[Barbara Branden]

The Lepers of Objectivism
by Barbara Branden

I had not read anything on SoloPassion for quite some time, but I went there tonight and discovered an article by Phil Coates entitled "Targeting Those Who Have Not Initiated Force -- Muslims as Such."
http://www.solopassion.com/node/1599

In this article, Phil criticizes an Objective Standard post by Craig Biddle, as follows:

"Craig Biddle on his Objective Standard blog advocates taking out Iran by aerial bombing. He adds the following to the list of military and leadership targets: 'All Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian...imams [and] clerics. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).'"

I did not expect that I ever would recommend that the members of Objectivist Living should read a Solo article, and particularly the comments being made about it. But I think you need to know that there are so-called Objectivists who advocate, as a value in itself, the deliberate, pointless murder of perhaps millions of people in mosques and millions of children in schools.

If Lindsay Perigo does not denounce Craig Biddle and the members of Solo who support his recommendations, and if ARI does not denounce The Objective Standard, (which is published and edited by Craig Biddle, and which numbers among its writers Andrew Bernstein, Yaron Brook, Alex Epstein, and David Harriman) they should be shunned and avoided just as lepers once were shunned and avoided. These people are the lepers of Objectivism.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

As a complement to Robert Campbell's post, let me add that Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard.

I don't know if there is any official tie-in between this magazine and ARI, but major senior ARI writers contribute to it, including Yaron Brook, president and executive director of ARI. John Lewis is Contributing Editor of the magazine. Here is a list of other The Objective Standard writers given on the TOS website:

Andrew Bernstein
Dianne Durante
Alex Epstein
Alan Germani
Gena Gorlin
David Harriman
Elan Journo
Edwin A. Locke
Keith Lockitch
Richard M. Salsman
Larry Salzman
C. Bradley Thompson
Lisa VanDamme

Craig Biddle also has a website: Craig Biddle: Objectivist Speaker & Writer.

You asked:

Victor said:

Is the voice of Biddle and ARI of “one mind” on this issue?

In light of Robert's post and the above information, what do you think?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Roger and Dennis,

It's important to distinguish between Islam, which has been around for nearly 1400 years, and Islamic fundamentalism, whose variants go back less than 100 years.

In her book The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong points out that Islamic fundamentalism has in common with Christian fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism the fact that it is not a genuine return to older and presumably "purer" versions of the religion. Much about it is of recent origin, developed in reaction to modern trends that threaten the faith. The doctrine that legitimizes the present theocracy in Iran--Velayat-e-Faqih, or rule by the top Islamic jurist--was invented by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It has affinities with past Islamic endorsements of authoritarian rule, but is not identical with any of them.

Islam per se has plenty of problems with it. As do Judaism and Christianity. (If you read her book, you will see that Armstrong is inclined to sanitize all three religions, in somewhat different ways. But these biases aren't too difficult to correct for.) In no case, however, should any of these religions should be identified with its fundamentalist versions.

With fanatics who crave the establishment of a new Islamic empire, or fancy themselves part of an Islamo-Leninist revolutionary vanguard, efforts at persuasion will be useless. But most Muslims do not appear to be committed to Islamic imperialism or Islamo-Leninism. They might even prefer to live their lives without being ordered around by empire-builders and bloodthirsty revolutionaries.

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Robert Campbell, on Sep 26 2006, 07:30 PM, said:

Roger and Dennis,

It's important to distinguish between Islam, which has been around for nearly 1400 years, and Islamic fundamentalism, whose variants go back less than 100 years.

In her book The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong points out that Islamic fundamentalism has in common with Christian fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism the fact that it is not a genuine return to older and presumably "purer" versions of the religion. Much about it is of recent origin, developed in reaction to modern trends that threaten the faith. The doctrine that legitimizes the present theocracy in Iran--Velayat-e-Faqih, or rule by the top Islamic jurist--was invented by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It has affinities with past Islamic endorsements of authoritarian rule, but is not identical with any of them.

Islam per se has plenty of problems with it. As do Judaism and Christianity. (If you read her book, you will see that Armstrong is inclined to sanitize all three religions, in somewhat different ways. But these biases aren't too difficult to correct for.) In no case, however, should any of these religions should be identified with its fundamentalist versions.

With fanatics who crave the establishment of a new Islamic empire, or fancy themselves part of an Islamo-Leninist revolutionary vanguard, efforts at persuasion will be useless. But most Muslims do not appear to be committed to Islamic imperialism or Islamo-Leninism. They might even prefer to live their lives without being ordered around by empire-builders and bloodthirsty revolutionaries.

Robert Campbell

Robert, I thought I ~was~ distinguishing between the Islamo-fascists aka fanatical fundamentalist Muslims on the one hand the reasonable, "good Muslims" on the other hand. I certainly agree with what you say in this post.

Except you suggest that some sort of persuasion of the reasonable, "good Muslims" is necessary (for what?) and possible. If you mean, we should try to get them to "come out" and publicly support free speech and secular Western values like rights and civility, how long do you think it will be -- if they are at all effective and well-spoken and get decent publicity -- before the jihadists will do a Red Queen number on them? Never was a group more understandably deserving of the term "Silent Majority." Indeed, they well ~may~ "prefer to live their lives without being ordered aroundby empire-buildersand bloodthirsty revolutionaries." But say it out loud? You want to persuade them to do ~that~?

We are too used to our largely free society to have much of a feel for what it must be like to live in Muslim-dominated societies -- or even societies with a large Muslim minority, like France. Topless bathing outlawed. My god, what's next? Well, we know what happens if you make a cartoon or a movie that pokes fun at Mohammed. "Off with their heads!"

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Sep 26 2006, 06:50 PM, said:

Roger,
(1) With all due respect (and there is much respect), your last post shows that you know hardly anything at all about the Muslim and Mideast cultures you write about. (2) Once you learn more (should you ever learn someday), I am certain that you will wonder what on earth you were thinking.

I am all for evidence and learning facts, and I'd appreciate hearing some instead of just references to them. But I'm also all for logical coherence, and certain things just don't make sense to me. For once thing, the opening paragraph of your post (quoted above). Specifically, I am curious as to how you reconcile comment (1) with comment (2). Seems more catty than anything.

I am also curious as to how you would explain away or minimize the significance of Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, and the Mohammed cartoons in regard to hoping to ally the reasonable Muslims as public supporters of Western secular values (rights, civility, etc.) and public opponents of the Islamo-totalitarians.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Robert Campbell, on Sep 26 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

Victor,

I wouldn't assume that every member or affiliate of the Ayn Rand Institute subscribes to the same brand of bellicosity as Craig Biddle.

But I see near-complete consistency between Biddle's recent bloviations on total war and the long article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, earlier this year, opposing "just war" theory. I see substantial agreement between Biddle and Leonard Peikoff, in that full-page ad in the New York Times from 2001. (Substantial but not total, as Dr. Peikoff was then agitating for an invasion of Iran by American ground troops, which Mr. Biddle would presumably find too costly in American soldiers' lives.)

And, unlike some organizations, ARI has designated spokespeople and a party line, on a wide range of subjects. Mr. Biddle appears to be expressing the party line on matters military. (If he were not, I would expect, at the very least, a sharp public critique of his views out of some highly placed ARIan. And I know of nothing of the sort.)

Needless to say, neither Craig Biddle nor anyone else at ARI is in a position to influence the foreign policy or the military plans of the US government. I suspect that some of the reckless disproportionality that is evident in Mr. Biddle's formulations has come about precisely because he doesn't expect anyone in a position of authority to listen to him. (This is not to deny that persons in authority in the USA will sometimes pay heed to wacky views--otherwise, how could one account for the leverage attained by someone like Paul Wolfowitz?).

Obviously Mr. Biddle's sanguinary editorializing does make Objectivism look bad, in the eyes of many who accord legitimacy to the Ayn Rand Institute's pretensions to represent Objectivism. But ARI's leaders and spokespeople do quite a few other things that make Objectivism look bad, to just about anyone who is not an ARI acolyte.

The deeper question isn't even whether Mr. Biddle's views should be considered expressions of Objectivism, or of "Objectivist philosophy". Their status as such is debatable, under the ARIans' own stated criteria. His remarks are consistent with certain themes in Ayn Rand's thought--and grossly inconsistent with others that present company, at least, would consider sounder, as well as more fundamental.

The deeper question is whether Mr. Biddle's views are right.

Like several other participants here, I'm prepared to argue that they are deeply wrong.

Robert Campbell

As far as Objectivism is concerned it is irrelevant if they are right or wrong. It is wrong to take the name of a dead philosopher of stature and pretend that somehow your views would have been her views if she were alive. Maybe yes, maybe no. But she is dead and it is absolutely illegitimate to pretend in any respect otherwise or to give your personal views her gravitas. Okay to say they are consistent with Objectivism, although that would not be my personal frame of reference, but don't throw her name directly into it by creating and using an "Ayn Rand Institute."

His views are deeply wrong because egoism has no commonality with Nazism, which more than any one thing is associated in the public mind not with totalitarianism or socialism or even war-mongering, but with genocide. Linz damned Barbara Branden for this and he damned her for that, but he never damned anybody for infesting his Web site with such advocacy. Instead he celebrated it as "KASS." And it's not even justified militarily, so it was completely gratuitous. Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students. It is possible that pilots could be given such bombing coordinates not knowing what the targets actually were. But I doubt that the responsible officers would give out such coordinates even by a direct order from the Commander-In-Chief who would be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office in a heartbeat. It is only some nuts associated with an institute in Southern California called the "Ayn Rand Institute." Lastly, imagine a John Galt or Howard Roark going into a religious school and machine-gunning the students. Something wrong with your imagination?

--Brant

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 26 September 2006 - 11:52 PM

[Victor Pross]

Brant wrote:

"His views are deeply wrong because egoism has no commonality with Nazism, which more than any one thing is associated in the public mind not with totalitarianism or socialism or even war-mongering, but with genocide. Linz damned Barbara Branden for this and he damned her for that, but he never damned anybody for infesting his Web site with such advocacy. Instead he celebrated it as "KASS." And it's not even justified militarily, so it was completely gratuitous. Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students. It is possible that pilots could be given such bombing coordinates not knowing what the targets actually were. But I doubt that the responsible officers would give out such coordinates even by a direct order from the commander-in-chief who would be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office in a heartbeat. It is only some nuts associated with an institute in Southern California called the 'Ayn Rand Institute.'"


Um...Mr. Bissell....sir? Um....isn't Brant's point, here, what the real issue is all about? This is what we are talking about. Just a thought.

[Rich Engle]

I don't spend much time attempting to understand the ARI party lines on anything, but I do notice more of the same nastiness in O-world in general. Look at how it got started up over on SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1657

They're all enjoying fantasizing about blowing up various monuments and ancient seats of civilization.

It's easy to be cavalier, and callous, when you're a chickenhawk. If you look at all that ivory tower saber-rattling, it's not any different from fanatical groups talking about blowing up things over here. All very sad, really.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Thanks for the reality check. After reading a lot of material recently heartily and gleefully proposing massive bloodshed - and essentially blaming it on the victims, I started wondering where sanity was going. But you reminded me of just how great this country is, where even soldiers in battle will do the right thing without needing any convincing.

Brant said:

Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students.

God bless America.

(Guess where that came from?)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Quote

Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students.

That's it, really. That's the difference between the civilized, and the murderous animals of the world. The second you cross over, you become them.

Unfortunately, whatever the solutions involve are always much more complex than just lobbing your junk into the village and baking the locals. If it were only that easy; it's not. Not if you are not an animal.

I'm telling you-- all this stuff is not a bit different than when you hear self-proclaimed tough guys talking smack in a bar about how they handle things. Most of 'em, you poke them in the eye and they cry like little bitches.

How do I know that? I've had to poke a few in the eye, and they cried like little bitches.

This post has been edited by Rich Engle: 27 September 2006 - 11:19 AM

[Victor Pross]

In any case, Biddle’s pedagogical blood-thirsty blustering bombast is pathetic for two essential reasons: [a] he is not a military strategist and [b] he is not an intellectual heavy-weight—but rather An “Objectivist” catechist of the True Believer ilk.

Biddle makes me cringe with embarrassment. He sounds like any garden variety low-life white trash that you might come across at the local tavern --except he wears a tie and has a larger vocabulary. Biddle, shut your pie-hole!

This post has been edited by Victor Pross: 27 September 2006 - 11:20 AM

[Rich Engle]

Quote

He sounds like any garden variety low-life white trash that you might come across in at the local tavern --except he wears a tie and has a larger vocabulary.

Exactly. I mean, exactly. I happen to frequent this very trashy biker bar at the end of my street because it's a: a major musician hangout, b: has some of the best food around for cheap and c: I can swing dance in there sometimes. I can't tell you how many times I hear bar trash talking identical stuff. Identical! You don't need schooled rhetoric to be a chicken hawk. I don't talk religion or politics in bars, and for the same reason I don't talk religion or politics with Ortho-O's. Used to, in the former you get into bar fights, in the latter, you get into curmudgeon fights...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hmmmm...

Chickenhawk curmudgeon fights. What an image! And it does have a nice ring to it.

I wonder if we can turn this into some kind of entertainment, like dog fights or rooster fights, and charge admission...

(Sorry. I couldn't resist that...)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I was thinking more like Greco-Roman Wrestling, in a mud pit, but make them wear bowties.


rde
I think I just created a very weird homoerotic moment by writing that. Sheesh...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

It's no use for you to get personal. That won't work. I like you too much. (I do admit that I like being "Kat-ty," but not in the sense you meant.) I was not trying to be condescending in that post. I meant what I said both as regards my respect for you and as regards to what you show that you know about Islamic and Muslim affairs.

You asked for proof of peaceful Muslims. The following links do not even scratch the surface. Try Googling “Muslims” with words like “peace,” or “Muslims for peace,” or “peaceful Muslims,” or things like that. You get oodles of hits. It’s all mixed, though. You have to look, but it’s all there. Oodles of it.

To start, here is a rather good Wikipedia article on Islamism. Here is a quote from the article:

Quote

There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them.

So to some experts, the actual threat of Islamism taking over the Muslim world does not seem to be as great as what gets played up in the media. That does not make it any less deadly and in need of serious attention, but it does put a proper perspective on it. At least it looks like you don’t have to nuke a billion people to smithereens to combat it.

Here is a Wikipedia article on Islam. Here is a quote from that article:

Quote

The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers during war. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures. At different times and places, Islamic communities have been both intolerant and tolerant. Support can be found in the Qur'an for both attitudes.

It is easy to see that the Koran contains contradictions, just like the Bible does, and that there are and have been different interpretations among Muslims, just like with Christianity. ARI doesn't really want you to look at this too closely. It wants to preach the morality of mass slaughter through scapegoating.

Here is some other general information:
Daniel Pipes

Pipes gives much good information, but he slants toward criticizing the Islamist war-mongering side. Still, you can find much good information on that site. Although he contests many things about Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) , it does have the following page up (and other equally peace-preaching pages):

MUSLIM CONDEMNATIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS

Here are a few other links chosen at random:

Muslim peace rally attracts thousands
Muslim Peace Fellowship (website)
The Muslim - Jewish Peace Walks
Faiths united over Middle East peace (Jewish and Muslim communities)
Norway grants 27 milliion rupees to Muslim Peace Secretariat
First Annual Conference of Muslim Peace building

Here is a video. You may not like some of the images, but they are proper to a people practicing their religion in peace. There is some nice singing and beautiful images, too.
Muslims for Peace

Here are two sets of links to Arab and Jewish peace organizations:
List of links to Jewish/Palestinian peace and human rights organizations
Recommended Arab Peace Links

I came across the following online article which spells out some really important things that need to be done.

SEEKING ARAB - ISRAELI PEACEMAKING AND RECONCILIATION THROUGH CULTURE by Ada A. Aharoni.

On Iran, the best place to start is a book (which unfortunately I have not yet read):

Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki R. Keddie

The National Council of Resistance of Iran spends a good amount of time criticizing brutal policies of the regime in power, but it obviously gets its information from people who live in the country - ones ARI doesn't mind sacrificing.

There is this organization, too. And it is one (including the students) that ARI also doesn't mind sacrificing: Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran. Here is a Wikipedia article on them.

Here is an interesting blog article. Iranian students will revolt, just not soon

As you can see, there is a lot to look at. None of this is oversimplified ("The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" or "Peace in our time"). Some of it is pretty ambivalent, but it shows clearly that Islamism is not as widely supported by Muslims as ARI claims.

This stuff needs to be examined in order to make a rational decision concerning how to preach using lethal force, especially nukes. I would say that it is irresponsible to preach using nukes without looking at this kind of stuff, especially when you preach nuking these people. (How easy it is to say that they are the ones to blame and simply ignore all facts.)

I hope you find this information helpful.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Sep 27 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

Roger,

It's no use for you to get personal. That won't work. I like you too much. (I do admit that I like being "Kat-ty," but not in the sense you meant.) I was not trying to be condescending in that post. I meant what I said both as regards my respect for you and as regards to what you show that you know about Islamic and Muslim affairs.

Me personal? I just quoted you, and you have above completely recharacterized what you said.

Again, you wrote: "With all due respect (and there is much respect), your last post shows that you know hardly anything at all about the Muslim and Mideast cultures you write about. Once you learn more (should you ever learn someday, I am certain that you will wonder what on earth you were thinking."

Michael, I like you, too, but I don't like the way you are (or appear to be) acting.

What else could you mean by the parenthetical comment (which I underscored and bolded) than a personal, snide comment about the uncertainty that I will "ever learn" what you already know about Muslim and Mideast cultures? If that is not condescending, I guess I'd better trade in my dictionary.

Now, in the spirit of charity, I will give you another chance to provide an alternative explanation of what the heck you were trying to say in that parenthetical comment -- if not a condescending dig at me for not knowing what you know and for being of doubtful openness to facts. In my book, that is an insult, and a pretty nasty one. But like I said, you are welcome to offer a reasonable alternative interpretation of what you mean.

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Sep 27 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

You asked for proof of peaceful Muslims. The following links do not even scratch the surface. Try Googling “Muslims” with words like “peace,” or “Muslims for peace,” or “peaceful Muslims,” or things like that. You get oodles of hits. It’s all mixed, though. You have to look, but it’s all there. Oodles of it.

Dammit, I did NOT ask for "proof of peaceful Muslims." I over and over ACKNOWLEDGED that there are "good Muslims," that is, those who do not say "off with their heads" when someone pokes fun at Allah or when someone else engages in free speech, etc. The problem I keep harping on is not the NON-EXISTENCE of good Muslims, but THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO PERSUADE THEM TO VOCALLY OPPOSE THE JIHADISTS, because of the deadly peril to them of their doing so. All of the links and references you provide are fine for those who doubt that there are sincerely civil, rights-respecting, peace-loving Muslims. BUT I DON'T DOUBT THIS, AND I NEVER DID. Where do you see evidence to the contrary???

I do not believe it is possible to read my posts and miss this. So, I'm really puzzled about what the heck you are up to with this complete misrepresentation of what I have said.

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Sep 27 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

So to some experts, the actual threat of Islamism taking over the Muslim world does not seem to be as great as what gets played up in the media. That does not make it any less deadly and in need of serious attention, but it does put a proper perspective on it. At least it looks like you don’t have to nuke a billion people to smithereens to combat it. [...] This stuff needs to be examined in order to make a rational decision concerning how to preach using lethal force, especially nukes. I would say that it is irresponsible to preach using nukes without looking at this kind of stuff, especially when you preach nuking these people. (How easy it is to say that they are the ones to blame and simply ignore all facts.)

Are you seriously saying that ~I~ "preach nuking these people" or saying that we "have to nuke a billion people to smithereens"? By "these people," you mean the "good Muslims," the peace-loving ones, right? I don't preach nuking them, any more than I preach (support) nuking the good, peace-loving citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki to end World War 2. I preach -- open-endedly -- doing what is necessary to defend rights. If defending rights necessarily entails "collateral deaths," I support that, whether it's done with nukes, bullets, or starvation (by sealing off food supplies). If it does not, then I oppose it. Specifically, if it's necessary to cause many civilian deaths in order to defeat Iran, we should do it. If it's not necessary, we shouldn't. (And I said necessary, not sufficient.) I'm fine with each side of the hypothetical, because I am fine with doing what is necessary to defend our rights against Iran's continued attacks.

Also, ~even if~ nuking Tehran were the minimum necessary force needed to defeat Iran and crush jihadism, that is in no way accurately described as wholesale obliteration of the one-billion-plus Muslims worldwide. Tehran's population is about ONE PERCENT of the worldwide Muslim population. So, a little perspective and proportionality, please. Let's leave the gross hyperbole to the SLOPpy reasoners, OK?

I am interested in whether ~you~ are fine with doing what's necessary, or whether you have an a priori opinion that it could not possibly be necessary to, say, nuke Tehran, in order to defend our rights. My view doesn't need any further clarification or explanation than that. Yours is still a little fuzzy to me, though.

If you want to keep this from being even more personal, Michael, you should back up, take a look at what I have been saying, and take a look at what you have said -- and then take a look at what you just CLAIMED that I said and CLAIMED that you yourself said. There are too many mis-matches there for continued clear, civil discussion. Please remedy the situation. (Hint: I usually apologize when I have inadvertently misrepresented someone else's comments -- or my own.)

REB

[Robert Campbell]

Rich,

Joking about nuking Mecca and Medina (until the rubble and the sand fuse into "green glass") does, unfortunately, seem par for the course at SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1657

Surely the resistance to Islamic imperialism, in the particular case that this particular thread purported to be about, needs to be coming from Germany, which is where the production of Idomeneo was cancelled. Refusing to back down in the face of one anonymous threat was all that was required.

I should add that what Jesus, the Buddha, and Muhammad are doing in a production of Idomeneo, whose libretto includes none of these characters, only the director will be able to explain. This manner of directing an opera would, under virtually any other circumstances, be derided on that very forum as "pomo-wanking." But everyone has the right to behave pretentiously, or to exhibit poor taste.

Robert Campbell

[Martin Radwin]

I am really glad to see this topic being discussed here. Of all of the problems with ARI, I think that its generally bloodthirsty tone and beliefs when discussing US government foreign policy towards Islamic countries perceived as supporting terrorism is the worst. Without having checked this out, I would bet that most of the ARI writers supporting such policies, along with most of the posters on SOLOP who have advocated them, are chickenhawks who have never been in actual combat, have never been anywhere near the kind of death and destruction that they advocate, and have never even been in a fist fight, let alone been called upon to kill anyone. If objectivism is ever to be reclaimed as a rational philosophy, this kind of craziness needs to be repudiated.

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

A couple of questions.

(1) What would it mean, in the present context, to defeat Iran?

Would eliminating the theocratic regime's nuclear weapons program be sufficient?

Peikoff, Brook/Epstein, and Biddle seem to want more than that.

Brook/Epstein and Biddle also suggest that there would be no roadside bombings, or other attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, if that nation had been soundly defeated in Gulf War II.

Do you agree? If so, what, from your standpoint, would have constituted a thorough defeat of the Iraqi nation?

(2) Brook/Epstein and Biddle are opposed to a Palestinian state because they believe it will merely be used as a base of operations for suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel. You seem to agree with them about this.

What do you see as the alternatives? For instance, do you think that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza can, or should, be continued indefinitely? If not, what should be done with these areas?

Robert Campbell

[Victor Pross]

Martin,

Thank you...for your Voice of Reason.


Victor

[Roger Bissell]

Martin Radwin, on Sep 27 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

I am really glad to see this topic being discussed here. Of all of the problems with ARI, I think that its generally bloodthirsty tone and beliefs when discussing US government foreign policy towards Islamic countries perceived as supporting terrorism is the worst. Without having checked this out, I would bet that most of the ARI writers supporting such policies, along with most of the posters on SOLOP who have advocated them, are chickenhawks who have never been in actual combat, have never been anywhere near the kind of death and destruction that they advocate, and have never even been in a fist fight, let alone been called upon to kill anyone. If objectivism is ever to be reclaimed as a rational philosophy, this kind of craziness needs to be repudiated.

Martin, I'm glad it's being discussed here, too. The level of acrimony and distortion is noticeably lower than on SLOP and elsewhere. Still, it's getting too uncomfortable for me to continue taking part in it. Hot-button issues are inherently prone to high emotions and escalation of improper discussion tactics (on each side, OK?). I'd rather turn my focus back to the positive things I was doing before I got involved in this particular debate. I'm not accomplishing anything here, and I have a rather low threshhold for frustration.

REB