Invasion of Iraq

"So, it's ok for us to have these horrible weapons, and threaten to use them, but noone else can."

No, other rational, democratic and just nations can have them, too.

Post 41

Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 7:56pm

It is the US that has been involved with the grossest acts of terrorism this world has seen. It is the US that has been involved in more global conflicts last century than any other. It is the US that has by far the most WMD and has declared that they will use them. It is now the US that threatens war against a 3rd world country that has not attacked the US nor has the means to do so. It is also the US that affects my life with its insane war on drugs and the loss in privacy and property rights that follows.
Clearly it is the US that is the real threat to world peace and liberty. What a shame. The US used to be a beacon of liberty for the world to follow, now it sound more like imperial Rome.
The sooner the US falls the better off we will all be.

Post 42

Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 1:55pm

No. 6:

"It is the US that has been involved with the grossest acts of terrorism this world has seen."

Quite a claim. Victims of torchure under Saddam's Iraq would disagree.

"It is the US that has been involved in more global conflicts last century than any other."

That's because we're the only ones willing to fight.

"It is the US that has by far the most WMD and has declared that they will use them."

Your point?

"It is now the US that threatens war against a 3rd world country that has not attacked the US nor has the means to do so."

So we should leave them alone so they can have the opportunity? If you haven't noticed, those people hate the US with little exception; Saddam isn't one I'd give the benefit of the doubt.

"It is also the US that affects my life with its insane war on drugs and the loss in privacy and property rights that follows."

I agree with you here, but this has nothing to do with an argument against the war on Iraq.

"Clearly it is the US that is the real threat to world peace and liberty."

Really? I'd put my money on the UN and its so-called "Human Rights Council."

"What a shame. The US used to be a beacon of liberty for the world to follow, now it sounds more like imperial Rome."

I hope this is hyperbole. Last time I checked, we still have some vestiges of limited government, protection of individual rights, etc. That's more than I can say for Iraq.

"The sooner the US falls the better off we will all be."

If that's how you feel, you'd better run to Iraq before the US topples-- I bet you'd receive quite a welcome.

Post 43

Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 8:58pm

1. Doesn't war imply "altruism" for those who are going to die for other's interest? Considering tha Iraqi regime is a despotic evil regime... why would altruistically somebody die for the sake of the iraqi people?

2. Are objectivist against U.S. government support in the past of dictatorships in Chile, Cuba, Easter Timor or Nicaragua?

Post 44

Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 5:40pm

Interesting to see objectivists disagreeing on the issue of the impending war with Iraq.

Perhaps a quick reading of Rand on the issue of war will clear a few heads:

"Rand on War"

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/rand_war.htm

As far as I'm concerned - there is absolutely no reason to go to war in this case - and in fact, like all wars, this one will have unexpected, and highly undesirable consequences.

Post 45

Monday, March 17, 2003 - 9:02am

U.S. records on defending reason and human rights are questionable.

USA has used their veto against UN resolutions about:

1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national
development are human rights.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political
and economic causes of
terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate
it from the struggle of people
from national liberation.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Post 46

Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 6:23am

"1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons."

READ - Put Free Nations at the mercy of Dictatorships who develop such weapons

"1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national
development are human rights."

READ - Destruction of Inividual Rights and proping up socialist dictatorships.

"1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities."

READ - Prohibition of Freedom of Speach and association and the advocation of Hate Crime Laws

"1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa."

READ - It is Politcaly Correct to advocate sanctions against White Tyranny, but advocating sanctions against brown people is racism.

"1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political
and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate
it from the struggle of people"
from national liberation.

READ - Capitalism causes poverty, poverty causes terrorism and give moral legitmacy to Islamic Fanatics who murder Israeli women and Children.

"1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction."

READ - Free Nations are morally equivalent, to murderous dictatorships.

"1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force."

READ - Free Nations should respect the Sovereignty of Despots.

"2001 To set up the International Criminal Court."

Killing in self-defence is now a war crime

"2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia."

The US has an altruistic duty to play Nanny to a bunch of tribal savages.

Post 47

Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 7:34am

The United States has also imposed dictatorships in
Chile (CIA was involved in the overthrown of an elected governemnt)
Argentina (General Videla)
Panam� (Noriega)
Iraq (Saddam Hussein)

My arguments are NOT in order to defend Huseein. I do not like ANY dictatorship, communist, liberal or fascist. In fact, Hussein's regime MUST be overthrown. But it is obviuos that the procedures are wrong.

And finally why the US has not altruistic duty to play Nanny to a buch of tribal savages, and yet must intervene in Iraq? The question here is how altruistic is actually war.

And about Israel, as far as I know, it is a theolohical nation, based on the irrational fact that God elected the jews as His People. I am not an antisemitic, of course. I believe that Israel has the right to survive and fight its enemies. But something is wrong here if we think that the US has the altruistic duty to help that nation with 2 billon dollars per year, and not to do so with other countries, also threatened by terrorists and dictatorships.

Post 48

Monday, March 24, 2003 - 9:08pm

Comment: To stay on top your must stay strong, sometimes that means standing alone. No one likes it when you push your own opinions, it causes conflict. But when you are one of the most stable counties in the world, many want to put you down so they can be on top. America is found on aggressive drive, determination and elimination of threats. Goodbye Iraq (Saddam Hussein)!!

Post 49

Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 3:57am

"Comment: To stay on top your must stay strong, sometimes that means standing alone."

I would say that "staying on top" is precisely one of the elements that is contributing to the world problem. Politics is not about domination, American imperialist impulses notwithstanding.

Post 50

Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 12:57pm

Lad's opinion is obviously a colectivistic one. He does not care for individual rights. His opinion is based on the interest of a "country". But only indivudal interests do exist, "countries" are imagined communities. Yes, "when you are on the top" you send OTHERS to fight for you, making them belive that it is for the "country's interest."

Post 51

Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 5:36pm

In the future I would appreciate if people would refrain from racist and anti-Semitic remarks as it is neither polite nor conducive to a positive sense of life.

Post 52

Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 7:15am

oh for heaven's sake ash, cut it with the anti-semite accusations. it's a common ploy used by the pro-israel lobby, which consists primarily of zionists (read religious nationalists) and fundamentalist christians. the purpose of accusations of racism is most often to shut down valid dissent over israeli actions.

Post 53

Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 12:40am

Zakeer, I believe Ash was posting in response to a post I deleted earlier. It was from an avowed racist, and it was quite openly anti-semitic. See, sometimes racism really is racism.

Post 54

Monday, March 31, 2003 - 3:55am