Should the U.S. Government Ever Support Evil Dictators?

When it comes to foreign policy, does the end ever justify the means for a self-proclaimed "moral nation" like the U.S.? In the War on Islam thread, Michael F. Dickey, in post No. 55, implies that it does when he states, "Of course the U.S. has backed terrible dictators, you must do the best that you can against the worst enemy."

Ayn Rand states: "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Does this mean that an Objectivist
should never support the evil-type leaders the U.S. has supported in the past, men like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden?

Post 1

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 6:33pm

Sounds similar to voting for the "lesser of two evils" to me.

Post 2

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 11:34pm

The easy answer is "No" because the question is about support.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan as it had the Baltic states, etc., and it is easy to see that a "government in exile" is an option. Now, the USSR could say to the UK (or USA), "Look, expel these people from your country because their phony government in exile is a problem for us and your supporting them is likewise a problem." The answer to that is: "Sorry about your problems, but to us, this so-called government in exile has the same status as a rugby team or a chess club. If they have a symbolic banner and matching jerseys, it is nothing to us."

What do you mean by "support"? ... or for that matter, "evil."? (I will not go into "dictator" here and now, but I will point to another thread.)

Why should the government in Washington DC ever support any other government? Diplomacy is one thing: material aid is another. I pay taxes to this government. If I wanted to pay taxes to some other government, I'd go live there.

Nothing in the Constitution allows the "support" of another nation's government.

I do acknowledge the private actions of individuals who chose to fight for the government of Spain against fascist insurgents or who volunteered through the Canadian armed forces to fight in Europe for the UK -- allowing of course the equal and opposite choices of any other private persons. So, if you want to buy 1000 RPGs and take them to Afghanistan to fight the USSR, that's your business. Please, do not make it mine.

As for the U.S. government doing these things, no, I object. I was opposed to NATO on the same grounds. NATO was necessary because of previous "support" given the USSR in its war against Germany. Had the USA remained neutral in World War I, then WW II would have been different. If two wrongs do not make a right, how many do? Six? Twelve? What does it take?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/09, 11:45pm)

Post 3

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 1:20pm

Michael, what a can of worms you just opened... ;-)

"So, if you want to buy 1000 RPGs and take them to Afghanistan to fight the USSR, that's your business. Please, do not make it mine."

OK, I'm standing at the U.S. border, on the Mexican side, with my stack of RPGs, as a legitimate Mexican arms manufacturer. Osama walks up to the border on the U.S. side, studying a passing airliner overhead as he approaches.

Osama: "I need to buy one of your products for my private arms collection."

Me: "No problemo. La precio esta $5,000 de dolores estado unidos."

Osama: "You can count the bills now."

Me: "Gracias, amigo."

At what point - and we can surely come up with much better scenarios than the above - off the top of my head - do we enter the realm in which the U.S. then has the legitimate right of self-defense and retaliates against the state of Mexico for supplying a terrorist by failing to stop me from making the sale?

Recall that it was Lend Lease that got us into WWI and was a major factor in getting us into WWII. U.S. bankers were in fact financing both sides in the European conflicts in both wars prior to U.S. entry, but the English-related bankers had more political clout, even though there were actually more people of German ancestry in the U.S.

Post 4

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 5:30pm

Phil, this is all well, fine and good, but at some level close to Square One, it fails. I deny the strength of "counterfactual worlds."

Say we have a good product with demand so strong that we cannot keep up. Most companies would bust their humps, but me, I just raise the price. That lowers demand. My production capacity is now adequate and I make the same amount of money, if not more. Figuring all that out is "counterfactual." But, what if Lincoln had not been assassinated is impossible to contemplate because we all live in a worlld where he was. We can write stories (and scifi authors have) but each one is inherently different and valid specifically because they are all unreal and the unreal does not exist.

That said, I have to ask, why are airliners unprotected or unarmed? Perhaps in some laissez faire counterfactual world, airliners have defenses against missiles and skyscrapers have defenses and so on. In fact, a long time ago, about 1982, I suggested that every city use its own municipal electrical plants to power anti-missile lasers according to "star wars."

Why would "the United States" retaliate against "Mexico" (two reified constructs), when Mike can just come after Phil (and Osama)?

Post 5

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 7:18pm

Ronald you are confused on the idea of what morality is. If you have a complex situation, making a difficult decision to back a weaker enemy to bring down a greater threat is not an immoral choice one has made. In fact to not act, and allow the greater threat to overcome you or threaten your rational self-interests is immoral. It is good not evil to strike the best blow that you can against the worst enemy that you have. You are confusing the act made against or in cooperation with the actors. So while the USSR and the mujahideen (actors) were both evil, they were not both an equal threat to the United States, so to support (to act) the mujahideen in the 1980s, was good. Actually the mujahideen in the 1980s were not a threat at all to the United States. As far as Osama Bin Laden launching attacks decades later, this still does not mean the decision to support the mujahideen in the 1980's was immoral. You are not acting immorally if you do not have perfect knowledge of future events. No one in the United States except for a few CIA agents knew who Bin Laden was, and further still these few CIA agents did not know Bin Laden would organize an international terrorist network with the intent to carry out terrorist attacks against the West.

(Edited by John Armaos on 11/10, 7:50pm)

Post 6

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 7:24am

Planning ahead to invest resources in the lesserly evil enemy of your greaterly evil enemy makes me wonder what a neo-conservative finds so attractive about Objectivism. Is it the illusion of an absolutism? You just memorize a bunch of rules that you always apply? Is that how it goes?

"I do not offend by telling the truth," he said. "The Venezuelan government reserves the right to respond to any aggression, anywhere, in any space and in any manner."

Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage backed Chavez, saying that "a president's legitimacy stems not only from his election by voters ... he must also be legitimate in the exercise of power."

The book is called Capitalism: the unknown ideal not Imperialism: the lesser of two evils. Objectivists call themselves "radicals for capitalism" not "compromisers for nationalism." The title of Murray Rothbard's book was Power and Market not Power and Power Applied Differently. Von Mises wrote Human Action not Inhumane Reaction.

In Atlas Shrugged, they could have used John Galt's energy converter to overpower the Thompson Harmonizer and defeat the government with superior firepower, but that would have contradicted about 1084 pages of other thinking.

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. The standard is that you come up with a better solution than blowing someone's brains out... but sometimes you can't... we are fallible creatures and it might happen that without sufficient time or other resources at your disposal the Five Easy Concepts are the only solution you can find. Your incompetence will fall upon the aggressor. It will happen. However, life is not inherently evil or catastrophic. The universe is not anti-life.

Backing the mujahideen against the Soviets was exactly like backing Iraq against Iran and then Saudi Arabia against Iraq. Staying out of northern Ireland was the best foreign policy lack-of-initiative the US government has ever engaged. It should be a paradigm. In fact it is: George Washington recommended it.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi released an audio tape that issued an ultimatum to Iran. He said: "We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shia government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you." He further warned Arab states from doing business with Iran.
Iran supports the Iraqi government which many see as anti-Sunni. Furthermore, Iran is believed to support Shi'ite militias, such as that of Muqtada al-Sadr, which have attacked Sunni groups and populations.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/11, 7:38am)

Post 7

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 1:38pm

Some Historical Evidence

Michael--I very much agree with the points you have made in this thread (As an aside, I especially liked the Asimov quote in the first sentence of para. 4 in post 6!). I also do not believe the US government should support any government regardless of its form (by support, I mean giving money, training, or military materiale).

My agreement with you is based on the following historical observations:

1. Historically, the US has seldom fully understood all sides of conflicts in which it has intervened--This is due in part to our isolation from the world; the decline of teaching history in our schools, colleges and universities; and our general lack of interest in other countries. This combination of social ignorance and lack of/or ignoring of Intelligence has caused foreign policy blunders and have damaged US credibility abroad. Consider Iraq as an example. Saddam Hussein's treatment of the Iraqi people and alleged WMD (weapons of mass destruction) production aside, there were very good reasons why the US should not have launched a full-scale war against the country. First, the country of Iraq is an artifact of British colonialism, which was carved out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire following WWI. The boundaries created were for British administrative convenience (i.e., "divide and conquer") and not reflective of the wishes of the actual groups living there. In other words, there is no "Iraqi people" per se; rather there are three dominant groups (Sunni Muslims, Shiia Muslims, and Kurds) all who have a mutual hatred and suspicion of each other. Following independence, whenever a representative of one of the Muslim groups seized control of the government, they would enrich their group and persecute the other two (to my knowledge, no Kurd has served in the executive of the Iraqi government). Second, we should have seen that the ousting of Saddam would have caused a disintegration of internal order. We should have looked back at what happend to the former Yugoslavia following the death of Tito. Tito's strong arm tacts kept the various groups under control; when he died, the country disintegrated along linguistic group lines. Third, assuming that Saddam was making WMD and that we confirmed that these activities occurred in certain locations, why not do what the Israeli's did to an Iraq nuclear facility that allegedly reprocessed Uranium in the 1980's: bomb it? Or even press harder on the diplomatic and international institution front and if that failed to use force?

2. Our interventions have caused the countries involved large, long-lasting social disruptions--Another (hopefully less controversial) example: Guatemala. In 1944, a military junta called elections, and by a large margin Juan Jos� Ar�valo Bermejo was elected president. By all accounts, he was a socialist; his socialism was more of a Fabian than a Marxist type. By the end of his term (1950), US concern about the spread of communism came to the fore--socialism, even of a Fabian sort was seen as "communism" and thus a threat to US security. His democratically elected successor, Jacabo Arbenz, began expanding the land reforms begun under Arevalo. The Eisenhower administration began to view Arevalo as a threat, especially when the Arevalo government nationalized a large part of the United Fruit Company's land (another reason for US intervention was that John Foster Dulles' brother Allen stood to lose a lot of money as a large stakeholder in United). The CIA launched a coup against Arevalo and installed a military government. The US also began training and funding the Guatemalan military. From this coup d'etat began a 40+ year civil war that ended in 1996.

Post 8

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 2:37pm

Marotta:

Planning ahead to invest resources in the lesserly evil enemy of your greaterly evil enemy makes me wonder what a neo-conservative finds so attractive about Objectivism.

I didn't know I was a neo-conservative. But since you use this as an insult, I get to dismiss your entirely. Thanks for making it easier to ignore you.

Kevin:

1. Historically, the US has seldom fully understood all sides of conflicts in which it has intervened--

This smacks of moral relativism. Just because we don't have omniscience and perfect knowledge of the future, this doesn't mean one cannot act on the best information available to them. Look at it on the micro, or local level as opposed to national defense, if you compare this to a serial murderer in your neighborhood, just because the police may make some mistakes in trying to capture this criminal, it doesn't mean those mistakes were immoral if the police acted on the best information available to them.

You can't pick and choose US foreign policy failures while ignoring all the successes. If you're going to point out the failures, then includes all the successes, and tell me their wasn't any net benefit to United State's foreign policy.

2. Our interventions have caused the countries involved large, long-lasting social disruptions--

It did to some, and regrettably decisions were made that lead to some turmoil, but again what was the alternative? A far greater number of countries under Soviet domination? What about the countries that did not have long-lasting social disruptions that remained free or became free only as a result of western intervention?

Post 9

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 3:57pm

Yes, our malignant interventions abroad have caused long-lasting devastation everywhere we've set troops on foreign soil.

I mean, look today at Germany. Or Japan. Italy. France. Holland. Finland. And all those other European nations we forced ourselves upon during WW II. How cruel are we.

Add to this list of shame all the many nations of the former Eastern European bloc, which we tore against their will from the benevolent orbit of the Soviet Union.

Mygod, how COULD we? Yes indeedy, it's clear that we are the source of Evil in the world.

Post 10

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 5:43pm

Weapons of war are irrelevant in a war of ideas. The most powerful assaults against totalitarianism came via jazz, comic books, rock 'n' roll, television and radio, and (eventually) the personal computer.

Mike Marotta --
BOOK REVIEW: Exporting the First Amendment: The Press-Government Crusade 1945-1952 by Margaret A. Blanchard, Longman Publishers, New York, 1986.
Time and again, Eleanor Roosevelt and her teammates from the United States were overpowered by compromisers who viewed "freedom of the press" as a necessary evil. To most of the delegates to the press conventions in Geneva and New York, RESTRICTING the press by adopting "principles of responsibility" was more important.
Freedom of the press was for everyone EXCEPT... Except for issues of national security (all nations agreed with that). Except for when the press in one place insults the politicians in another place (Egypt's King Farouk enjoyed the Riveria and Monte Carlo). Except when materials are injurious to youth (Scandanavia and France feared American comic books and the communists hated the daily comics because in the background was all this luxury). Except when opinions are injurious to the reputation of natural and legal individuals (a "legal individual" is a corporation). And indeed, while Eleanor Roosevelt was insisting that the press should be free, the United States was chasing "communist" writers at home and abroad.
Computer Underground Digest Volume 3 Issue # 3.05 (February 9, 1991) [*]
http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/CUDS3/cud305.txt

Capitalism is efficacious. The more capitalist a nation or society or culture is, the more prosperous and stable it will be.[1] The farther a society drifts (or runs) from full laissez faire, the less well off the people will be as individuals, of course, and therefore as a population. Herrmann Goering coined the word "Pluenderekonomie" and it means just what it looks and sounds like: plunder-economy. It could not last. Neither, of course, could Soviet Russia.

By allowing armed hostilities and declarations of war, the United States actually helped to solidify the totalitarian regimes by being the common enemy of all internal factions and providing an excuse for further mobilizations and other controls. Had the USA dodged, ducked, bobbed and weaved, they could have worn down the socialists -- assuming that American's "free enterprise" was strong enough and had not been reduced to tatters by the New Deal which needed the war for the same reasons as those worserests of so many evils. I believe that even despite the New Deal, the USA was economically freer and therefore stronger than the totalitarian states. The USA could have persevered, even "surrounded"[3] because it would have been surrounded by hopeless muscle mystics whose "scientific" programs included the creation of gasoline by passing water over coal. Even the highly touted V-rockets were competing against foodstores as their alcohol fuel came from potatos. The German nuclear weapons program was impossible without the brainpower they had expelled the decade before and such as it was there were three competing efforts and it is not even clear that the only mind capable -- Heisenberg -- was actively engaged in the project.

As for the German occupation, it, too was mired. Denmark held fast, refusing to concede. Danes[2] looked to their king as an example of non-compliance. They refused to work in German or Norwegian factories and they smuggled Jews out to Sweden.

The normally adroit Bob Bidinotto knows full well that Finland was not really liberated by the "Allies", but was thrown to the wolves, ultimately unable to withstand Russia -- which was being aided by the USA and UK -- a direct consequence of the realpolitik of aiding the (however measured) "lesser" of two (admitted) evils. The USSR was able to colonize eastern Europe and support communist political actions in western Europe because it survived the war with the help of the USA. The communists then maintained that they alone had resisted the fascists all along. Had the USA and UK not given the USSR the moral sanction of alliance, the USSR would have been what it was: an ally of German, betrayed -- a jilted lover. A rational "foreign policy" (so-called) of destabilization would have centered on the spread of liberal ideas. Both the communists and the fascists hated the bourgeoisie. Therefore, a heavy dose of "bourgeois virtue" would have paid dividends.

No one here accused the USA of being "evil." What I and others caution against is range of the moment militarist pragmatism in lieu of a principled application of foreign policy inaction.

[*] See also,Marotta, Michael E., "Computers and the Totalitarian State," Prometheus, Libertarian Futurist Society, Vol. 3, No. 4, Fall 1985 (Originally published 1985 by Loompanics Greatest Book Catalog in the World, 1985.)
[1] (actually: metastable or dynamically stable, not "stable" in the sense of "unchanging").
[2] http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/ and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark
[3] "Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. The cold steel is next.... The machine-gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield. " -- General Henri Guisan (1874-1960), order to Swiss troops, 1940 -- http://www.swissworld.org
The Swiss government had a decentralised structure, so even the Federal President was a relatively powerless official with no authority to surrender the country. Indeed, Swiss citizens had been instructed to regard any surrender broadcast as enemy lies and resist to the end. ... The main strategy, however, was deterrence rather than fighting. Even though tiny Switzerland had an army of only 430,000 men, Germany never risked invasion. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Guisan

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/11, 5:53pm)

Post 11

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 6:39pm

Weapons of war are irrelevant in a war of ideas. The most powerful assaults against totalitarianism came via jazz, comic books, rock 'n' roll, television and radio, and (eventually) the personal computer.

That's right, I forgot that 6 million Jews died in concentration camps because the United States wasn't quick enough to airdrop jazz records and comic books over Europe. Silly America!

Post 12

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 7:48pm

John--Here are my responses to your comments in Post 8:

1. Historically, the US has seldom fully understood all sides of conflicts in which it has intervened--

"This smacks of moral relativism."

I am not clear how this statement and the argument I present "smacks of moral relativism." Would you spell out your argument?

"Just because we don't have omniscience and perfect knowledge of the future, this doesn't mean one cannot act on the best information available to them."

True, but in light of the lack of such omniscience or perfect knowledge and considering the gravity of going to war or overthrowing a government, don't you think we ought to err on the side of non-action to action? Particularly if there is no clear rational self-interest?

"Look at it on the micro, or local level as opposed to national defense, if you compare this to a serial murderer in your neighborhood, just because the police may make some mistakes in trying to capture this criminal, it doesn't mean those mistakes were immoral if the police acted on the best information available to them."

A few comments:

1. I would tolerate the police making some mistakes in apprehending a serial murderer in my neighborhood because I have, as a citizen, given the power to apprehend criminals to the police. This is a proper function of government.

2. While true that national defense is also a proper function of government, it does not necessarily follow that either the War in Iraq or the CIA-sponsored coup in Guatemala constitute "national defense." Did Iraq directly or indirectly attack us? Is there strong evidence of this? Was there a direct threat to US security if the socialist government nationalized land owned by United Fruit?

"You can't pick and choose US foreign policy failures while ignoring all the successes. If you're going to point out the failures, then includes all the successes, and tell me their wasn't any net benefit to United State's foreign policy."

That's a fair criticism. Here is my one example of a success in American Foreign Policy: The Reconstruction of Europe after WWII. It was in our rational self-interest for two reasons: 1) Recontructing Europe helped contain a Soviet Union bent on taking over Europe; 2) It created extra markets for our products (until their economies recovered). Can you cite some other examples of US foreign policy successes?

2. Our interventions have caused the countries involved large, long-lasting social disruptions--

"It did to some, and regrettably decisions were made that lead to some turmoil, but again what was the alternative? A far greater number of countries under Soviet domination? What about the countries that did not have long-lasting social disruptions that remained free or became free only as a result of western intervention?"

Several alternatives existed in both Iraq and Guatemala. In Iraq, we could have continued the economic blockage, and continued covert operations to gather more solid intellegence on the exact size and nature of Saddam's WMD program. In Guatemala, we could have left them alone and let the Guatemalan people see the foolishness of seizing private property. BTW, the Soviets had nothing to do with the left-leaning government of Guatemala. At the time of the intervention, Stalin had died and there was a power vacuum within the Kremlin (Khruschev did not emerge as the party secretary until 1955/56). One of the results of the coup was the peasants, who at first embraced Christian Socialism, began to seek out more radical and more Marxist ideas. This became especially so when they saw that democratic and non-violent means of expressing their concerns were not improving their livelihoods. By the 1970's, this radicalized peasentry began to clash with the military, which resulted in much bloodshed and social upheaval.

"What about the countries that did not have long-lasting social disruptions that remained free or became free only as a result of western intervention?"

Outside of the countries of Western Europe after WWII, I cannot think of any. Can you name some?

Kevin

Post 13

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 2:04am

Kevin:

"This smacks of moral relativism."

I am not clear how this statement and the argument I present "smacks of moral relativism." Would you spell out your argument?

Cutting out every snippet of my post will not give you the full understanding of what I am saying as the next snippet you take out answers your question;

"Just because we don't have omniscience and perfect knowledge of the future, this doesn't mean one cannot act on the best information available to them."

True, but in light of the lack of such omniscience or perfect knowledge and considering the gravity of going to war or overthrowing a government, don't you think we ought to err on the side of non-action to action? Particularly if there is no clear rational self-interest?

To answer your fist question, to err on the side of non-action could yield far more disastrous results than taking an action. It depends on what information is available to you, but to say it is categorically in your rational self-interest you always choose non-action? What basis do you make that assumption? If a serial murderer was killing your neighbors, do you think it would be in your best interest to take non-action?

To answer your second question, you again make the premise that smacks of moral relativism. You seem to suggest one can never have clear rational self interest in mind when taking an action, which suggests there is no such thing as acting morally in one's own rational self-interest. This could either mean it is always best in one's interest to take non-action, all of the time, or you mean to say one can never have enough information to make a judgment call on what action to take. How is that not moral relativism?

2. While true that national defense is also a proper function of government, it does not necessarily follow that either the War in Iraq or the CIA-sponsored coup in Guatemala constitute "national defense." Did Iraq directly or indirectly attack us? Is there strong evidence of this? Was there a direct threat to US security if the socialist government nationalized land owned by United Fruit?

Further reason why you should try to refrain snipping tiny tidbits and responding to them without finishing the rest of what I said. You may find the question you ask is already answered in the next sentence.

As I said to which you even cited again subsequently:

You can't pick and choose US foreign policy failures while ignoring all the successes. If you're going to point out the failures, then includes all the successes, and tell me their wasn't any net benefit to United State's foreign policy

To which you respond:

That's a fair criticism.

Then why didn't you wait until you finished reading the rest of my post before asking me two concrete actions the US has taken even though I already explained to you, you can't count the misses and ignore the hits?

And I can't let this go:

In Guatemala, we could have left them alone and let the Guatemalan people see the foolishness of seizing private property.

Sure we could have. Just as you could have left your neighbors to seize your property and let your neighbors see the foolishness of seizing private property. I'm sure that would've gotten your house back. Unless you would be willing to volunteer to try this out on your own property, then you are acting as a moral hypocrite, picking and choosing who you think ought to have their right to private property respected and who should be a victim of theft.

As far as Guatemala, I don't know much about this footnote of history, needless to say as if it would have been just to let some Guatemelans or their government steal the property of others? But let's look at another Caribbean island that had socialist leanings; Cuba. We let Cuba fall into communist hands, no one thought Fidel would turn Cuba into a communist hell hole, only that we knew he was a Socialist and sought to overthrow Batista, the United States stood by and did nothing and look what happened? Where at least in Guatemala there was the hope of eventually having freedom or at least a government far less cruel than a Soviet satellite, in Cuba to this day 11 million people are held prisoners on an island that harbored Soviet nuclear missiles, sitting only 90 miles away from the coast of Florida, bringing the world in 1962 to the brink of nuclear annihilation. That was the history lesson learned from ignoring "democratically elected" Soviet sympathizers. That was the terrible cost of "non-action".

"What about the countries that did not have long-lasting social disruptions that remained free or became free only as a result of western intervention?"

Outside of the countries of Western Europe after WWII, I cannot think of any. Can you name some?

Well that alone falsifies your statement it is better to take non-action than action. But sure I'll add more to the list:

South Korea
Japan
Hong Kong
Singapore
Taiwan
Israel
Most of the former Soviet Republics and Eastern Europe

Here is a map from freedomhouse.org, I'll let you pick more countries on your own:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/maps/fiw_current.pdf

Post 14

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 6:16pm

Don't forget the Philippines and North Africa (Morocco).

Post 15

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 11:48am

I think this was raised, but it's not appropriate to say they "support" evil dictators, it would be more appropriate to say they are "using" evil dictators to fight even worse evils and even worse dictators, or at least one that are as bad. When that is not the case, then the 'support' is immoral.

Post 16

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 8:07pm

I SUPPORT MARXISTS!

Since 2005, I have been enrolled in a college program in criminal justice and a university degree program in criminology. The intellectual bankruptcy of academe is no surprise to anyone here. At Eastern Michigan University, the faculty in sociology and criminology is overwhelmingly either Marxist or Post Modernist. Since Marxism is the lesser of two evils, I will follow the Neo-Con Imperative and support Marxists over Post Modernists. I will not advocate for reality, reason, rights and rational self-interest because that would weaken the enemy of my enemy. Instead I will focus my efforts on supporting the lesser evil.

I call this the Armaos Gambit: sidle up to someone who might win the fight you refuse to engage.

(Never mind. I was just kidding. In fact, as I have sworn by my life and by my love of it never to live for the sake of another man or ask another man to live for mine, I will continue to advocate for rational-empirisicm, i.e., for Objectivism. The Neo-Cons can do as they wish.)

Post 17

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 8:52pm

Reified Constructs and the Legal Fictions that Bind Us?

According to MEM in one post "[n]othing in the Constitution allows the "support" of another nation's government." Yet in another post, nations such as America and Mexico are merely "reified constructs." What exactly then are treaties?

Are we thus to conclude that the mere bylaws of a reified construct can forbid the support of reified constructs? Do fictions outlaw fantasies?

And as for those bylaws:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation...
[I.e., this power is reserved to the Federal Government.]
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
[I.e., the President and Senate can make treaties and hence implicitly alliances.]
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...
[And treaties shall have the power of law.]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
[And the president can wage war]
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
[To defend the Constitution]
This Constitution...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[And Treaties, which are its highest law.]

Governments may be justified by reasoned argument but they are established only (however indirectly) by the use or threat of force. Denying this is bad enough. Apparently not knowing what the law is is even worse. But then to deny the reality of law-enforcing entities while at the dame time calling upon their fundamental law to support one's false arguments is simply absurd.

Ted Keer

Post 18

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:30am

I SUPPORT MARXISTS!

Since 2005, I have been enrolled in a college program in criminal justice and a university degree program in criminology. The intellectual bankruptcy of academe is no surprise to anyone here. At Eastern Michigan University, the faculty in sociology and criminology is overwhelmingly either Marxist or Post Modernist. Since Marxism is the lesser of two evils, I will follow the Neo-Con Imperative and support Marxists over Post Modernists. I will not advocate for reality, reason, rights and rational self-interest because that would weaken the enemy of my enemy. Instead I will focus my efforts on supporting the lesser evil.

I call this the Armaos Gambit: sidle up to someone who might win the fight you refuse to engage.

I call this the Marotta Doctrine: Help fight tyranny and spread the ideals of liberty and individualism by airdropping jazz records and comic books!

(Edited by John Armaos on 11/14, 10:49am)

Post 19

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 2:33pm