Jump to content






Photo

Here Comes War


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:16 AM

The rhetoric of war is escalating. Obama says he has Israel's "back." What he's trying to actually do is keep the American horse ahead of the Israeli cart. He may be trying to prevent an Israel attack on Iran but he is making it more likely. Or he may be sanctioning that attack but expects Israel to go it alone. Israeli warplanes flying over Syria and Iraq will hit Iran. This will happen sooner than later, I'm afraid. I used to think it would be mid to late summer, but if it happens soon all the U.S. presidential candidates but Ron Paul will repair to and sanction Israel all the way through the election. Things will get out of control with unforeseen circumstances and consequences abounding.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#2 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:41 AM

Iran will make sure we are the bad guys for all the Muslim world to see, even if we do not initially aid Israel if it attacks. We will keep the Straits open which means we will be in conflict with Iran even if we do not send a bomber over their territory. They will claim a twelve mile or larger territorial extension out over the water.

If we participate one hundred percent it would be the lesser of two evils. We could make sure Iran’s nuclear capabilities are quickly destroyed to our satisfaction and lessen the conventional warfare damage to our allies Israel AND SAUDI ARABIA. I have no doubt Iran will go suicidal on themselves and homicidal on Israel and the world’s oil pipeline, which is Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Qatar etc., and possibly even Iraq. They might even destroy their holiest site, Mecca and claim it was the Crusaders who did it to bring on The End.

More U.S. lives and treasure will be lost. I suggest you fill up on gas and keep your tank filled. I had started rotating my gas supply for my generator but I may hold off on that, after emptying three five gallon containers into my car.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#3 Mark

Mark

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

"Iran will make sure we are the bad guys ..."

Just who is "we"? It’s not me or my friends, that’s for sure. The "we" is not us but the people controlling the U.S. government.

And they are the ones who gave Israel it’s warplanes and bombs. They are the bad guys.

We, we, we, I’m so sick of hearing it. Whatever you do, don’t identify Americans with their out of control government.

It, not we, have already aided any attack, already participated in any attack. And of course it is indeed we who will suffer the consequences.

#4 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:28 PM

Mark wrote:
We, we, we, I’m so sick of hearing it. Whatever you do, don’t identify Americans with their out of control government.
end quote

In the short term:
You are creating a false dichotomy of “What Is” and “What Should Be.” I am supportive of our troops and sailors who are in harm’s way. If WE, the United States’ military is dragged in by Iran and Israel we could do as you suggest and run with our tail between our legs. We could renounce our support for our ally and friend, Israel who we have supported since its inception as a Republic back in the 1940’s. But that is not to be allowed by the Islamic dictatorship in Iran or world events. We can argue policy after Iran is disarmed of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps different policies could make us friends of the Arabs. Or not. If you were an American pilot and your jet were to malfunction over Iran, you would be parachuting to your death or to be tortured and held hostage. If you were to parachute into Israel, you would be greeted like a valued friend.

In the long term:
Vote the bastards out of office. Support Tea Party Candidates. Support GLOBAL laissez-faire Capitalism. But, keep our military strong as a deterrent to the dictators and Fascists of the world. Little has changed globally since the 1900’s. Evil Empires still exist. We are not one of them. Let us swear on our sacred honors to ensure that the United States is never one of them.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#5 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

Mark wrote about America's government as "It:"
It, not we, have *already* aided any attack, *already* participated in any attack.
end quote

You may have picked the wrong philosophy Mark. How about this one?
I am not a big fan of the Catholic Church but I find these excerpts from their “Just War Theory” interesting.

Quote one:
“Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.”
End of first quote

We have been grievously wronged since The Iran Hostage Crisis. We cannot let them develop nuclear weapons. They have said what they will do with them. they will destroy Israel. They will hand them out to terrorists for use against The United States.

Quote two:
“Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.”
End of second quote

Mark, I wish you would also play the Iranian rulers’ words with a translator’s voice over their despicable comments - Not the comments he and his handlers give to the world press or at the UN but the unvarnished words and threats they use when they are speaking to their followers at home. And don’t fall into the trap of dismissing the reasons for destroying Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities without assessing the clincher: We don’t know everything but we know enough to say, “We cannot afford NOT to destroy their nuclear capabilities.”

It is in our self interest to keep our mutual defense treaty with Israel. I mentioned the down pilot scenario in my last letter. Who do we have in the Middle East who would risk their lives to rescue one of America’s downed airman, or the passengers from a civilian Jumbo Jet? Who would unhesitatingly provide us with their airspace? If a U.S. commercial jet liner crashed landed, who would cheer the survivors? Israel. Who would butcher or hold the survivors for ransom? Iran, Hammas in Lebanon and the Palestinians. Who shares our objective, and Western values? Ayn Rand would reasonable carp about the level of Israel’s socialism, but she would save Israel.

Rand always maintained it was “righteous” to shoot a looter, or a murderer, or to destroy a dictator: they are the human equivalent of *mad dogs*. The key for a country’s righteous “extended” use of self defense, would be: if it is not in my country’s “current” national security interest, what would be the cost to the United States in lives and money? If it were negligible she would have “double tapped” Kaddafi, Osama, the head of Hamas, and all the Palestinian initiators of force. And the monsters who govern Iran.

What would John Galt do? What would Ayn Rand do? Would she stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would. Ayn Rand would defend Israel. So will I.
Peter Taylor

The end of Ayn Rand’s Address To The Graduating Class Of
The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974:

. . . . The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest--as the armies of other countries have done in their histories--only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have.

West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this year's graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on--which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it is glorious.

Since I came from a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth, I am particularly able to appreciate the meaning, the greatness and the supreme value of that which you are defending. So, in my own name and in the name of many people who think as I do, I want to say, to all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.
End quote

And then she said, “And may God bless America!”
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#6 Mark

Mark

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:00 PM

... we could do as you suggest and run with our tail between our legs.


I suggest not bombing Iran right now. Peter mischaracterizes this.

Perhaps Peter is running from government whistleblowers (like Rodney Stich) with his intellectual tail between his legs.

Israel is not our ally and friend. Sure, Israelis are sometimes nice to people who give them money and fight their wars. On the other hand see how they harrassed Marines in the early 1980s.
 
Tea Party candidates regarding foreign policy! Gimme a break!

We couldn’t afford not to destroy the monster in Iraq. At least try something new instead of recycling the same propaganda lines.

You can quote Ayn Rand until you’re black in the face, it won’t justify entering World War I, II, or the latest insanity with Israel.

#7 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 10,758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:55 PM

The rhetoric of war is escalating. Obama says he has Israel's "back." What he's trying to actually do is keep the American horse ahead of the Israeli cart.
--Brant


I wish the Lion King had America's back.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#8 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

To paraphrase Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman who was just on Fox: Better to criticize a living Israel than mourn a destroyed Israel, in a new ugly, brutal, cynical world with a bullying Iran using weapons of mass destruction.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#9 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:40 PM

With an army of eleven million soldiers to call upon and with proxies in Syria, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon it would be a tough conventional war for Israel to win alone. If Egypt and some other Arab nations join in militarily or give material support to Iran, Israel might lose a conventional war without help from The United States.

Senator John McCain has been calling for air strikes on Syria. Syria is an Iranian proxy and air strikes could lead to the United States being at war with Iran. McCain’s idea may be the humanitarian thing to do and also the strategic thing to do, but with our President that will not happen.

Iran is already at war with Israel. Iran is just waiting for the coup de grace to be delivered, via the first nuclear weapons they develop. Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated that Israel will not suffer another holocaust. With the lack of rational leadership in Washington, the conclusion will be that Israel will strike first and with nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy their nuclear capabilities and their conventional capabilities, which might take several dozen nuclear bombs.

We used them against Japan and we did the right thing. I might not be here to write this if my Dad had been one of the million casualties we would have incurred if we had needed to invade the Japanese mainland.
Israel will survive. The world will look differently the morning after.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#10 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:42 AM

Uh, Peter, you seem to be enjoying "the morning after" as if it were after good sex.

--Brant
where do these masturbatory fantasies come from?

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#11 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:38 AM

Brant wrote:
This will happen sooner than later, I'm afraid. I used to think it would be mid to late summer, but . . .
end quote

Imagine you are still you, a reader of OL, But transplanted as if in a dream and living in Tel Aviv, surrounded by implacable enemies. For your entire life you have had war, terrorist attacks, and heard threats to annihilate you, your family, and all your neighbors. The newspapers, the radio shows, the TV shows in the countries surrounding you are blasting out hatred and calling for your destruction. They have been doing this for generations – for your entire life. You live in fear of your life. Now, a stronger enemy has been festering in hatred for another generation. Iran has vowed to destroy you, and they will soon have the means to destroy you easily, in a matter of minutes. Imagine your mindset. You do have ways of defending your country. If America were in the same situation as Israel we would have destroyed our enemies twenty years ago by whatever means necessary. Are the Israelis any different from you?
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#12 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:28 AM

Brant wrote:
This will happen sooner than later, I'm afraid. I used to think it would be mid to late summer, but . . .
end quote

Imagine you are still you, a reader of OL, But transplanted as if in a dream and living in Tel Aviv, surrounded by implacable enemies. For your entire life you have had war, terrorist attacks, and heard threats to annihilate you, your family, and all your neighbors. The newspapers, the radio shows, the TV shows in the countries surrounding you are blasting out hatred and calling for your destruction. They have been doing this for generations – for your entire life. You live in fear of your life. Now, a stronger enemy has been festering in hatred for another generation. Iran has vowed to destroy you, and they will soon have the means to destroy you easily, in a matter of minutes. Imagine your mindset. You do have ways of defending your country. If America were in the same situation as Israel we would have destroyed our enemies twenty years ago by whatever means necessary. Are the Israelis any different from you?
Peter Taylor

To know how to deal with the present situation we have to know how we got here in the first place. We can take any point in history as a starting point to see if we can come up with some kind of workable self education. Let's go back nine years, when I myself was fairly hawkish, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq--the greatest political-military counterforce to Iran in the region which was subsequently destroyed as such by the invasion-occupation. While I supported what the U.S. did in Afghanistan, assuming a pullout which hasn't yet happened, I was against doing the same to Iraq. With an army on his doorstep, Hussein could have been bullied to do pretty much what the U.S. wanted him to do without most of the geo-political, economic and military costs that did obtain. An army could have been maintained in Kuwait to further stabilize the situation--more equipment than troops, who could have been quickly flown in. Hence, the U.S. by its actions greatly weakened Israel respecting Iran making the war to come all but inevitable.

This war to come is coming out of the tremendous inertia of U.S. interventionist foreign policy that's been characteristic of this country even before it became a country--when it was only a bunch of British colonies and reflects the tremendous power of the American state. Stupidity and irrationality, which I now see as inevitable--this country is too big for the brains available to run it--will produce a destructive outcome. Whether the world ends up in a better place with a greatly weakened America remains to be seen.

Most likely scenario: 1) Israel attacks Iran, Iran tries to close the Gulf, the U.S intervenes. Etc. 2) Israel attacks Iran, Iran does nothing much above board, at least at first. There's a problem with damage assessment by Israel. Etc. 3) The U.S. attacks Iran, not Israel, the Gulf may or may not be involved, sends in troops to assess the damage, withdraws those troops. Etc.

CONSEQUENCES FORESEEN AND UNFORESEEN.

--Brant
Brave New World

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#13 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:44 AM

To know how to deal with the present situation we have to know how we got here in the first place. We can take any point in history as a starting point to see if we can come up with some kind of workable self education.

I would prefer to go back to some time prior to WWII when the Arab Muslims became aligned with European Fascists - the man who was later succeeded by his relative Yasser Arafat was one of Hitler's lapdogs and was under Hitler's protection in Germany during the war. You have to understand what kind of people you are dealing with and treat them accordingly.

Dennis

#14 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:27 AM


To know how to deal with the present situation we have to know how we got here in the first place. We can take any point in history as a starting point to see if we can come up with some kind of workable self education.

I would prefer to go back to some time prior to WWII when the Arab Muslims became aligned with European Fascists - the man who was later succeeded by his relative Yasser Arafat was one of Hitler's lapdogs and was under Hitler's protection in Germany during the war. You have to understand what kind of people you are dealing with and treat them accordingly.

Dennis

You have to understand why you are dealing with them. Going back in time is for more than justification of what one wants justified. There is educating others and there is educating yourself and there is both. The dominant implicit assumption on this thread seems to be inevitable overt military conflict of a significant range of order. There is a war with Iran going on right now with multiple players and layers. It's been going on for decades and is about to get out of hand, to say the least. If this reality is accepted it might be more controllable. I might/should start a new thread on how to avoid the escalation of this conflict which would have to include, centrally, coming up with something that way that Israel would accept. Here's a question: If only Iran and Israel were involved, why would Iran close the Gulf to shipping oil, regardless of being attacked by Israel? And, one must understand just what not being involved would really mean.

I admit all this palaver is assuming serving the American State on some level by the palaverers, including me. At my age I'm not sure if I'm up to a divorce which would include divorcing myself from knowing what I am talking about therein. It's as if my brain is on the right side, but my gut can't follow. I hate war but I'm still capable of war with my warrior DNA permanently entrenched by training and experience and orientation. I mean really fighting. Fortunately(?!), the body can't run with the troops any more.

--Brant
still good for killing home invaders

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#15 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:46 PM

AP Wire March 10, 2012, Peter Taylor.
Under a joint agreement with Somalia and Ethiopia, Israel yesterday began an engineering project connecting the Red Sea with the Great Rift Valley. Large portions of Ethiopia will be submerged into one large lake yet to be named. The project will take a year and is expected to change the climate in that portion of Africa making it more temperate and rainy. The range of crops that could then be grown in Ethiopia are expected to contribute to that country’s being able to feed its entire, growing population with corn, wheat, and vegetables. The chain of connected lakes that will result are under plans for development as tourist attractions. Gambling resorts and homes for the rich are projected, which will boost Ethiopia’s basic marginal income to those levels found in Europe.

The Project is not without controversy because Israel will be using 36 underground nuclear explosions, 12 which were set off yesterday, to create the link to the Red Sea. Israeli scientists project that though the radiation will last for years, its newest techniques and nuclear materials have a much shorter atomic half life. Little radiation should reach the atmosphere, and the water rushing in will further dampen any nuclear radiation to acceptable levels for human habitation, even immediately next to the shore. A ban will be placed on fish for one year as the radiation levels in them are monitored. The World’s Sea Level is expected to drop by several inches to a foot, which is an added bonus to low lying countries like the Netherlands, Pacific atoll nations and even some American cities like New Orleans.

The United Nations was never consulted about the project but the UN in an emergency session is now debating the affects of the blasts. Iran is claiming this is harassment and a threat to their well-being and peaceful exploration of atomic energy. Israel is once again asking the UN and the United States to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying, “Iran’s time is up. They will either cease nuclear research and open their doors for Israeli verification or we will destroy their facilities and ability to make conventional war against Israel.”

President Obama has called a meeting of his cabinet for tomorrow, Sunday March 11th along with his Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress.
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#16 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 19,562 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:17 PM

Peter,

I tried to look this up and can't find it--I can't even find the topic.

Do you have a link?

Michael

Know thyself...


#17 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

Posted Image

Mr. Taylor

Posted Image

Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#18 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 10 March 2012 - 04:08 PM

Aside from this silly faux story, years ago it was proposed to use nuclear explosions to build a sea level canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, obsoleting the Panama canal.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#19 jts

jts

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,135 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:14 PM

Speaking of war ....

We might be headed for World War 3. This is not certain; there is a small chance that sane heads will prevail.

China warned USA to not attack Iran. China said it will defend Iran even if the consequence is World War 3.

Russia warned USA to not attack Iran. There was a news item that a Russian aircraft carrier was headed for the Persian Gulf to block USA's supply line.

What is the definition of "world war"? 3 of the most powerful countries and 3 continents. Is that enough?

USA can't afford more wars. USA is broke. USA citizens are taxed to the limit and that is not enough so the Fed makes money out of nothing. USA will go down because it will be fighting too many wars.

There is a rumor from LW on the AJ show that the plan is to (seriously) attack Iran Sept/Oct 2012. And before that there is supposed to be a psyop and it will be blamed on Iran and used as an excuse to attack Iran. With AJ and the people he interviews exposing all this, plans might get changed. The success of a psyop depends on it not being exposed as a psyop.

If and when the psyop happens, AJ will be on it like ugly on .. ....

#20 dennislmay

dennislmay

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:25 PM

USA can't afford more wars. USA is broke. USA citizens are taxed to the limit and that is not enough so the Fed makes money out of nothing. USA will go down because it will be fighting too many wars.

It is true that the USA is broke. It is not true that military spending is the source of the USA being broke. Social spending is the primary cause of the bankruptcy. It has been a talking point among Democrats and a many libertarians that war and military spending is the problem. That is mathematically simply not the case at all. Repeating it simply feeds a mistaken point of view empowering the Democrats and socialist supporting libertarians.

Dennis




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




Nightingale-Conant