Why be pro-American Foreign Policy?

Current Events
1

Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.”

With this in mind I have two questions:

  1. What makes you think that U.S intervention would make things better?

  2. Why is it that Objectivists routinely uphold that American foreign policy is morally superior to Muslim terrorists?

The reasons for my questions are as follows:

Rreasons for question 1:

Vietnam. Our intervention there killed lots and lots of people. Did things really get better? Same thing with our Latin American interventions during the 1980’s. How about the installation of a puppet government in Iran that was pretty brutal (The Shah)? We know how much Iranians loved that violation of their sovereignty right? They loved it so much that it became a rallying cry used to recruit terrorists and was the reason why Ayatollah Kohmeini was able to garner so much popular support (he was a political exile of the Shah’s regime).

More importantly, we are currently unable to prevent terrorists from entering via the Iraq-Syria border. We are also unable to protect Iraqi politicians and civilians from the terrorists. The security forces are also getting killed quite regularly. How would extending our current involvment in the Middle East be any better? Our troops are already stretched horribly as it is. There isn’t really any way to pull out of Iraq and have it NOT decend into a chaotic mess until it is stabalized which could take many years.

Reasons for question 2:

If one is claiming to be morally superior to brutal rapists, you can’t support rapists with money and weapons can you? People would think pretty poorly of me if I said “those morally inferior Christian people are such scum philosophically speaking and with how they treat their women” and then saw that I donated $10,000 to Billy Graham’s charity drive or was hob knobbing with Pat Robertson.

We claim to be superior to Muslim terrorists…but why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious fact that many of our actions support terrorism in 2 ways:

a) Actual funding, training, and weapons selling.

Has anyone forgotten Iran Contra? Yeah…we sold weapons to Iran. How about selling weapons to our OLD buddy Saddam Hussein. Or how training and financing the ISI which in turn passed on that training and funding to Islamic “freedom fighters” (read = Taliban) to help fight the Ruskies in Afghanistan? We are all aware that that training was quickly turned against us in the form of Al-Qaeda right? We call many of these regimes state sponsors of terror…so why are we superior as past sponsors of those states?

Anyone have the answer as to where Iran got it’s 5 megawatt reactor from for it’s Tehran Nuclear Research Center? If you guessed the United States you would be correct.

B- It seems to me that several actions of the United States could actually be equated with terrorist actions. (Gee whiz).

-Almost our entire Latin American foreign policy under Ronald Reagan, John Negroponte, and George H.W Bush during the 1980’s.

One shining example of this would be the mining of Managua in Nicaragua.

Another good one is that we were so freaked out about the Sandanistas (who were freely elected I might add) that we decided to sponsor a guerilla group to overthrow them. Turns out, those Sandanistas didn’t really require that. They lost elections in Feb 25th of 1990 and peacefully stepped down. Gee golly.

Or El Salvadorian/ Honduran death squads that were funded and trained by the United States that killed numerous civilians including Oscar Romero (a Catholic priest).

Or the CIA backed overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala (A communist) that thrust Guatemala into 36 years of Civil War and political unrest (100,000 casualties).

-Keeping the Saudi Royal family in power which is tacit support of a pretty repressive Islamic regime.

-The bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. Claimed by Clinton to have been making chemical weapons, it was actually the countries main source of malaria drugs and thousands of Sudanese civilians died as a result.

The justification was that there was EMPTA in the soil samples taken around the plant (which later turned out to be pretty blatantly false).

In careful subsequent testing of the site, no Empta was found. After exhaustive and systematic analysis of samples collected from various locations at Al Shifa, professor Thomas D. Tullius, chairman of the chemistry department at Boston University, declared in The New York Times that “in those samples, to the practical limits of scientific deduction, there was no Empta, or Empa, its breakdown product.”

My last question of the day is quite simple : If Objectivists recognize that the American government is a mixed bag (philosophically speaking) with often mixed results (both good and bad) then why the blatant jingoism and pro-America drum beating? Is it any real surprise that such mixed bag philosophies are applied with often poor results?

2

Oh no, not another libertarian! <_< We have been addressing this issue on who knows how many threads. Please do a search.

3

Oh no, not another libertarian! <_< We have been addressing this issue on who knows how many threads. Please do a search.

I’m not a libertarian in any way whatsoever, so drop the ad hominems.

From everything I have read TOC is a load of bunk that supports Christianity and a whole lot of of other nonsense. I never once advocated any anarcho-capitalist ideas (because they are stupid as Ayn Rand pointed out repeatedly). I believe 100% in the ideas of capitalism, government non-intervention in the lives of it’s citizens unless it is to punish some coercive act, atheism, the law of non-contradiction, the supremacy of reason, etc. Everything I have read about libertarianism strikes me as warped and misguided from Rothbardian Libertarianism all the way to the other mixed bag crap that is espoused in other circles. I’m not calling Israel terrorists or any other silly crap that libertarians do. Israel actually has some balls when fighting terrorists (or it least it used to. read = Entebbe) and doesn’t contribute to it’s own demise by providing its enemies with weapons and training. If anything, I see Israel as being the ideal model for the U.S to follow foreign policy wise. You don’t see them giving Iran light water nuclear reactors and wondering why they are now producing nuke weapons designed to hold the world hostage. I’m no Muslim apologist here. I think their philosophy is shit because it is predicated on blatant hatred of capitalism and is an anti-life philosophy that labels illogical behavior as man’s philosophical ideal. Didn’t we freeze Libya’s assets for Pan Am 103 because they were labeled a state sponsor of terror? They didn’t actually have any part of the operation, but they provided shelter to the people who funded and carried out the attack on an innocent jet liner. What about America who harbors people (government officials) who claim that they have a legitimate right to your money and a right to send it to the people who want to cut your throats like Nick Berg’s?I read the indictment of Islam under the member writing of this very forum and agree 100%. Islam IS shit and I wouldn’t be shedding any tears if every mullah received a bullet to their brain courtesy of the U.S government.The fact is though, I’m a big enough realist to realize that doing so would only further fuel the ranks of terrorists. What happens when you kill a Wesley Mouch? One more steps up in their place. Isn’t that all we are doing here? Why aren’t we shrugging and defending ourselves when there is an actual threat instead of playing the terrorist game. Why are my tax dollars going to rebuild one more crappy third world country when that money should be given straight back to the people who put it in and never taken out of our checks to begin with? Is it in my best interest to have one more unstable country for Al-Zarqawi to run free in? Is it in my best interest to fund policies that were ultimately misguided (For the love of reason, the CIA itself has admitted it’s intelligence and justification for going to war was 100% wrong).I know if asked I wouldn’t have sent a lightwater reactor to Iran. I also wouldn’t have funded a useless excursion into Iraq to get rid of Saddam and establish democracy (which wasn’t the original argument in the first place, it was WMD’s that haven’t turned up which is just another example of the mixed bag philosophy that is embodied in our government). Objectivism is a closed system. It has very set and defined parameters about what it is and what it isn’t. The same thing with the “trendy” people like Angelina Jolie who declare their interest for Objectivism and go work with the anti-Israeli United Nations. Ayn Rand was pro reason which meant she was pro-individualist by default because individualism is a necessary byproduct of reason and the nature of our metaphysical existence. People who go with Objectivism because “everyone else is” are rejecting the reality that Ayn Rand put a premium on reason. Thus, I don’t consider how one could be Objectivist and pro-American government at the same time. It strikes me as the same problem as people who take up Objectivism as a passing fad.

I’m asking an honest question here that is provoked by honest motives. I love Objectivism and what it stands for. I can’t stand perversions of it’s truth which is why I think libertarians are evil bastards. Objectivism says that A = A…no exceptions to that rule. When A appears to be not-A you have to check your premises because contradictions can’t exist.

That means that reality IS what it is. I see before me some established facts.

We HAVE funded terrorists and trained them. We DID topple several governments in Latin America because we thought they were all going to end up little USSR’s on our back doorstep (despite the fact that the average income in Honduras was $550 per year…but whatever). We DID sent a nuclear reactor to Tehran. We ARE negotiating with blackmailing bastards (the North Korean government).

If A is A and the facts are facts…then how can this be supported as something it isn’t? Are these actions not the product of a mixed bag philosophy?

This isn’t the work of an Objectivist government. It is a product of Liberal and Conservative governments.

Conservatives place a premium on laissez-fair capitalism and no premium on religious freedom/personal freedom to live an uncoerced life in the bedroomwhile Liberals place a premium on personal freedoms while denying economic rights that are necessary for things to actually work. They both suck.

How can a Conservative or Liberal government be supported by Objectivists or the actions produced by such governments? Aren’t they going to be as philosophically corrupted as the ideologies themselves?

Look at what would happen if the libertarians were in power. It would probably be the friggin’ end of the world because of their philosophical corruption.

Given established facts, how can such mixed bag trip be supported?

The fact that I’m asking the question doesn’t make me a damn libertarian. I want a real answer to a real question.

-Evan

4

Whoa! Rant much?

There are a lot of threads on this subject, for instance here and here, and, hell, there’s 25 pages if you search Iraq check for yourself here.

Have you Really read all of them and still feel that this question warrants a brand new thread?

I for one can’t answer your question, or am not interested enough to do so, but the longwinded rant caught my attention, so I’ll at least point you in the right direction, although CF already did that, even if you were offended by the comment.

5

Whoa! Rant much?

There are a lot of threads on this subject, for instance here and here, and, hell, there’s 25 pages if you search Iraq check for yourself here.

Have you Really read all of them and still feel that this question warrants a brand new thread?

I for one can’t answer your question, or am not interested enough to do so, but the longwinded rant caught my attention, so I’ll at least point you in the right direction, although CF already did that, even if you were offended by the comment.

  1. I wouldn’t classify my posts as a rant. I would classify it as warranting my assertions and explaining exactly why I was asking the questions. I find that intellectually dishonest people are unwilling to examine their own motives or explain them when pressed which is why I took excruciating pains to explain WHY I was asking the questions I was and to rebuke CF for making an unwarranted ad hominem about my personal political beliefs that had zero basis in reality.

  2. The second thread is nothing more than an analysis about a quote regarding Bush’s inaugural speech. Has really nothing to do with what I’m after.

The first thread is just discussing how viable Iraq is and my question wasn’t really addressed in any meaninful way on that thread either.

  1. The reason why I posed my questions in a whole new thread is because I don’t want to wade through 25 pages of stuff that is half non-sense and half irrelevant to the specific questions I have.

I want a specific answer to very specific question not a broad overarching “Is Iraq good or Iraq bad.”

6

Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.”

With this in mind I have two questions:

  1. What makes you think that U.S intervention would make things better?

  2. Why is it that Objectivists routinely uphold that American foreign policy is morally superior to Muslim terrorists?

…

When Objectivists are “pro-American” in foreign policy, it means they are for the national interests of the United States. “Pro-American” does NOT mean unqualified support of President Bush’s–or any administrations’s–foreign policy. You ought to read some of the political articles and essays written by Ayn Rand. In them you won’t find a single support of an administration’s foreign policy; in fact you’ll find vehement condemnation–but she was certainly very pro-American in foreign policy.

  1. Objectivists support different forms of “intervention”, as you should know. It ranges from outright destruction of governments that sponsor or harbor terrorists to a far more agressive military strategy followed by nation-building. It is NOT, however, anywhere near the policy currently practiced by the Bush administration. It is NOT at all the kind of intervention practiced and advocated by the presidential administrations over the last century, which has resulted in disaster.

  2. Much of US foreign poicy over the last 100 years has certainly been morally reprehensible, but in no instance was morally inferior to the Muslim terrorists. US foreign policy has resulted in some bloody blunders, and has sometimes inadvertently and indirectly fueled and supported certain despots and terrorists. But to say that it has been far more evil and immoral (in the some instances) than the actions of the terrorists is just appalling–especially coming from someone like you who knows the Objectivist ethics. Terrorists are deliberately out to kill Americans in particular because they hate America qua incarnation of capitalism. And I do not infer this from their actions–they say so themselves, in public speeches and published writings. How could that be in any way less immoral than US foreign policy?

7

Very good post Tom, I didn’t want to personally respond to a person who simultaneously stated he was an Objectivist and that American foriegn policy is more evil than terrorism.

8

Thanks for the reply, Tom. I appreciate you taking your time to make a cogent response.

Now on to your points:

When Objectivists are “pro-American” in foreign policy, it means they are for the national interests of the United States.

How does that translate into popular Objectivist support for the Iraq war or a lot of past policies that have turned into massive failures?

To me (correct me if I’m wrong)…being for the national interests of the United States translates to the following:

a) Full unqualified support for true laissez-fair capitalism.

:slight_smile: 100% refusal to make deals with terrorists, state sponsors of terrorists, or those that would seek to blackmail us with a nuclear stick (read = North Korea/Iran).

c) responding to national security threats both domestic and abroad.

I feel personally frusterated with the situation in the Middle East because it seems like such a Sisyphian (unsure of spelling) endeavor.

Sometimes at my most bitter I feel like the only way to really get anything done in that hell hole would be to just nuke the crap out of everyone there and start from scratch, though that is 100% morally repugnant.

There has to be some solution that allows us to protect ourselves and our national interests without sponsoring death squads and making deals with the devil. I look at Israel and wonder, “Why can’t we be more like them?” in terms of their policies towards terrorists.

In them you won’t find a single support of an administration’s foreign policy; in fact you’ll find vehement condemnation–but she was certainly very pro-American in foreign policy.

I’m aware of that. ARI seems to be coming out with “The Iraq war was moral and justified” press releases that seem to lack quite a bit in terms of substantive content which is what partially confuses me.

We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorist scum bags who hate our way of life. Why not go after them? Even liberal fat ass Mike Moore is asking the question in Playboy, “Why don’t we hire the Israelis to take out Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda members?.”

Iraq might have had terrorist training camps in it. To be honest, I haven’t seen that much in terms of compelling evidence either way. Who trained Al-Qaeda though?

It seems to me that we need to start being accountable for our mistakes and cleaning them up instead of just creating new ones.

ARI’s Peter Schwartz says " The Iraqis have long produced despotism. But instead of being morally confident in our right to establish a government that is no longer a threat to anyone–Iraqi or American–we are deferentially asking the Iraqis for permission to proceed. Afraid to offend them, we are reluctant to defend our interests and to uphold our values.

The fact is, they (along with many other countries) have been aided by America in producing those despots. Moreover, Leonard Peikoff said back in 1997 that Iraq shouldn’t have been Clinton’s target but rather Iran.

Iraq never WAS a threat to America. As far as establishing a government that isn’t a threat to Iraqis…while it may be a touching and charitable sentiment…it should not be funded by my tax money. If I had a dollar for every dictator and wanabee dictator that is out there, I would be rich. Should be be morally confident about our rights to establish governments that aren’t a threat to anyone except the American taxpayers that finance their demise when those puppet governments we establish aren’t asked for or wanted? Moreover, they often aren’t much better.

It seems like there isn’t full agreement on the Iraq war even among ARI, let alone Objectivists here.

Though ARI doesn’t give full unqualified support to American foreign policy and actually routinely criticizes it.

It just strikes me that many tout the fact that we have some moral right to be in Iraq and that is apalling to me. It wouldn’t be apalling if the group I was talking about wasn’t as smart and benevolent as it appears (the majority of this community).

I think that we would have a moral right to be in Iraq if Saddam wasn’t just full of hot air and actually posed a threat. He never did, though.

Much of US foreign poicy over the last 100 years has certainly been morally reprehensible, but in no instance was morally inferior to the Muslim terrorists.

I haven’t once said that it was morally inferior, just often on the same level.

US foreign policy has resulted in some bloody blunders, and has sometimes inadvertently and indirectly fueled and supported certain despots and terrorists.

and directly I might also add…

But to say that it has been far more evil and immoral (in the some instances) than the actions of the terrorists is just appalling–especially coming from someone like you who knows the Objectivist ethics. Terrorists

Easy there. Before putting words in my mouth, re-read what I actually said. I said that U.S fp has in many cases been tantamount to terrorism. I never said that we were WORSE than Muslim terrorists.

9

Very good post Tom, I didn’t want to personally respond to a person who simultaneously stated he was an Objectivist and that American foriegn policy is more evil than terrorism.

I take attacks on my integrity very seriously which is why I responded to Dominique’s assertion that I was “ranting” when in reality I’m not any goddamned Libertarian NOR did I EVER once say that American foreign policy was MORE evil than terrorism.

If reading comprehension is a problem, try hooked on phonics before you start posting lies about what I said, ok?

[this post was probably an overreaction, but I’m seriously pissed at 2 misinterpretations of what I said coupled with an accusation that I’m a libertarian and “ranting” when I’m asking a serious question based on honest motives. I’m not some damn hippie liberal, bible thumping conservative, retarded libertarian, or some pro-Muslim jerk bag. So quit labeling me without any warrant for your labels and address my question or don’t bother posting. Simple as that. If intellectual conversation/debate is too much for you, then don’t do it. If you think that I’m some stupid troll, then “don’t feed the troll.”

Ok? I would rather that people hate me and shut their mouth or at least post some warranted and cogent reason why they hate me than post lies or misinterpret me.]

10

  Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.”

Why would an Objectivist support the Iraq war?

Iraq was a nation that harboured militant Islamic terrorists, including an Al Queda wing called Ansar Al Islam. Saddam Hussein was a dedicated enemy of America who even attempted to assassinate an American president.

Why would an Objectivist support going to war with Iran?

The Iranian government is the ideological and material fuel for militant Islamic terrorist groups. Directly through Iranian funding, 300 American marines were killed in one instance. In the 9/11 commission report, the Iranian government was found to have direct links to the September 11th attacks. It also has long ties with Al Queda and other attacks throughout the 90s on Americans. Not to mention, Iran’s stated policy is the destruction of Israel, America, and Britain, and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic republic.

Why Syria?

I don’t know much about Syria, although it’s the same as the rest, a major economical supporter and safe haven for Jihadist international terrorists.

Why all three?

Taking out all three would basically stop the material terrorist support from enemy governments. I don’t know how involved Saudi Arabia is with terrorism, but from what I’ve seen they make arrests.

What is the morality of war and how should a moral country go about engaging war?

I personally have heard and encourage you to purchase “The Morality of War” lecture by Yaron Brook. There is another title, a book called “The Foreign Policy of Self Interest” by Peter Shwartz which is newly published, but I haven’t read. Short answer is: Absolute and total victory over the aggressors brings the enemy and the culture to its knees.

11

My question was not “why go to War with Syria and Iran” in a generalized context. I’m taking the Iraq war as a metaphysical given and making the claim that a military incursion should have been into Iran or Syria FIRST instead of Iraq and at this point we don’t have the military resources to even THINK of invading those countries which is why I’m so confused as to why people seem to be advocating those military engagements.

12

B- It seems to me that several actions of the United States could actually be equated with terrorist actions. (Gee whiz).

I’m sorry you equated the two, so to you the U.S. is as evil as the terrorists. That’s what your statement implies. And to imply that you have to drop a lot of context. Or do you wish to withdraw that statement?

13

My question was not “why go to War with Syria and Iran” in a generalized context. I’m taking the Iraq war as a metaphysical given and making the claim that a military incursion should have been into Iran or Syria FIRST instead of Iraq and at this point we don’t have the military resources to even THINK of invading those countries which is why I’m so confused as to why people seem to be advocating those military engagements.

What evidence do you have that people on this board take the Iraq war as a “metaphysical given”? Do you mean that the same way Ayn Rand used it?

What evidence do you have that states “Many people on this board” (from your original post) didn’t think Iran and Syria were bigger priorities?

If you find some who did support going to war with Iraq before Iran, can you say you have sufficient knowledge of military and strategic procedures to prove that using Iraq as a springboard to go to war with Syria and Iran (countries on either side of it) is not possible?

Lastly, what makes you think the US does not have the military resources to invade either of those countries?

14

I feel personally frusterated with the situation in the Middle East because it seems like such a Sisyphian (unsure of spelling) endeavor.

Sometimes at my most bitter I feel like the only way to really get anything done in that hell hole would be to just nuke the crap out of everyone there and start from scratch, though that is 100% morally repugnant.

Why? This is what we need to do if that is the only way to protect our nation. If that is the case then it is extremely moral to “nuke them” not “morally repugnant”.

Iraq never WAS a threat to America.

It was if it had the capability to give WMD to terrorists or in any way support terrorism, and it certainly did.

15

My question was not “why go to War with Syria and Iran” in a generalized context. I’m taking the Iraq war as a metaphysical given and making the claim that a military incursion should have been into Iran or Syria FIRST instead of Iraq and at this point we don’t have the military resources to even THINK of invading those countries which is why I’m so confused as to why people seem to be advocating those military engagements.

This not true, during W.W.II many,many more soldiers were deployed than are now. We could get as many soldiers as we need without a draft, if the President comes forward and explicitly draws up the case against these nations. The recruiting centers would be swamped with recruits the very next day. We can also pull troops from places where they are stationed for no reason, such as Germany.

16

I’m sorry you equated the two, so to you the U.S. is as evil as the terrorists. That’s what your statement implies. And to imply that you have to drop a lot of context. Or do you wish to withdraw that statement?

You are the context dropper, amigo.

I never said the U.S is as evil as the terrorists. The U.S involves a whole lot of things. An economic system, a political system, and the products of both sytems on a foreign and domestic scale. The U.S also includes both public and private sectors as well.So yeah…me lumping the U.S in with the terrorists…one more thing I didn’t do or say.

But whatever.

What I DID say was that U.S foreign policy has in many cases been tantamout (equal) to terrorism in methods, practices, and events which ultimately means that people that claim that the U.S is morally superior to the terrorists are silly and out of context.

Kind of like when we accused the Native Americans as being “vile scalping savages” and our U.S government lied, broke treaties, raped, killed, and pillaged.

You can’t claim that U.S foreign policies haven’t been tantamout to terrorism unless you drop the context of reality.

So no, I don’t want to retract that statment one bit. I just want you to actually read it and interpret it correctly. Parts of American foreign policy are tantamout to terrorism which takes away our moral superiority that we always wave around when it comes to the terrorists. No, we don’t brutally opress our people or beat up on women. However we give money and training to people who do. We don’t kill anyone labeled an “infidel.” However we train Latin American death squads that “disappeared” thousands supposed “communists” without a trial or any examination of fact. These death squads also killed pretty indescriminately. I’m sure Oscar Romero was a real big threat to the United States right? He was a death squad victim. Oh yeah…he was also a Catholic Priest. Our Latin American foreign policy really was tantamout to terrorism. The mining of Managua harbor? I’m sure all the kids blown up by the landmines were just unfortunate casualties right?

Read some history before you tell me you are “sorry” that I equate our foreign policy with middle eastern terrorism. Do you think the landmines all over Latin America are some kind of joke? They are a remenant of indescriminate and useless killing. They sure as hell didn’t stop the “red tide” because Russia wasn’t all that interested in sponsoring Latin American “communists” who were just out for economic aid and not really interested in following the Politburo playbook.

Read about the attack on the Al-Shifa pharmeceutical plant and get back to me, ok?

Morally superior? I think not.

If you care to actually address the historical facts/warrants that I’m using to make this argument, feel free to do so.

This not true, during W.W.II many,many more soldiers were deployed than are now. We could get as many soldiers as we need without a draft, if the President comes forward and explicitly draws up the case against these nations.

Erh…except the fact that many Americans feel lied to considering that the war in Iraq was justified with the whole WMD argument which was predicated on rigged evidence to make a weak case more palatable to a public that has a weak stomach for casualities post Vietnam and Somalia.

To be honest, I think many people would honestly laugh if the President tried to make another case for war. Why? Because when the boy cries wolf and there isn’t one, you can’t expect the townsfolk to come running a second or third time unless they are real suckers.

Moreover, more soldiers were deployed in WWII because of the draft.

We don’t have that now. You are comparing apples to oranges.

We can also pull troops from places where they are stationed for no reason, such as Germany.

We have troops stationed in Germany because of the Cold War. In case you haven’t realized, Putin is locking up oil barons and making some pretty threatening moves. You sure you wanna just pack up and leave while Russia is still highly unstable and adopting it’s old Soviet ways again?

Why? This is what we need to do if that is the only way to protect our nation. If that is the case then it is extremely moral to “nuke them” not “morally repugnant”.

The key word in your whole post is “if.”

Saying that the only way to protect our nation would be to kill all middle easterners assumes that all middle easterners pose credible threats to United States security. Are you making that argument? Moreover, nuclear weapons would radiate the whole planet making victims out of non-perpetrators and Americans as well. So yeah…bad plan.

It was if it had the capability to give WMD to terrorists or in any way support terrorism, and it certainly did.

Warrant this assertion.

What WMD’s did they have? Iraqi scientists themselves have said that the WMD programs were scrapped and that they lied to Saddam claiming that they were doing things when in reality they were just trying to squeeze him for money and keep themselves alive. If it had the capability to give WMDs to terrorist, where exactly are those WMDs?

I don’t believe in Unicorns or God because they are based in fantasy. I don’t believe in Iraqi WMDs for the same reason. If Iraq had the capability to give terrorist WMD’s then did it or didn’t it? If it did give them WMDs, cite your evidence and I will be a believer. If it didn’t…why not? If it had WMDs why not use them when the United States was taking out the regime? It isn’t like Saddam had much to loose. So am I just expected to believe that terrorists have WMDs or that they snuck away with them and left the country? I could also believe that Saddam Hussein also gave the terrorists winged sandals and a dancing reindeer, but I would kind of like to steer away from that.

What evidence do you have that people on this board take the Iraq war as a “metaphysical given”? Do you mean that the same way Ayn Rand used it?

I believe that I mean it in the same way that Ayn Rand used it, though I might be incorrect .

From what I understand, metahphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality.

When I said that it was a metaphysical given, I meant that it is a given part of our reality that we are already involved in Iraq. Given the context of March 6th, 2005…we all know that we invaded Iraq nearly 2 years ago.

I’m wondering why in retrospect many Objectivists support the war in Iraq or our “moral right to be there” even though there are countries that actually threaten us far more. These countries are currently gathering resources to try to destroy us (like Iran for example).

What evidence do you have that states “Many people on this board” (from your original post) didn’t think Iran and Syria were bigger priorities?

Erh…I didn’t say that in my original post. Go back and re-read. What I actually said was: Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.” (my words in bold)

Objectivists might have thought that Syria was a bigger priority and if they did, then I’m in full agreement on that one. The fact is though, that many Objectivists have said “I wish Iran was next” or “I wish Syria was next” even though we have a history of messing up our foreign excursions and we aren’t exactly ready to start a war on another front at this point.

If you find some who did support going to war with Iraq before Iran, can you say you have sufficient knowledge of military and strategic procedures to prove that using Iraq as a springboard to go to war with Syria and Iran (countries on either side of it) is not possible?

Not to be an asshole here, but you it doesn’t take a military genius here to figure things out. The appeal to authority is cute and all, but I think that even the slower ones in class can figure out that since America has had an extremely difficult time with even maintaining a decent level of equipment quality (like their armored personnel carriers) in Iraq as it is, that starting another war wouldn’t be strategically smart. Moreover, if you haven’t noticed…the government has been breaking it’s contracts with it’s soliders and keeping them beyond the period that they have been enlisted for. It is not been able to keep recruiting at a necessary level even for the Iraq war. What makes you think that holding down another couple thousand square miles is really a viable option?

I was in JROTC for three years in high school and have studied a bit of military history. When you stretch your supply lines out or open wars on too many fronts at once (like Hitler, the Romans, and Napoleon did) you can’t fight any of them well and you open yourself up to defeat. It might be a costly and well fought defeat, but it is defeat nonetheless. Moreover, if you invade Iran you will draw on the wrath of the entire middle east. Do you think fighting World War III is a strategically brilliant move at this point? Saddam Hussein was considered a secular jerkhole by most of the middle east (including Bin Laden). Iran is seen as being religiously “legitamate” with it’s Mullahs and Sharia. So to attack Iran successfully means that you are going to have to be prepared to fight a war in the entire middle east. Be prepared for Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc to all be massive staging grounds for insurgency that would make the Iraqi insurgency look like upstart punk kids with toy guns.

If you think we are ready, then you can warrant that assertion any day. Please take into account our current supply situation in Iraq and how “secure” Iraq is despite the current occupation force.

Besides, even if I grant that Iraq would be a good springboard for an Iran/Syrian war…that was never the justification for the Iraq war and cannot be an Objectivist justification because Objectivists weren’t the ones making the decisions to invade Iraq. There is ZERO indication that we will invade either Syria or Iran, so using that as a potential justification is bunk.

It can’t be justified to invade Iraq for strategic reasons if those strategic reasons are never utilized or aren’t even on the table for discussion at the time of the invasion.

Lastly, what makes you think the US does not have the military resources to invade either of those countries?

See above.

17

What I DID say was that U.S foreign policy has in many cases been tantamout (equal) to terrorism in methods, practices, and events which ultimately means that people that claim that the U.S is morally superior to the terrorists are silly and out of context.

The intent of terrorism is to achieve a political goal (such as the right of return for the Palestinians or the withdrawal of U.S. forces from “Muslim soil”) by the mass murder of completely innocent, utterly defenseless civilians. What has America done that is morally tantamount to such a thing as mass, indiscriminate murder?

Selling weapons to Hussein – as part of an overall strategy to counter Soviet interests in the mideast – may have been a big mistake; but it does not possibly rise to the level of evil of terrorism.

Supporting “death squads” whose targets were not innocent civilians does not rise to the level of evil of terrorism, even if some of those death squads did kill innocent people.

And in any event, past American actions are completely irrelevant to whether our current actions are moral.

Kind of like when we accused the Native Americans as being “vile scalping savages” and our U.S government lied, broke treaties, raped, killed, and pillaged.

Warrant that assertion.

So no, I don’t want to retract that statment one bit. I just want you to actually read it and interpret it correctly. Parts  of American foreign policy are tantamout to terrorism which takes away our moral superiority that we always wave around when it comes to the terrorists. No, we don’t brutally opress our people or beat up on women. However we give money and training to people who do. We don’t kill anyone labeled an “infidel.” However we train Latin American death squads that “disappeared” thousands supposed “communists” without a trial or any examination of fact. These death squads also killed pretty indescriminately. I’m sure Oscar Romero was a real big threat to the United States right? He was a death squad victim. Oh yeah…he was also a Catholic Priest.  Our Latin American foreign policy really was tantamout to terrorism. The mining of Managua harbor?  I’m sure all the kids blown up by the landmines were just unfortunate casualties right?

Your sarcasm aside, the responsibility for civilian casualties rests with those that started the conflict.

You are dropping context here and making unsupported accusations.

It is easy from our current perspective to look back and ridicule the fear of communism. But you are ignoring the fact that the Soviets had an explicit plan for world domination. They intended to bury us, and they said so openly and explicitly.

They brutally crushed dissent in eastern Europe. They attempted to sneak nuclear tipped medium range missiles into Cuba. They invaded Afghanistan. They took over North Vietnam and launched a war of aggression against the South.

There was every reason to fear the Soviets. The fact that we opposed them by engaging in war-by-proxy state was a reaction to the fact that they possessed a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate us.

Now, if you wish to argue that there was a better strategy, fine. But your after-the-fact attempt to smear America with these accusations is completely off base.

Read some history before you tell me you are “sorry” that I equate our foreign policy with middle eastern terrorism. Do you think the landmines all over Latin America are some kind of joke? They are a remenant of indescriminate and useless killing. They sure as hell didn’t stop the “red tide” because Russia wasn’t all that interested in sponsoring Latin American “communists” who were just out for economic aid and not really interested in following the Politburo playbook.

Read about the attack on the Al-Shifa pharmeceutical plant and get back to me, ok?.

If you care to actually address the historical facts/warrants that I’m using to make this argument, feel free to do so.

You are not offering any facts that I can see, just unsupported assertions delivered with a tone of hostile superiority that implies that anyone who disagrees is ignorant or evasive – in other words, the argument from intimidation. Mixed in with this is a healthy dose of the straw man argument in the form of questions like: Do you think land mines are a joke?

Where did you learn these techniques? Your college professors?

Saying that the only way to protect our nation would be to kill all middle easterners assumes that all middle easterners pose credible threats to United States security. Are you making that argument?

Moreover, nuclear weapons would radiate the whole planet making victims out of non-perpetrators and Americans as well. So yeah…bad plan.

Nonsense. Nuclear weapons have been detonated dozens of times and the planet is not irradiated.

What WMD’s did they have? Iraqi scientists themselves have said that the WMD programs were scrapped and that they lied to Saddam claiming that they were doing things when in reality they were just trying to squeeze him for money and keep themselves alive. If it had the capability to give WMDs to terrorist, where exactly are those WMDs?

Hindsight is wonderful, is it not? It is utterly preposterous to use facts discovered after the invasion to discredit decisions made before the invasion.

Where are the WMDs now? Syria, possibly.

I don’t believe in Unicorns or God because they are based in fantasy. I don’t believe in Iraqi WMDs for the same reason. If Iraq had the capability to give terrorist WMD’s then did it or didn’t it? If it did give them WMDs, cite your evidence and I will be a believer. If it didn’t…why not? If it had WMDs why not use them when the United States was taking out the regime? It isn’t like Saddam had much to loose.

This is just plain silly. Most intelligence services agreed at the time that Hussein probably did have WMDs. The debate was over what to do about it, not whether or not it was a fact.

Your continued attempt to ridicule America for her lack of omniscience is ridiculous.

No, I do not think Iraq was necessarily the correct second target after Afghanistan, but I do not have access to all of the intelligence .

I’m wondering why in retrospect many Objectivists support the war in Iraq or our “moral right to be there” even though there are countries that actually threaten us far more. These countries are currently gathering resources to try to destroy us (like Iran for example).

Erh…I didn’t say that in my original post. Go back and re-read. What I actually said was: Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.” (my words in bold)

Objectivists might have thought that Syria was a bigger priority and if they did, then I’m in full agreement on that one. The fact is though, that many Objectivists have said “I wish Iran was next” or “I wish Syria was next” even though we have a history of messing up our foreign excursions and we aren’t exactly ready to start a war on another front at this point.

Speaking for myself, I believe that once our forces have been commited – even if we didn’t go after the best target – we must support them until we are victorious. And it is a non-sequitur to say that since previous American military action has not worked well, no one should advocate additional American military action.

Not to be an asshole here, but you it doesn’t take a military genius here to figure things out. The appeal to authority is cute and all, but I think that even the slower ones in class can figure out that since America has had an extremely difficult time with even maintaining a decent level of equipment quality (like their armored personnel carriers) in Iraq as it is, that starting another war wouldn’t be strategically smart. Moreover, if you haven’t noticed…the government has been breaking it’s contracts with it’s soliders and keeping them beyond the period that they have been enlisted for. It is not been able to keep recruiting at a necessary level even for the Iraq war. What makes you think that holding down another couple thousand square miles is really a viable option?

I was in JROTC for three years in high school and have studied a bit of military history. When you stretch your supply lines out or open wars on too many fronts at once (like Hitler, the Romans, and Napoleon did) you can’t fight any of them well and you open yourself up to defeat. It might be a costly and well fought defeat, but it is defeat nonetheless.

America fought, and won, WWII on multiple fronts with supply lines that spanned the entire planet.

Your continued lame efforts at the argument from intimidation (“.. it doesn’t take a military genius to figure things out…”) do not advance your cause.

Moreover, if you invade Iran you will draw on the wrath of the entire middle east. Do you think fighting World War III is a strategically brilliant move at this point? Saddam Hussein was considered a secular jerkhole by most of the middle east (including Bin Laden). Iran is seen as being religiously “legitamate” with it’s Mullahs and Sharia. So to attack Iran successfully means that you are going to have to be prepared to fight a war in the entire middle east.

Be prepared for Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc to all be massive staging grounds for insurgency that would make the Iraqi insurgency look like upstart punk kids with toy guns.

If you think we are ready, then you can warrant that assertion any day. Please take into account our current supply situation in Iraq and how “secure” Iraq is despite the current occupation force.

You proceed from a false premise. We need to destroy the threatening regimes. We do not need to rebuild them.

And we have the air power to utterly annihilate every one of those regimes with little loss of American life.

However, I do not think we have to annihilate them all. If we just annihilate one – Iran is my preference – then tell the others we will do the same to them if they do not cease all terrorist support, they will fall in line. What they most desperately want is to remain in power, and once we demonstrate a willingness to destroy them, they’ll do what is necessary to avoid that.

By annihilate, I mean the destruction of the government, the military and the economic infrastrure (the oil and gas wells), to a degree that what is left will not be capable of sustaining a nuclear weapons development program.

Unfortunately, Bush has bought into the notion that if you break it, you must fix it. That false premise has led us to waste much blood and treasure trying to save Iraq.

18

I’m wondering why in retrospect many Objectivists support the war in Iraq or our “moral right to be there” even though there are countries that actually threaten us far more. These countries are currently gathering resources to try to destroy us (like Iran for example).

Why do you see that as a conflict? Can’t America have a moral right to attack all of its aggressors?

Erh…I didn’t say that in my original post. Go back and re-read. What I actually said was: Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like “Lets go take down Iran” or “We should take out Saudi Arabia” or “I wish Syria was on target next.” (my words in bold)

The only part from your original post was that which I quoted. The next line was in a direct reply to what you had previously said:

and making the claim that a military incursion should have been into Iran or Syria FIRST instead of Iraq

You haven’t answered my question. Where is your evidence to say that most people on this forum don’t think Syria and Iran are bigger priorities?

Objectivists might have thought that Syria was a bigger priority and if they did, then I’m in full agreement on that one. The fact is though, that many Objectivists have said “I wish Iran was next” or “I wish Syria was next” even though we have a history of messing up our foreign excursions and we aren’t exactly ready to start a war on another front at this point.

What tactical and military knowledge allows you to state that with full certainty? Do you know the US has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over many times?

Not to be an asshole here,

You’re right, I don’t like the aproach you take to writing your posts.

but you it doesn’t take a military genius here to figure things out. The appeal to authority is cute and all , but I think that even the slower ones in class can figure out that since America has had an extremely difficult time with even maintaining a decent level of equipment quality (like their armored personnel carriers) in Iraq as it is, that starting another war wouldn’t be strategically smart. Moreover, if you haven’t noticed… the government has been breaking it’s contracts with it’s soliders and keeping them beyond the period that they have been enlisted for. It is not been able to keep recruiting at a necessary level even for the Iraq war. What makes you think that holding down another couple thousand square miles is really a viable option?

Is what a backward Republican administration is doing indicative of America’s ability to declare war with the most advanced weapons and military on the earth?

Do we need massive amounts of foot soldiers and armoured personel carriers to destroy Tehran if we’re not going to nation build? I think all we need is a single aircraft carrier, some bombers on it, and complete moral righteousness.

Besides, even if I grant that Iraq would be a good springboard for an Iran/Syrian war…that was never the justification for the Iraq war and cannot be an Objectivist justification because Objectivists weren’t the ones making the decisions to invade Iraq. There is ZERO indication that we will invade either Syria or Iran, so using that as a potential justification is bunk.

That is not the moral justification. The reason was outlined in my first post. Using Iraq as a springboard for the rest is merely an issue of tactical significance.

Since this is taking so long going back and forth, you can get a better idea on what I agree with by listening to these two things before you reply to me:

Leonard Peikoff Interview with Prodos

And the second thing is a streaming video. Go to that site, scroll down, and inside the green box there are your options to watch “America vs The Americans.”

19

I’m not a libertarian in any way whatsoever, so drop the ad hominems.

Most of the anti-American visitors to this forum are libertarians, so you’ll need to forgive me for thinking you were one too.

To correct my exclamation: "Oh no, not another anti-American! :stuck_out_tongue: "

20

Leonard Peikoff Interview with Prodos

Beat me to it … I was going to post just that!