About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 3:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tell that to the Kuwaities.
So we should sacrificeour national self-interest (and the lives of our soldiers) in the name of the Kuwaities? That is altruism.
They love us, sell us oil, and invest in American industry because of what we do for them.
Those soldiers are protecting American trade interests. It's not all for nothing. Making a new path to trade is what it's all about.  We're not only protecting a global marketplace, but expanding it with this effort.

This is government intervention in the economy, plain and simple, and I don't think anyone can advocate this and call themselves a laissez-faire capitalist. If you think, that because we "need" to trade with the Kuwaities so bad (I'm assuming oil), that it is right for our government to sacrifice our soldiers' lives in order to facilitate said trade, then what argument can you use against someone who advocates that we sacrifice the rights of oil companies, because we need and depend on oil so bad?
Oh, hell yes!  Where do I sign up??  Even Iran is shaking in their boots over this, not to mention the armpits of the Middle East, Pakistan and Palestine. They talk a lot of shit, but when it comes down to it, they'll put up or shut up. They do not want to duke it out with us.
So I guess you supported the Vietnam war right? Is America supposed to defend the entire world? Are foreign lives more valuable than the lives of our soldiers.
Rand would have stood on a chair and cheered if we dropped a big one on Red Square while she was alive.  Don't even doubt it.
I'm not so sure. Of course the Soviet empire was evil, but so were the Vietnamese communists, and she opposed Vietnam, because it did not serve our self-interest.
Which principles are being compromised and how, exactly?
Well, from what I understand, the Constitution is basically Islamic law, that doesn't protect individual rights. Our enemies suffer from flawed philosophical premises. How can you possibly expect to win politically, without addressing the underlying collectivist ethical beliefs, and the irrational epistemology. We are treating the symptoms (poorly) and not the cause.

I just don't understand how you can advocate that business should be free from government intervention, but that our government should send our soldiers to die to protect the interests of these same businesses?


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan: "Teresa, I'm sure I could come up with about 100 other "autocratic, tyrannical, kleptocratic dictatorships" around the world. Do you advocate that we invade all of these countries?"

Teresa: "Oh, hell yes! Where do I sign up??"

At your local Army recruiter's office, of course! Due to the current forces being stretched thin, they even have substantial signing bonuses. Enjoy your tour.

"Which principles are being compromised and how, exactly?"

As Jonathan pointed out, occupying/rebuilding/stabilizing Iraq is altruistic. It is asking that US soldiers risk and sacrifice their lives for Iraqis (or the Kuwaitis or Iranians or Saudis that surround Iraq). It also represents a massive wealth redistribution program from US taxpayers to the Iraqis, US contractors, etc. involved in reconstruction.

Simultaneously it involves an initiation of force. That's not even talking about Iraqi civilians (I realize many Objectivists don't recognize killing them as aggression and I unfortunately haven't the time to argue that point). It is theft on a grand scale from US citizens. The invasion and occupation of Iraq from start til now has cost on average $2000/taxpayer to pay for the predominantly altruistic excursion.

"Rand would have stood on a chair and cheered if we dropped a big one on Red Square while she was alive."

...to be abrubtly cut short twenty minutes later as the first SS-18 reached New York City.

Pondering 'WWAD?' is always debatable (and of debatable value). However, I'd tend to think she was rational enough to realize the utter annihilation of the USA that would have resulted from initiating a nuclear war with the USSR would have been an objectively *bad* thing.


Post 22

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa: "Oh, hell yes! Where do I sign up??"

Aaron: "At your local Army recruiter's office, of course! Due to the current forces being stretched thin, they even have substantial signing bonuses. Enjoy your tour."

Maybe military recruiters should start an outreach program to enlist Objectivist hawks that are gung-ho for expanding military action in the Middle East. These new recruits can call themselves the Yaron Brook Brigades.

Post 23

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So we should sacrificeour national self-interest (and the lives of our soldiers) in the name of the Kuwaities? That is altruism.
I disagree that defending our trading partners and allies is "altruism."  Would you say the same thing about defending Canadian interests?


This is government intervention in the economy, plain and simple, and I don't think anyone can advocate this and call themselves a laissez-faire capitalist.
Jonathan, I'm surprized that you think this. Free trade as economic intervention? Would you prefer we close ourselves off to the rest of the world and not trade with them?  American industries have manufacturing facilities all over the world. Should we just forbid this practice and demand they all come home because what they're doing is "economic intervention" and morally wrong, somehow?

If you think, that because we "need" to trade with the Kuwaities so bad (I'm assuming oil), that it is right for our government to sacrifice our soldiers' lives in order to facilitate said trade, then what argument can you use against someone who advocates that we sacrifice the rights of oil companies, because we need and depend on oil so bad?
Er, protecting American interests and her citizens is a sacrifice? I should never travel outside of the US for fear of losing my rights to protection as an American?  America ought not have economic and military allies outside of her boarders?

I never said anything about "need."  That's your opinion, not mine.  I'm talking about freedom of action and wants here, not "needs."  I'm in no position to evaluate anyone's "needs." But I can evaluate the rational actions that facilitate the wants of individual interests, and what values are procured from them.
They are worth defending.  If you disagree, you'll have to show why and how American interests in other parts of the world is morally wrong.

 Last time I checked with my son, an Army Corporal, he signed up to take that risk. American military personnel don't sign up to patrol Disney Land.  American boarders, meaning her citizens, extend to all parts of the globe.  America contributed billions of dollars to Iraqi interests, but none of that money was used for it's intended purpose (oil for food.) We had an absolute right to abolish that system, and correct it. Cutting off the supply of money would never have been a strong enough course of action. Too much damage had been done.  We paid to have innocent Iraqi citizens murdered, thinking they would be fed instead.  We are responsible for correcting that wrong. We contributed to their demise. We have to fix it.


So I guess you supported the Vietnam war right?

Actually, yes, I did. And so did my parents.  I'm married to a Vietnam combat veteran.  He's pretty sensitive to criticism like this, especially coming from someone who probably wasn't even alive when he was there.  He served two tours as a marine.

 Is America supposed to defend the entire world? Are foreign lives more valuable than the lives of our soldiers.



Jonathan, America does defend the entire world. No other country in the world sets the standard like America does when it comes to freedom.  We put tremendous pressure on other countries to follow our example. 

I'm not so sure. Of course the Soviet empire was evil, but so were the Vietnamese communists, and she opposed Vietnam, because it did not serve our self-interest.
Rand was mistaken. It would have served our interests if we won like we should have. I personally blame Kissinger for this, and so did she. Now Vietnam is begging for our economic interests to invest there.  Fat chance. Tourism is popular in Vietnam again, but American manufacturing isn't anxious to build any facilities.

EDIT: I remembered on my way home from the the grocery store that what Rand objected to, and rightly so, was the Draft, not the war in Vietnam it'self.  Individuals ought to be free to defend freedom, not forced to defend it.  Something like that.


Well, from what I understand, the Constitution is basically Islamic law, that doesn't protect individual rights.
That's not true.  It has inclusive language for all sects and non-sects.

TEXT OF THE DRAFT IRAQI CONSTITUTION

(Translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press)

 

 

Terrorism and "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.

We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined - men and women, old and young - to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.

 

We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.

 

The whole thing can be read here: (It's impressive)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf

 



 Our enemies suffer from flawed philosophical premises.

I wholeheartedly agree.

How can you possibly expect to win politically, without addressing the underlying collectivist ethical beliefs, and the irrational epistemology. We are treating the symptoms (poorly) and not the cause.


Aaaah, but morality comes before politics, and epistemology before that.  It's a change in the culture we'll accomplish by staying, and building, and investing.  Shit, even China with all of her destructive philosophical premises manages to be smart enough to leave Hong Kong alone!

It's hard to argue with prosperity.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 6/10, 12:08pm)


Post 24

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 11:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Damnit, Aaron, I'm too old!  They won't take me. :c/

Post 25

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I have gone over before, this is a very complex issue because when it comes to global interaction and large numbers of people, individuals, who are bound in some form or another as a "nation" everything starts to get hazy.  However, it is clear to me that it is in my best interest that:
1)  I am safe to live my life without threat. 
2)  The more safe the world is, the safer I am.
3)  The more people I can trade with, the richer I can be.
4)  Trade requires security, the world requires security.
5)  Large state on state wafare, which costs the most in lives and treasure, is a thing of the past.  This is largely because of US military strength in one shape or another.  This is good.
6)  Largely enemies of the future will all be Individuals:  Osama, Al-Zarqawi, Mullahs in Tehran, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, the Warlord(s) of Somalia and Sudan...  They can be killed, and they will get weaker, but without something in their place, even a flawed government like the one forming in Iraq, they will be back with a vengeance.
7)  We cannot expect everyone to guarantee liberties as we do, BUT once they have enough liberty, as fragile as it is, and security and stability, they are moving in our direction, that will work.
8)  We need to engage, not disengage, as connections (cultural, trade, security, people) will eventually and inexorably move individuals and their governments in OUR direction.
9)  This includes the US itself, so this can help prevent backsliding on the part of US socialist tendencies
10)  Our military is voluntary, and it can be and is being improved in many directions.  However, overall global security CANNOT be maintained by just the US - it must include strategic partnerships with not just Europe, but increasingly China, India, and Russia.  The US has the benefit of being able to provide Leadership, and if we don't, we will lose that role.  We WANT that role, because absent that there will be rivalries and we can lose the advantage we have now.  This will also address the issues of COST and Manpower, and we can also begin reduction in the extremely pricy "super weapons" that we don't need.  We need to maintain superiority and advances, but we do not need to push it as hard now because we don't have anyone that is even trying to keep up! 

Here is something about the Chinese military:  http://www.slate.com/id/2141966/

China spends 1.5% of its GDP on the Military, or $35 Billion
US spends 4% of our GDP, 15x more at over $500 Billion
Japan and South Korea have a larger Military budget each than China


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 2:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, Rand opposed Vietnam, and I am not acting like she is God and everything she said is right, but you mistakenly said the she only opposed the draft. In "The Voice of Reason" there is an essay titled "The Lessons of Vietnam"
"It was a shameful war... because it served no national interest, because we had nothing to gain from it,  because the lives and heroism of thousands of American soldiers were sacrificed in pure compliance with the ethics of altruism, selflessly and senselessly."
I respect your husbands service, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. My uncle served in Vietnam, my Grandfather was a Pearl Harbour survivor and fought at Guadalcanal, but that's not relevant either. I was born in 1982, well after the war was over, but again, is that relevant?
I disagree that defending our trading partners and allies is "altruism."  Would you say the same thing about defending Canadian interests?
Yes, to a certain extent. If someone hated Canada enough to invade them, then I can guarantee they would be hostile to the U.S. They would pose enough of a threat, that I think it would be in our self-interest to defend ourselves pre-emptively. But I don't think Iraq posed that kind of threat. If they had had WMD's, then it might be a different story.
American industries have manufacturing facilities all over the world. Should we just forbid this practice and demand they all come home because what they're doing is "economic intervention" and morally wrong, somehow?
Ummm, ok, I'm really confused now, so bear with me. When I say economic intervention, I mean by the government, what does that have to do with industries? And they should be free to do business wherever they want, but they do not have a right to demand personal protection from the US military wherever they go! Do I have a right to set up shop on Antarctica and demand personal protection from the military? Can I anounce my intention to travel to Iran and demand a military escort? Do I have a right to that? Then how is what you are advocating any different?
I should never travel outside of the US for fear of losing my rights to protection as an American?
Again, you are free to travel wherever you want, but you have to assume the risk if you travel to a hostile country, you can't demand that someone else be forced to protect you. 
America ought not have economic and military allies outside of her boarders?
Military allies are fine I guess, but I'm not too sure what an economic ally even is. Since all economic transactions are made between consenting individuals or private companies, what economic responsibilities would America (the government) have? Why would they need allies?
Er, protecting American interests and her citizens is a sacrifice?
I never said that, in fact what I said is that the only job our military should have is defending American citizens. But your going to have to come up with something besides economic interests in order to convince me that we should be in Iraq, because it is not the governments responsibility to get involved in economics.
Last time I checked with my son, an Army Corporal, he signed up to take that risk.
What about every other soldier? He can't claim to speak for everyone. If I volunteer to feed the homeless, does that make it right to force everyone else to feed them homeless? I'll concede your point to a certain extent, in that given our governments track record of sending our troops on selfless peacekeeping missions, they can't be to surprised that they are asked to lay down their lives so Iraqi's can have freedom.
America contributed billions of dollars to Iraqi interests....
There is no such entity as America. That money was extorted from individual American citizens through taxation. It was wrong to give that money to Iraq, and two wrongs don't make a right.
We had an absolute right to abolish that system...
Correct, and if Iraq had been a true threat, we should have acted on it. There is no right to establish a dictatorship, so we would be morally right in demolishing any other number of countries, but only if it serves our self-interest.
We are responsible for correcting that wrong. We contributed to their demise. We have to fix it.
We? I didn't contribute that money. Did any of the soldiers killed contribute the money? With all those "we's" your starting to sound like a collectivist.
Jonathan, America does defend the entire world.
That doesn't make it right.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From the Iraqi Constitution:

Article (2): Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam.

Article (23): 2nd - Property may not be taken away except for the public interest in exchange for fair compensation.

Article (27): Public property is sacrosanct, and its protection is the duty of every citizen.

There's a bunch more socialist crap, free health insurance, education, care for the elderly etc. Hardly inspiring. Definitely better than life under Saddam though.


Post 28

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, Rand opposed Vietnam, and I am not acting like she is God and everything she said is right, but you mistakenly said the she only opposed the draft. In "The Voice of Reason" there is an essay titled "The Lessons of Vietnam"
John, I'll look this up. Thanks.

Ummm, ok, I'm really confused now, so bear with me. When I say economic intervention, I mean by the government, what does that have to do with industries? And they should be free to do business wherever they want, but they do not have a right to demand personal protection from the US military wherever they go! Do I have a right to set up shop on Antarctica and demand personal protection from the military? Can I anounce my intention to travel to Iran and demand a military escort? Do I have a right to that? Then how is what you are advocating any different?
In principle, I believe one does have that right, but not to "demand" an escort. We don't assume our rights will be violated, cart before the horse, protect me even when they haven't be violated. We demand action when they are in fact violated, not before hand. 

The government protects the rights of Americans. When those rights are violated, government officials intervene to secure or re-establish them, no?  US government officials work to release Americans unjustly jailed in foreign countries all the time.  We have even threatened corrupt foreign systems with sanctions for outrageous sentencing practices against actions we could never consider a "crime."  This shows how fundamental American officials view the concept of rights. They're willing to stand up for millions of individuals who've never been to the US.

  
Again, you are free to travel wherever you want, but you have to assume the risk if you travel to a hostile country, you can't demand that someone else be forced to protect you. 
I can and will demand my right to justice if they're violated, or threatened to be violated outside of our boarders.  Rights have no boarders.

Military allies are fine I guess, but I'm not too sure what an economic ally even is. Since all economic transactions are made between consenting individuals or private companies,

Run by individuals with rights...

what economic responsibilities would America (the government) have? Why would they need allies?
Only to protect American interests.  America has no responsibility to buy foreign products, yet we still line up to buy them.  Interference with trade is interference with freedom.

Let us build a plant there, and we'll employ your people.  Perhaps I should have distinguished between American consumer and industry ally and  military ally, but they're usually one and the same.

American government cares, or should care, about American prosperity, and what facilitates or retards it.

Japan is a huge trading partner with the US.  The US government cares about what's going on in Japan because we trade heavily with them.  Japan is an economic ally to the US. Americans want Japanese products, electronics, etc.  The Japanese want our textiles and golf clubs.  American government stays largely out of the way of that trade, but keeps tabs on it to protect American interests, including economic interests. 

 But your going to have to come up with something besides economic interests in order to convince me that we should be in Iraq, because it is not the governments responsibility to get involved in economics.
Okay, if you say so. There are no rules of law when it comes to contracts. It's dog eat dog out there.

What about every other soldier? He can't claim to speak for everyone. If I volunteer to feed the homeless, does that make it right to force everyone else to feed them homeless?
Only if they all signed up for the same job, which is what they did here. Have you ever been in the military?  You lose all rights to choose the course of your life when you do.  It's even in the brochure.

That's hardly a mystery, Jonathan.  Enlisting means you may get stuck with some unsavory work. I asked Nicholas (son) if there was much grumbling among the soldiers over in Iraq.  Absolutely not, he said. No crying, no breakdowns, no whimps! HooAh!  ;)

What kind of military would we have if no soldier was required to follow orders?


Post Script:  there is plenty of room, and time, for amendments to be added to that constitution.  A member of the new administration insisted on that language. Not all newly elected officials agreed with it.  It's pages and pages long, with tons of stuff devoted to recognition of the individual, yet you choose to focus on that particular bit of shit?  Context, context, context.     


Post 29

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as context with the new constitution, I clearly stated that they were obviously much better off than under Saddam, so how exactly was I dropping context? I believe that the fact that the constitution only half-heartedly embraces individual rights, will ultimately lead to the collapse and demise of the new Iraq, especially considering that Islamic law is given the final authority. Islam and all other religions reject reason, so any laws enacted in favor of individual rights will be strictly by chance instead if principle, and I don't think that's likely given the track record. It won't be long before "Islamic law" trumps all the other rights mentioned.

Post 30

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as context with the new constitution, I clearly stated that they were obviously much better off than under Saddam, so how exactly was I dropping context?
::sigh::

I didn't say you dropped the context, but tried to imply you were perhaps ignoring the bigger picture. Pulling a dozen plus words from thousands and thousands, while mixing the message with "it's good, but, no, it's really not" stuff.

I believe that the fact that the constitution only half-heartedly embraces individual rights, will ultimately lead to the collapse and demise of the new Iraq, especially considering that Islamic law is given the final authority. Islam and all other religions reject reason, so any laws enacted in favor of individual rights will be strictly by chance instead if principle, and I don't think that's likely given the track record. It won't be long before "Islamic law" trumps all the other rights mentioned.
What will it take for you to see that this isn't an utter failure?   Nevermind. You're set on failure. The negative press really made an impression on you, I can see that. Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Dixie Chics, et al.

I'd like to think you would at least hope it won't be a failure in the future, that we actually have our shit together when it comes to helping newly elected officials in new formed governments in overthrown dictatorships that desperately want to be independent attain that goal.

I know, I know, it's none of our business, right?  But like Kurt said originally, if we don't take care of this right, we'll be back in 10 or 15 years getting rid of yet another tyrant, or two, or 100, maybe even worse than Saddam.


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I generally don't comment on foreign policy issues, because I can usually see both sides of the debate, and don't have a clear unambiguous view of what should be done. But something that needs to be considered, and virtually never is, is the law of unintended consequences. Whenever physical force is used to solve social problems - and this includes retaliatory force as well as aggressive force - there are almost always unanticipated, unintended consequences, and these can often make the initial problem pale by comparison.

Usually, when government acts, it focuses exclusively on the expected benefits and almost entirely neglects or minimizes the projected costs. But every action has both benefits and costs, and no action is worth taking if the costs outweigh the benefits. You always have to ask yourself, is it worth it? What am I giving up in order to gain the desired goal?

In Vietnam, for example, we lost 50,000 American lives and a staggering diversion of resources that could have been devoted to productive purposes - to improving our own lives and wellbeing. Those were the costs. What were the benefits? I'm not sure that there were any. Did we realize that before entering the war? No. Did we have any idea of the problems we would encounter? No, because the disastrous results that we experienced were unanticipated, unintended consequences.

I don't know how many people here have directly and personally witnessed the grisly effects of war. But even if you haven't, you know they are horrible, and should be avoided, unless absolutely necessary, in the same way that violent revolution should be avoided, unless the only alternative is to live under a dictatorship. This is why a government as imperfect as our own is better than an ongoing civil war. So what do we have to gain by becoming embroiled in a never-ending war in Iraq? Whatever it is, the costs almost certainly outweigh it.

Do we really think that we're going to be able to replace Saddam's government with anything even close to a constitutional republic? We can't force our model of government on a society that doesn't have the philosophical understanding to accept it. There aren't enough "peace-keepers" in the world to do that. If most of the people there don't believe in it and don't want it, you won't be able to coerce them into accepting it. The best you can hope for is a democratically elected theocracy. Will this kind of government serve our interests better than Saddam did? Granted, he was a monster, but the people who replace him, even by popular vote, are unlikely to be much better, if that. Look who replaced the Shah in Iran?

Of course, no one ever thinks about these sorts of things before declaring war. War is the province of governments, and governments typically believe that social problems can be solved at the point of a gun. They don't imagine that there could ever be negative consequences, and if they do, don't care, because they can always pass them off onto someone else. Just look at the unintended consequences of price controls - shortages and surpluses - of the war on drugs - organized crime and a dramatic increase in the murder rate, the cost of interdiction, of fighting drug gangs, of enforcement and incarceration. What are the benefits? A reduction in the use of drugs? I don't think so. But governments never think of this, even when they have ample historical precedents to guide them, viz., alcohol prohibition.

It is the same with the decision to go to war. Apparently, we learned nothing from the Vietnam War. As George Santayana notes, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Yes, the way this war is being fought can be criticized, but that's hindsight. You can't always anticipate the problems, and with war, the problems can be very great, which is why you should enter into it only as a last resort.

Another problem is, of course, the fact that once you've become involved, you can't just pull out, because things aren't going well. If you're going to enter a foreign war, you had better be damn sure that you're going to win it, and that the benefits of victory are greater than the costs. Getting stuck in a quagmire from which it is not politically feasible to extricate yourself is a very real and grave danger. You need an exit strategy, just as you do in the stock market; otherwise you risk profound and substantial losses. If you have no exit strategy, you are courting disaster.

Do we have an exit strategy in Iraq? If we do, it's been very well camouflaged. What you are witnessing there is the classic ineptitude of government and of government planning and execution. National defense is frequently touted as one of the reasons for governmental intervention. We must force people to support the government via taxation and military conscription, it is argued; otherwise we will have free riders who don't contribute their fair share; nor will there be enough money or volunteers to support our troops. Nobody ever bothers to point out that when you can force people to do your bidding, you have something called a "forced rider" problem. People are being coerced into supporting something they don't value; they are being sacrificed to the whims of government planners, and the sacrifices can be very great indeed.

Of course, our leaders don't have to bear the personal consequences of their decisions to send our youth to die in foreign wars. If they did, I think their decisions would be very different.

As for oil and our need for it, if we eliminated environmental restrictions on such things as offshore drilling, we could make a significant contribution towards our supply of oil right here on our own soil. Without our patronage, corrupt governments in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, would be far poorer than they are today and would eventually collapse, as new sources of energy are discovered, and oil is no longer considered an indispensable natural resource. Without the environmentalists getting in the way, we could eventually supply enough of our own energy needs to eliminate our dependency on the Middle East entirely.

- Bill

Post 32

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The negative press really made an impression on you, I can see that. Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Dixie Chics, et al.
I could just as easily say that you have been influenced by O'Reilly and Hannity, but that wouldn't really be an argument, would it? Frankly, I'm a little insulted you would compare me to those people, so let's just stick to debating ;-)!
We can't force our model of government on a society that doesn't have the philosophical understanding to accept it
That's what I have been trying to say. Isn't this site dedicated to fighting a philosophical war? I still believe that compromise is evil, and I still believe that Article 2 has the potential to unravel everything good that we have accomplished in Iraq. Just look at the government we helped form in Afghanistan. For God's sake, they tried to execute a man for being a Christian! From what I've seen, even Muslims in relatively free countries around Europe hate freedom. Epistemology breeds Ethics breeds Politics. Proclaiming Islamic law supreme is irrational and defies logic. How can you possibly expect them to maintain a proper ethical and political system with a flawed epistemology?

Only if they all signed up for the same job, which is what they did here. Have you ever been in the military?  You lose all rights to choose the course of your life when you do.  It's even in the brochure.
I still believe the only proper purpose of our military is to defend America, not institute Democracies all over the world, especially in places that lack the philosophical foundation to properly maintain it.
I asked Nicholas (son) if there was much grumbling among the soldiers over in Iraq.  Absolutely not, he said. No crying, no breakdowns, no whimps! HooAh!  ;)
Like I said, I have the utmost respect for your son and any one else in the military, but the fact that there's not much grumbling, does not a national defense policy make.
L


Post 33

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whatever it is, the costs almost certainly outweigh it.
Arrgh! Bill, you don't know that yet!

Do we really think that we're going to be able to replace Saddam's government with anything even close to a constitutional republic? We can't force our model of government on a society that doesn't have the philosophical understanding to accept it.
You don't know this either.  At least Iraq  had a long secular history under Saddam. The educational system wasn't focused on religion and fighting the "infidels." 
 
If most of the people there don't believe in it and don't want it, you won't be able to coerce them into accepting it.
I know this is a popular media view, but I don't think it's an objective fact.
 
Will this kind of government serve our interests better than Saddam did? Granted, he was a monster, but the people who replace him, even by popular vote, are unlikely to be much better, if that.
Nothing like good old fashioned pessimism.  When the new government turns into a new dictatorship, then you can say "I told you so." But until then, at least be optimistic! Give these people some benefit of the doubt, please!
 
Apparently, we learned nothing from the Vietnam War.
That is an incredible statement coming from you, Bill. I'm shocked at it, actually. As if you can honestly compare the two. Do you understand why we lost in Vietnam?  Do you understand exactly how much we DID learn from it?  Those two wars are exactly the opposite. The first neglected the importance of ground forces and infantry, sending out tiny bands of troops, thinking it could all be fought in the air. The second knew this would be a disaster, and swarmed the country with infantry.
 
 The first tried to spare civilians from air strikes, even though civilian villages were a hotbed of Viet Kong. The second used massive ground troops to search buildings in every town, gaining intelligence as to where air strikes should be launched, taking out a single building or street, leaving everything else untouched. We never would have been able to win this war if the Iraqi people didn't help with intelligence. They're still helping. That's how we got Saddam, his two sons and Zarqawi, through the co-operation of Iraqi civilians.   
 
There was no cooperation from Vietnamese villages. The Viet Kong were their sons, brothers and uncles.  The Iraqi's held no such affection for those in power over them. They were happy to help.
 
As George Santayana notes, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
 
It's not being repeated!
 
 Yes, the way this war is being fought can be criticized, but that's hindsight. You can't always anticipate the problems, and with war, the problems can be very great, which is why you should enter into it only as a last resort.

Agreed.

Another problem is, of course, the fact that once you've become involved, you can't just pull out, because things aren't going well. If you're going to enter a foreign war, you had better be damn sure that you're going to win it, and that the benefits of victory are greater than the costs. Getting stuck in a quagmire from which it is not politically feasible to extricate yourself is a very real and grave danger. You need an exit strategy, just as you do in the stock market; otherwise you risk profound and substantial losses. If you have no exit strategy, you are courting disaster.

Do we have an exit strategy in Iraq? If we do, it's been very well camouflaged. What you are witnessing there is the classic ineptitude of government and of government planning and execution. National defense is frequently touted as one of the reasons for governmental intervention.
Agreed.
 
We must force people to support the government via taxation and military conscription, it is argued; otherwise we will have free riders who don't contribute their fair share; nor will there be enough money or volunteers to support our troops. Nobody ever bothers to point out that when you can force people to do your bidding, you have something called a "forced rider" problem. People are being coerced into supporting something they don't value; they are being sacrificed to the whims of government planners, and the sacrifices can be very great indeed.
Excellent observation, as usual, coming from you.  Except, it's not "conscription." These people volunteered to enlist.  If we still had the draft, then I would consider it conscription.

Of course, our leaders don't have to bear the personal consequences of their decisions to send our youth to die in foreign wars. If they did, I think their decisions would be very different.
Oh, but they do bear personal consequences!  Careers are made or destroyed over how the war machine is handled. Witness Stormin' Norman (made), Colin Powell (made), Henry Kissinger (destroyed), etc, etc.

As for oil and our need for it, if we eliminated environmental restrictions on such things as offshore drilling, we could make a significant contribution towards our supply of oil right here on our own soil. Without our patronage, corrupt governments in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, would be far poorer than they are today and would eventually collapse, as new sources of energy are discovered, and oil is no longer considered an indispensable natural resource. Without the environmentalists getting in the way, we could eventually supply enough of our own energy needs to eliminate our dependency on the Middle East entirely.
No brainer.
 







 

 




Post 34

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Jonathan!
could just as easily say that you have been influenced by O'Reilly and Hannity, but that wouldn't really be an argument, would it? Frankly, I'm a little insulted you would compare me to those people, so let's just stick to debating ;-)!
I apologize for that, and regret it. But you have to admit that your protests sound and awful lot like theirs!  That's why I made the comparison.  If you disagree with those folks, I'm glad to hear it.

For God's sake, they tried to execute a man for being a Christian!
But did they?  The Christian mysteriously landed in Italy.  The Afghan government succumbed to pressure over this and let him go.  Sounds like it worked to me.

How can you possibly expect them to maintain a proper ethical and political system with a flawed epistemology?
Of course not. But I don't expect it to remain flawed any more than I expect a human infant to never learn to read.

I still believe the only proper purpose of our military is to defend America, not institute Democracies all over the world, especially in places that lack the philosophical foundation to properly maintain it.
That's fair. But should we have ignored Kuwait's plea for help when they were invaded by Iraq in the early 90's?  I'd hate to think we'd just say "tough luck" to them when they asked for our help.

  I'm really pissed over how we're not putting more pressure on the UN to do something about the genocide in Darfur. But I'm female. Butchered babies affect me like that.  Kofi Annan should be disposed.


Post 35

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Jonathan!
could just as easily say that you have been influenced by O'Reilly and Hannity, but that wouldn't really be an argument, would it? Frankly, I'm a little insulted you would compare me to those people, so let's just stick to debating ;-)!
I apologize for that, and regret it. But you have to admit that your protests sound and awful lot like theirs!  That's why I made the comparison.  If you disagree with those folks, I'm glad to hear it.
No harm, it didn't really bother me that much, I just want to make sure we both stick to real arguments. I've been known to let my emotions blind me on occasion.
For God's sake, they tried to execute a man for being a Christian!
But did they?  The Christian mysteriously landed in Italy.  The Afghan government succumbed to pressure over this and let him go.  Sounds like it worked to me.
It's great that they let him go, but the fact that it was even an issue, well, I wouldn't say "it worked". That was an example of Islamic Law taking precedent, (and admittedly I don't know anything about the Afghan constitution).
How can you possibly expect them to maintain a proper ethical and political system with a flawed epistemology?
Of course not. But I don't expect it to remain flawed any more than I expect a human infant to never learn to read.
But how will they correct it? I haven't heard our government touting secular principles. I'm sure the right would love to be able to establish Christian law here.
I still believe the only proper purpose of our military is to defend America, not institute Democracies all over the world, especially in places that lack the philosophical foundation to properly maintain it.
That's fair. But should we have ignored Kuwait's plea for help when they were invaded by Iraq in the early 90's?  I'd hate to think we'd just say "tough luck" to them when they asked for our help.
Yep. It's a heirarchy of values. American lives are more important than Kuwaities lives. It is altruism to ask our soldiers, (no many how many go willingly) to lay down their lives for Kuwait.
I'm really pissed over how we're not putting more pressure on the UN to do something about the genocide in Darfur. But I'm female. Butchered babies affect me like that.  Kofi Annan should be disposed.
I'd like to see us out of the UN completely, it's a joke.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yep. It's a heirarchy of values. American lives are more important than Kuwaities lives. It is altruism to ask our soldiers, (no many how many go willingly) to lay down their lives for Kuwait.
I know you were just a youngster when this happened, but I have to tell you, pretty much the whole country was behind this. Kuwait is a tiny democracy (since the 60's), prosperous and peaceful. They don't preach hate in the mosques and schools, and everyone is college educated. They have practically zero poor people. True, women have yet to achieve the same rights as men in terms of voting, but it took us over 100 years to get that right. They'll get there.

If we said, "tough," and forced tiny Kuwait to try and defend it'self against a totalitarian bully like Saddam, or forced them to make a deal with the devil in Iran (if they'd even consider it at all) to help out, I don't think that speaks well of our hierarchy of values.  They could have asked Jordan, but King Hussein had his hands full trying to keep peace in his own country. Europe was in the middle of nationalizing currency (Euro Dollar). Kuwait asked us.

You might turn your head when evil bullies are beating up the aspiring good, but I can't, regardless of where they come from.     

I am way way busy this week. You may continue with this discussion if you'd like, but I may not have any time to respond. I'm not ignoring you.

I've enjoyed this discussion, Jonathan. You're a nice young man.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent posts, Jonathan and William.

Teresa, I've recommended these previously but allow me do so again. Richard J. Maybury's World War I and World War II address all of your arguments and many others in great detail. These are easy and enjoyable reads. Maybury has a knack for taking complicated subjects and explaining them simply. I highly recommend them.

"Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but trade with them."
Thomas Paine, 1776

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
George Washington, 1796

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
Thomas Jefferson, 1799

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration."
Thomas Jefferson, 1801

"There are...only three possible political and economic conditions: liberty, tyranny or chaos. All systems are variants of these three...Washington's grand strategy in this 'war on terrorism'... remove the tyranny, then call the chaos victory."
Richard Maybury, 2003




Post 38

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa wrote to Jonathan "I know you were just a youngster when this happened, but I have to tell you, pretty much the whole country was behind this."

Jonathan may have been a youngster during Desert Storm;  I was in my early 20's, fresh out of a stint in the USAF and in college. As I recall, support for the war was about 60% for  and 40% opposed, far from "pretty much the whole country". Perhaps you meant most people supported the troops; that's different.

My question to you, Teresa, is how was it in our self interest to sacrifice our men and women in uniform to defend the Kuwaiti royal family? I remember being incensed at the sight of the Kuwaiti elite living it up in the discos of Europe, while our troops fought the Kuwatis' battle for them.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I'd like to see us out of the UN completely, it's a joke
It's not even a joke - it's an obscenity.......


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.