone reads and understands Ayn Rand. Tracinski puts too much trust in our government.

22

At first, depleted uranium is mainly a compound of Uranium 235, 238 and 239. The highly radioactive Uranium 235 is reduced to less than 0,5% (according to the Pentagon about 0,2% is used for weaponry).

Although, due to its mixture, depleted uranium does only have 60% radioactivity of natural uranium one has to remember that natural uranium is found as traces in the ground and not as dust or in form of chunks as it is the case with depleted uranium when used as weaponry.

In addition, due to its origin (industrial waste), the depleted uranium of today’s munitions contain traces of plutonium, neptunium, and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236.

When used in combat shells vaporize they become Uranium Oxide which is much harder for the body to excrete. In addition depleted uranium in form of small particles are radiologically more relevant as its short range alpha radiation is no longer shielded.

In total about 300+ tons in 1991, 500+ tons in Afghanistan and 2000+ tons in 2003 were used. The main problem of this is that it is impossible to clean. A large part of it won’t go away for the next few million years. Studies already show a sharp increase of birth defects and health problems in all the regions were DU munition was used.

After the bombing campaigns in 2003 radiation detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere. Do you believe the officials that this was a coincidence ( :smiley: )? We are living on one planet, what happens in Iraq does affect us (well, Europe for now, the US later), too.

The reason why DU is used (besides its combat characteristics) is that we simply have a lot of it as a waste product of nuclear energy. In total about 1mio tons world wide are waiting to be used for weaponry as it has nearly no other use.

For all people here who cry out for war I strongly suggest reading again the chapter “The Wreckage of the Consensus” in CTUI.

@Regis:

Well, oil is traded in dollars. To get dollars countries have to trade with the US.

What is your explanation that oil-exporting America-haters like Venezuela, Iraq and Iran all have either switched (Iraq 2000, Iran 2006) to or want to switch to Euro (Venezuela)?

And no, I do not think that this was the reason for the war. I just stated that the monetary aspect of the oil trading is a major factor in the US economy compared to the non-existant threat of terrorism from these countries or ‘WMDs’ for that matter.

And no, I’m no ‘leftist’ just because I am against the war with Iran/Iraq. I embraced objectivism because of its foundation of non-initiation of force and the use of force only as a retaliation. My opinion is that if you agree with the wars in Iran you consequently have to imprison all people in the US with a gun, too. They could shoot you.

About your comment

“I don’t know about you, but if a man threatens to kill me and others like him have shown they are willing to die to make it happen I take it seriously.”

I agree with you. But this is/was not the case, where did Iran/the leaders of Iran threaten you? And what is your definition of “others like him”? If you are white and 9 of 10 blacks in your village were convicted of murder (bad example, but I hope you see my point) would you imprison the 10th, too?

23

And no, I’m no ‘leftist’ just because I am against the war with Iran/Iraq. I embraced objectivism because of its foundation of non-initiation of force and the use of force only as a retaliation. My opinion is that if you agree with the wars in Iran you consequently have to imprison all people in the US with a gun, too. They could shoot you.

Remember the hostages taken on the US embassy in Iran? The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut? The hostages taken in Lebanon? The bombing of the Khobar towers? Plus assorted murderers of American civilians?

This was all done by Iran, or by groups backed by Iran. It’s high time America retaliated.

24

Not only that but the leaders’ in Iran have *repeatedly* called for the death and destruction of American’s, Israeli’s, the United States, and Israel. I’m not going to waste my time finding and quoting sources because they are easily assesiable to anyone with a t.v., newspaper, or the internet. Unless one evades these threats as “just threats” also evading the fact that *making threats* IS an initiation of force. The mushroom cloud over Jerusulem or New York is simply the completion of that force.

If a madman was sitting outside your house screaming that he wants to kill you and God told him to it and will reward him for it, all the while constructing the bomb to do it, would you think it is wrong to call the SWAT team in to take him out or would this somehow be an immoral initiation of force to you?

25

What is needed is objective foreign policy, something clear and simple and makes sense: if you have WMD or are trying to get them and we have reson to believe you may use them for aggression, we will come in and remove that capability. No excuses, no pandering. A clear standard of evidence to make the decision and the application of overwhelming force if it comes to that.

Specifically for Iran: 1. they are enriching uranium, they have no need for it as an energy source thus the goal is a weapon. 2. they have openly stated that their object is to destroy Israel and they refer to America as “the great satan”. The objective evidence is there, they are a threat.

Objective evidence. By “no need,” do you mean that they serve no benefit from nuclear tech, or that they can subsist without it? And you are distinguishing American calls for the destruction of Iran as non-aggression (necessary in order to exclude America from being the target of a similar policy?)

It is fully within our rights to attack *ANY* nation at *ANY* time with or without provacation, IF we feel doing so is in our self-interest AND said nation’s government is a violator of rights.

Are you saying this is Americans’ right, or a right that applies to the people of *any* nation (to attack *any*one if they feel it’s in their best interest and the attacked nation violates *any*body’s rights?

A joyous and jubilant nation would have awoken to breaking news that the entire Middle East had been turned into a smoldering glowing radioactive wasteland over night, if I had been President. And hey we’d have the perfect place to store our spent radioactive waste right now and we would own most of the world’s oil reserves right now. :wink:

Thank god for small favors.

*Making threats* IS an initiation of force.

To whatever extent that is true, what is the proper response to someone who makes a threat? Monitoring? Neutralizing thier capacity to threaten? Destroying them?

26

Are you saying this is Americans’ right, or a right that applies to the people of *any* nation (to attack *any*one if they feel it’s in their best interest and the attacked nation violates *any*body’s rights?

It’s any free nations right when threatened by a tyranical state.

Thank god for small favors.

Yep thank God. :santa: Or his Christmas helper.

To whatever extent that is true, what is the proper response to someone who makes a threat? Monitoring? Neutralizing thier capacity to threaten? Destroying them?

It depends on how serious the threat is. Threats involving destruction of our nation by them and nuclear weapons require complete immediate destruction of capacity to act on that threat. Sorry but I don’t like when madman walk around with a loaded gun pointed at my head sceaming God sent them to kill me.

27

Objective evidence. By “no need,” do you mean that they serve no benefit from nuclear tech, or that they can subsist without it? And you are distinguishing American calls for the destruction of Iran as non-aggression (necessary in order to exclude America from being the target of a similar policy?)

Iran’s stated aim with their nuclear facilities is to produce energy. They can produce all the energy with oil for a fraction of the cost ergo their stated aim is false. Coupled with their outspoken purpose of destroying Israel and America, one can properly conclude their nuclear research is intended to produce a weapon. One can also properly conclude that they would use such a weapon to achieve their goals.

mrocktor

28

Regardless of current Iranian intent, any technology that can easily be developed into military use within a span of a few years should be denied them. The current Iranian government is an illegitimate bunch of thugs. They cannot be allowed the potential to become a threat.

29

They can produce all the energy with oil for a fraction of the cost ergo their stated [energy] aim is false. Coupled with their outspoken purpose of destroying Israel and America, one can properly conclude their nuclear research is intended to produce a weapon. One can also properly conclude that they would use such a weapon to achieve their goals.

What principle are we endorsing? That is, we’re saying that under circumstances X involving nation Y, it is right for us to attack Y. I would presume that if this is a principle, it equally applies to any other nation, and that it is wrong to attack America, because we don’t commit circumstance X.

Yet I would assume you wouldn’t agree that it would be just for the US to be attacked by Iran on the basis that we don’t “need” nuclear power and Bush has threatened them?

If there is no principle (international anarchy?) then besides not being objective, it’s a poor strategy that involves eternally watching an increasing number of enemies (no principles, no one’s safe from us) and hoping to rehit them before they get the nerve to seek revenge for increasing unprincipled attacks.

Regardless of current Iranian intent, any technology that can easily be developed into military use within a span of a few years should be denied them. The current Iranian government is an illegitimate bunch of thugs. They cannot be allowed the potential to become a threat.

I largely agree. I just like to know that policies are principled, and not anarchic schemes to hit anybody, everybody who looks at us wrong.

30

The principle here is that it is our governments only job to protect our rights and when threats are made against this nations citizens right to life by another nations dictator and his cronies, then it is the governments job to eliminate that threat. The principle here is Capitalism 101.

31

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

32

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them – aggressive or otherwise – is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever. They have no right to exist as they do. It does not matter that the dictatorship might have been voted into power, even if we assume that the vote was free and unmanipulated. What matters is the extent of their immorality as a government.

33

Well and fine, but then you agree with Iran acting on this principle and attacking us?

If you drop context (i.e. a relatively rights respecting, democratically elected, mostly secular government versus a rights violating theocratic dictatorship), yes. You would also have to drop the fact that *they* are the ones making threats and who’s religion demands the destruction of all free countries in the world (i.e. initiated force).

Evade, evade, evade the ugly reality.

mrocktor

34

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them – aggressive or otherwise – is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever.

Any action they take is wrong in principle?

Suppose Anna beats up somone. She is subdued on the principle that it is moral to defend oneself against initiated force, and life requires adherence to this principle. Anna makes bond and goes home. Her neighbor Joe Jack fears Anna will kill him that night, so Joe Jack breaks into Anna’s house and attempts to kill Anna. Amusing insinuations and parallels aside, is Anna right in calling the police, and subduing Joe Jack if they don’t arrive in time - acting on the principle?

If she’s right, it would be immoral in fact to prevent her from acting on the principle.

If she is wrong in acting according to the principle, then can she ever become moral again?

If you drop context (i.e. a relatively rights respecting, democratically elected, mostly secular government versus a rights violating theocratic dictatorship), yes. You would also have to drop the fact that *they* are the ones making threats and who’s religion demands the destruction of all free countries in the world (i.e. initiated force).

The context should be a part of the principle. Taking what EC said, the principle would seem to be:

It is moral to attack nation X that threatens us and violates a single person’s rights.

Adding your “context,” it would seem to be:

It is moral to attack nation X that threatens us and violates a relative (?) number of persons’ rights.

If anything, I would think your context makes it less objective, not only with the inclusion of the nebulous “relative,” but also in implying that American threats against Iran “aren’t really threats.”

35

The context should be a part of the principle.

Would you explain this? Why do you think the context for a principle should be part of the principle? Even more puzzling is: How can the context for a principle be part of the principle?

Perhaps stating an example – principle with context – would make your point clear.

36

Explain? Sure. Rationality is the primary principle of human survival. Under what contexts is rationality not a virtue?

Perhaps my statement must be taken in the right context also; at any rate, I agree ahead of time that all context is not a part of the principle.

In terms of my response to mrocktor, it was said (not directly by him) that the principle behind an attack on Iran is that we’re justified if they’re threatening us and they violate rights - things which could easily apply against us. mrocktor said that this was ignoring the context of Iran’s relatively higher violation of rights and their threats being more valid than American threats.

I agree that there are some contexts which are not part of the principle, but “relatively higher” and “valid” threat are either subjective contexts or objective (e.g. violates freedom of speech, specifically saying they’ve not took using nukes off the table) and thus should more properly IMO be a part of the principle.

37

Rationality is the primary principle of human survival.

Perhaps my failure to understand your explanation is due to my not knowing what you mean by “principle.” What is a “principle” as you are using the term? In particular, how do you see a principle differing from a concept – such as “rationality”?

Then, with that established, perhaps you could show how context is part of a principle – an assertion still not clear to me.

38

Not the current government of Iran. They are illegitimate and any action by them – aggressive or otherwise – is wrong in principle. They have no right to take any action of any kind whatsoever.

What I meant is that they have no right to take any action any action of any kind whatsoever, _ qua government _. They are not a legitimate government.

I’m not sure how your Anna example applies, but if North Korea were to invade Iran, neither would have any rights to attack or defend the other. Rights are a mechanism that allows people to live without the initiation of force. Two gangs engaged in a gang-war have no rights _ qua gang _. They can easily gain rights: they just have to start accepting rights.

39

They can easily gain rights: they just have to start accepting rights.

,

Sorry but I have to question this statements validity. If the Nazi’s had suddenly started “accepting” rights after killing millions of people, would they have then somehow have then gained legitimacy?

40

If the Nazi’s had suddenly started “accepting” rights after killing millions of people, would they have then somehow have then gained legitimacy?

What would you propose as an alternative way of obtaining “legitimacy” for a formerly aggressive state?