See "Iranum" for free

[Mike Renzulli]

It is not hypocritical to attack a dictatorship, in this case Iran, that has openly said it is at war with the United States (whom they call The Great Satan) and has used the revenues generated from its oil sales to support terrorist groups and activities directed at the United States.

I admit blowing up the theocrats in charge wouldn't convince them they are wrong but it certainly would be the best act of justice that can be exacted not only for the people of the country we liberate but for the people of the United States who would no longer have to fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. or abroad.

Simultaneously taking out the Iranian dictatorship would send a message to other dictators and terrorst groups the Iranians supported they could be next.

You cannot convince people who are irrational and subscribe to a apocalyptic theology who view present day events as an indication of the end times and want to conduct nuclear annihilation in hopes that it will contribute to the retrun of the Tewlfth Imam which is a prophecy told in Shia Islam.

If you remember during the Cold War that there was this fear about a psychopath having the ability to press the Red Button in order to set off World War III? Iran is a real life example of this very fear that was expressed at that time.

Don't believe this is the case? Watch the movie and see the interviews from experts (like Bernard Lewis) who explain this.

I am getting the impression that you are not aware of or will not consciously admit the danger of the threat the U.S. faces. Not just from Iran but other dictatorships (like Venezuela and North Korea). I admit we cannot take them all out but we can render them useless or marginalize them. In the case of Iran that is the country that poses the largest threat and deserves to be taken out first.

I think you don't spread liberty through hypocrisy. Nor can you force people to want liberty. Many in Iran like theocracy. Even if they are in the majority, does that make what they are doing legitimate? No. But if you blow many of them up that isn't going to convince them that they're wrong, on the contrary, they will have good reason to think that you're wrong, because in fact, you are.

Where you should invest your energy Mike is in actually trying to make the US be a free country. Then it would be easy to convince Iran to be free. Here's how: show them that liberty works, help people who actually want it escape to the US. And that would be the end of that. Iran would either collapse or evolve. But your method is the opposite: defend the hypocritical US in any and all actions abroad, bomb people without actually making a rational case that doing so is just, and if they take your actions as acts of war, call them "terrorists." Your methods put them into a stance where they are guaranteed not to evolve.

Shayne

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Is there anything one can do to get you to adopt the normal convention at OL to write below what you're quoting? This reverse-methodology is quite annoying.

Anyways, I'm not a pacifist so your remarks are quite misguided. In simple terms all I was calling for was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and objecting to the video on the grounds that it is propaganda. I never said we shouldn't deal with objective threats, on the contrary I supported the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes. One problem with your propaganda-driven approach is that it's hard for honest people to discern what's really an objective threat and what's just dishonest drivel.

Shayne

It is not hypocritical to attack a dictatorship, in this case Iran, that has openly said it is at war with the United States (whom they call The Great Satan) and has used the revenues generated from its oil sales to support terrorist groups and activities directed at the United States.

I admit blowing up the theocrats in charge wouldn't convince them they are wrong but it certainly would be the best act of justice that can be exacted not only for the people of the country we liberate but for the people of the United States who would no longer have to fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. or abroad.

Simultaneously taking out the Iranian dictatorship would signal to other dictators and terrorst groups the Iranians supported they could be next.

You cannot convince people who are irrational and subscribe to a apocalyptic theology who view present day events as an indication of the end times and want to conduct nuclear annihilation in hopes that it will contribute to the retrun of the Tewlflth Imam which is a prophecy told in Shia Islam.

Don't believe this is the case? Watch the movie and see the interviews from experts (like Bernard Lewis) who explain this.

I think its more like you live in denial of the threat the U.S. faces. Not just from Iran but other dictatorships (like Venezuela and North Korea). I admit we cannot take them all out but we can render them useless or marginalize them. In the case of Iran that is the country that poses the largest threat and deserves to be taken out first.

I think you don't spread liberty through hypocrisy. Nor can you force people to want liberty. Many in Iran like theocracy. Even if they are in the majority, does that make what they are doing legitimate? No. But if you blow many of them up that isn't going to convince them that they're wrong, on the contrary, they will have good reason to think that you're wrong, because in fact, you are.

Where you should invest your energy Mike is in actually trying to make the US be a free country. Then it would be easy to convince Iran to be free. Here's how: show them that liberty works, help people who actually want it escape to the US. And that would be the end of that. Iran would either collapse or evolve. But your method is the opposite: defend the hypocritical US in any and all actions abroad, bomb people without actually making a rational case that doing so is just, and if they take your actions as acts of war, call them "terrorists." Your methods put them into a stance where they are guaranteed not to evolve.

Shayne

[Selene]

Mirroring much Shayne?

You state that we should "...deal with objective threats..."and that you support "...the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes."

I tried to restate your quote in a positive action oriented semantic.

Ok you are willing to take action = "deal with" objective threats.

Assuming I agree with you, can you lay out a course of action that you would reccommend to the President that could achieve "...taking away..." nuclear weapons from an "...unstable regime(s)...." like Pakistan.

Adam

[sjw]

Mirroring much Shayne?

You state that we should "...deal with objective threats..."and that you support "...the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes."

I tried to restate your quote in a positive action oriented semantic.

Ok you are willing to take action = "deal with" objective threats.

Assuming I agree with you, can you lay out a course of action that you would reccommend to the President that could achieve "...taking away..." nuclear weapons from an "...unstable regime(s)...." like Pakistan.

Adam

I don't see the point in trying to lay out a political-military tactic here. It's obvious that crazy+nuke is a bad idea. I wouldn't let you have a nuke for example. ;)

Shayne

[Selene]

Mirroring much Shayne?

You state that we should "...deal with objective threats..."and that you support "...the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes."

I tried to restate your quote in a positive action oriented semantic.

Ok you are willing to take action = "deal with" objective threats.

Assuming I agree with you, can you lay out a course of action that you would reccommend to the President that could achieve "...taking away..." nuclear weapons from an "...unstable regime(s)...." like Pakistan.

Adam

I don't see the point in trying to lay out a political-military tactic here. It's obvious that crazy+nuke is a bad idea. I wouldn't let you have a nuke for example. ;)

Shayne

Lol, cute.

Now I know you jump on folks when they misread, so I am not going to do that to you.

Crazy is the Iranians and the North Koreans.

Unstable is the Pakistani regime. I will give the President kudos for his focus during the campaign and his attention during his Presidency on Pakistan*.

It is one of the most unstable regimes on the face of the earth and they have between 90 and 110 nukes according to Federation of American Scientists.

I do not know if they are a reputable group, but at least it is a starting point of reference, uh oh Paul R. Ehrlich is a sponsor..! And Soros - Open Society Foundation is a funder of the group!

How would you take those 90-110 nukes out of their hands, Shayne?

*once I got used to his affected way of pronouncing the country.

This is actually a very telling clip - aggh I cannot stand the pompous asses Wolf Blitzed or O'biwan!

[sjw]

How would you take those 90-110 nukes out of their hands, Shayne?

Do you understand the scope of the judgement calls required in walking in to a policy discussion of the kind you're trying to raise? When I said "unstable regimes shouldn't have nukes" I wasn't trying to make a policy statement or to give you the liberty of tacking on someone else's notion of "unstable" onto my proposition. I don't have a position on Pakistan and what to do about their nukes.

Shayne

[Selene]

How would you take those 90-110 nukes out of their hands, Shayne?

Do you understand the scope of the judgement calls required in walking in to a policy discussion of the kind you're trying to raise? When I said "unstable regimes shouldn't have nukes" I wasn't trying to make a policy statement or to give you the liberty of tacking on someone else's notion of "unstable" onto my proposition. I don't have a position on Pakistan and what to do about their nukes.

Shayne

Yes I understand the scope of the judgments that are required. My background is creating policy through decision making paradigms in the real political world. So that is what I gravitate to Shayne.

Your approach is theoretical and I can respect that gestalt.

In theory, then, what basic approaches would your theory permit you to recommend to a President for consideration?

Adam

[sjw]

How would you take those 90-110 nukes out of their hands, Shayne?

Do you understand the scope of the judgement calls required in walking in to a policy discussion of the kind you're trying to raise? When I said "unstable regimes shouldn't have nukes" I wasn't trying to make a policy statement or to give you the liberty of tacking on someone else's notion of "unstable" onto my proposition. I don't have a position on Pakistan and what to do about their nukes.

Shayne

Yes I understand the scope of the judgments that are required. My background is creating policy through decision making paradigms in the real political world. So that is what I gravitate to Shayne.

Your approach is theoretical and I can respect that gestalt.

In theory, then, what basic approaches would your theory permit you to recommend to a President for consideration?

Adam

I wouldn't have let them have the nukes in the first place precisely because dealing with the problem after they do is 1000 times more complicated.

What to do to unwind the problem now that the politicians have fucked up? Good question. I don't see any point in thinking about it now though.

Shayne

[sjw]

I wouldn't have let them have the nukes in the first place precisely because dealing with the problem after they do is 1000 times more complicated.

What to do to unwind the problem now that the politicians have fucked up? Good question. I don't see any point in thinking about it now though.

Shayne

My basic thought is that liberty and prosperity is contagious. The first country that fully and truly embraces it will cause a world-wide revolution and make such things as Pakistan and their nukes irrelevant in the long-term.

So my advice to the President is: do whatever you can to manage the short-term issues, but make sure you have your eye on the ball -- pursue maximal individual liberty relentlessly and consistently. That is the only means of achieving security in the long run.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Me: Freedom! Don't want it.

Shayne: Okay.

Me: I can do anything I can to whomever I can for I have no freedom!

Shayne: Huh?

--Brant

freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

Huh?

Shayne

I think your 100 percent political premise is no good. However, here's mine: Our government to be will be dedicated to the protection of individual rights. You don't have to be part of that government or consent to it but those that do are setting it up. Once it proves the general efficacy of its protect-rights' orientation if you violate rights our government will act to protect the violated from you and it's too bad if you never consented to its jurisdiction for no consent from a rights' violator is needed. If you aren't a rights' violator or a rights' violator to be you can consent or not as you wish for whatever that's worth.

--Brant

If I squint real hard I still can't see how that's any different from what I'm advocating. In fact it looks precisely the same as what I'm advocating.

In fact, it looks like you're plagiarizing me (which is not a complaint). ;)

Shayne

OMG!!

--Brant

[sjw]

Me: Freedom! Don't want it.

Shayne: Okay.

Me: I can do anything I can to whomever I can for I have no freedom!

Shayne: Huh?

--Brant

freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

Huh?

Shayne

I think your 100 percent political premise is no good. However, here's mine: Our government to be will be dedicated to the protection of individual rights. You don't have to be part of that government or consent to it but those that do are setting it up. Once it proves the general efficacy of its protect-rights' orientation if you violate rights our government will act to protect the violated from you and it's too bad if you never consented to its jurisdiction for no consent from a rights' violator is needed. If you aren't a rights' violator or a rights' violator to be you can consent or not as you wish for whatever that's worth.

--Brant

If I squint real hard I still can't see how that's any different from what I'm advocating. In fact it looks precisely the same as what I'm advocating.

In fact, it looks like you're plagiarizing me (which is not a complaint). ;)

Shayne

OMG!!

--Brant

Just playing with you Brant... though I still have no idea what the difference is between your view and mine.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Failing to Address (and then Answer Thoroughly) the Most Important Set of Questions

Almost at the beginning of this thread (post #14), I listed the central proposition that needs predominant attention in a discussion about Iran: Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us. I discussed the error of deflecting one's thinking, getting sidetracked in debate or attention and not focusing on that and its implications, but instead on side topics such as: 1. whether or not the U.S. comes to the issue with "clean hands" (e.g, if we committed an injustice a generation or two ago with regard to replacing the predecessor to the Shah. 2. guilt or disrepute or tarring or smearing by association (e.g., most people don't like the "neoconservatives", so by attaching a view of alarm over Iran to them, the underlying issue itself doesn't have to be discussed or treated seriously.)

By committing the 'error of deflected thinking' whenever a certain important issue comes up, one never lets the important issue become fully integrated. Here are questions that spring from the central proposition: 1. If Iran is a deadly danger, what do we do? 2. What results exactly follow if they get nukes? 3. How does it affect the ease of wmd in the hands of terrorists? 4. Are there other consequences? 5. Would they take over/intimidate the oil producers in the Middle East, and should we care? Does it affect our access to energy or susceptibility to blackmail?

One who is guilty of sidetracking, of 'deflection' may raise some of these questions briefly or in a superficial way when asked, but quickly drift off to the side issues without having fully explored and integrated what are -properly- the central questions when the proposition: "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us" - is vital and central and implies that action needs to be taken: If a gunfighter rides into town and starts shooting up the place, you don't spend much of your time talking about whether he uses two six shooters or only one and how fast he is on the draw compared to others gunfighters.

without trying to answer all those questions, what's important is they spring from the original 'red flag over Iran' proposition. and if you take down or pooh-pooh or downgrade the red flag, none of the rest of those five questions of 'integration' arise.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Philip Coates

[anthony]

Phil,

You can bet your bottom shekel that Israel is well abreast of Iran, and wmd's. That's what being in the front lines will do.

Looking up on the Israeli Navy, I see they have three Dolphin class submarines, fitted - reportedy - with over-size torpedo tubes. Germany made a fuss about that at the time, and they wanted to withhold delivery. Reportedly, Israel has managed to modify the US Harpoon cruise missile to launch nuclear warheads to a range of 130 kms from the subs.

All this stuff gives me the creeps, but I heard some months ago (from two Israelis) that for some time, a Dolphin has been on patrol off the coast of Iran, 24/7.

This is all hearsay, and you'd think it would be Top Secret (if true) but get this: they went on to say that Ahmadinejad HAS BEEN INFORMED ABOUT IT - by Israel.

True or not - and crude M.A.D. strategy, some would sniff - but it has worked in the past; you don't send a sweet old vicar to talk terms with that gun-fighter you mention.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Failing to Address (and then Answer Thoroughly) the Most Important Set of Questions

Almost at the beginning of this thread (post #14), I listed the central proposition that needs predominant attention in a discussion about Iran: Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us. I discussed the error of deflecting one's thinking, getting sidetracked in debate or attention and not focusing on that and its implications, but instead on side topics such as: 1. whether or not the U.S. comes to the issue with "clean hands" (e.g, if we committed an injustice a generation or two ago with regard to replacing the predecessor to the Shah. 2. guilt or disrepute or tarring or smearing by association (e.g., most people don't like the "neoconservatives", so by attaching a view of alarm over Iran to them, the underlying issue itself doesn't have to be discussed or treated seriously.)

By committing the 'error of deflected thinking' whenever a certain important issue comes up, one never lets the important issue become fully integrated. Here are questions that spring from the central proposition: 1. If Iran is a deadly danger, what do we do? 2. What results exactly follow if they get nukes? 3. How does it affect the ease of wmd in the hands of terrorists? 4. Are there other consequences? 5. Would they take over/intimidate the oil producers in the Middle East, and should we care? Does it affect our access to energy or susceptibility to blackmail?

One who is guilty of sidetracking, of 'deflection' may raise some of these questions briefly or in a superficial way when asked, but quickly drift off to the side issues without having fully explored and integrated what are -properly- the central questions when the proposition: "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us" - is vital and central and implies that action needs to be taken: If a gunfighter rides into town and starts shooting up the place, you don't spend much of your time talking about whether he uses two six shooters or only one and how fast he is on the draw compared to others gunfighters.

without trying to answer all those questions, what's important is they spring from the original 'red flag over Iran' proposition. and if you take down or pooh-pooh or downgrade the red flag, none of the rest of those five questions of 'integration' arise.

A discussion on this level is beyond the competence of anyone on this list and irrelevant regardless for the actual comportment of U.S. foreign policy, historically in the hands of charlatans, idiots, the ignorant, power-lusters, general incompetents, etc. Right now Iran's nuclear program is in trouble and the actual problem that needs dealing with by the U.S. is Pakistan. The Pakistan-Afghanistan situation, as bad as it is, has been made incomparably worse by the war being waged there by the U.S. and by waging that war and the Iraq War it has so enfeebled itself economically and militarily it can only resort to ever more terrible weapons or just continue sputtering along in the present vein.

Phil's analysis is apropos to this thread, but the thread isn't apropos to anything but itself. Israel and Israel's needs, real or only perceived, is really what this discussion is all about. Israel is much more concerned, naturally enough, with Iran than Pakistan. If it is desirable to make the Israeli tail wag the American dog, then do please continue.

--Brant

Edited March 1, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Subject: Failing to Address (and then Answer Thoroughly) the Most Important Set of Questions

Almost at the beginning of this thread (post #14), I listed the central proposition that needs predominant attention in a discussion about Iran: Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us. I discussed the error of deflecting one's thinking, getting sidetracked in debate or attention and not focusing on that and its implications, but instead on side topics such as: 1. whether or not the U.S. comes to the issue with "clean hands" (e.g, if we committed an injustice a generation or two ago with regard to replacing the predecessor to the Shah. 2. guilt or disrepute or tarring or smearing by association (e.g., most people don't like the "neoconservatives", so by attaching a view of alarm over Iran to them, the underlying issue itself doesn't have to be discussed or treated seriously.)

By committing the 'error of deflected thinking' whenever a certain important issue comes up, one never lets the important issue become fully integrated. Here are questions that spring from the central proposition: 1. If Iran is a deadly danger, what do we do? 2. What results exactly follow if they get nukes? 3. How does it affect the ease of wmd in the hands of terrorists? 4. Are there other consequences? 5. Would they take over/intimidate the oil producers in the Middle East, and should we care? Does it affect our access to energy or susceptibility to blackmail?

One who is guilty of sidetracking, of 'deflection' may raise some of these questions briefly or in a superficial way when asked, but quickly drift off to the side issues without having fully explored and integrated what are -properly- the central questions when the proposition: "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us" - is vital and central and implies that action needs to be taken: If a gunfighter rides into town and starts shooting up the place, you don't spend much of your time talking about whether he uses two six shooters or only one and how fast he is on the draw compared to others gunfighters.

without trying to answer all those questions, what's important is they spring from the original 'red flag over Iran' proposition. and if you take down or pooh-pooh or downgrade the red flag, none of the rest of those five questions of 'integration' arise.

It's not "sidetracking" to not follow your agenda Phil.

It is relevant to discuss things like why Iran is angry with us, because the best way to get them to not have nukes is to have them voluntarily do it. (I know how much you Objectivists like to bomb things (reminds me of Dr. Strangelove when you talk), but really the best way is to try diplomacy first.) And it's hard to convince someone to voluntarily back down when they don't trust your motives. And it's hard to get them to trust your motives when you lie and don't own up to past sins.

As I said originally, the whole context is relevant. The first step in this situation must be a full statement of principles about the issue and a full accounting of the injustices born by both sides and a statement of how these should be dealt with. See the Declaration of Independence for an example (there were no relevant injustices by America in that case but if there were they should have been listed).

Shayne

[sjw]

A discussion on this level is beyond the competence of anyone on this list

This is partly true, but we are not incompetent to discuss the proper principles for dealing with issues like this. I would sum up my view as being for open and morally principled diplomacy and, begrudgingly, a justly waged war. I would sum up the Objectivist view as being for anything that on its face seems to "help" America, even if it includes lying and unjust killing. I.e., it is nothing more nor less than the neocon view.

Shayne

[anthony]

It's not "sidetracking" to not follow your agenda Phil.

It is relevant to discuss things like why Iran is angry with us, because the best way to get them to not have nukes is to have them voluntarily do it. (I know how much you Objectivists like to bomb things (reminds me of Dr. Strangelove when you talk), but really the best way is to try diplomacy first.) And it's hard to convince someone to voluntarily back down when they don't trust your motives. And it's hard to get them to trust your motives when you lie and don't own up to past sins.

As I said originally, the whole context is relevant. The first step in this situation must be a full statement of principles about the issue and a full accounting of the injustices born by both sides and a statement of how these should be dealt with. See the Declaration of Independence for an example (there were no relevant injustices by America in that case but if there were they should have been listed).

Shayne

Shayne,

Not all of us are 'bomb everything' Objectivists - nor am I in favour of trying to right wrongs (perceived and real) from the past, with hate-mongering dictators.

Do you think they will recognize the justice of this, and change attitudes?

On the point of principled action, I'm in total agreement.

But which principles? Diplomacy and pacification aren't principles.

Tony

[sjw]

It's not "sidetracking" to not follow your agenda Phil.

It is relevant to discuss things like why Iran is angry with us, because the best way to get them to not have nukes is to have them voluntarily do it. (I know how much you Objectivists like to bomb things (reminds me of Dr. Strangelove when you talk), but really the best way is to try diplomacy first.) And it's hard to convince someone to voluntarily back down when they don't trust your motives. And it's hard to get them to trust your motives when you lie and don't own up to past sins.

As I said originally, the whole context is relevant. The first step in this situation must be a full statement of principles about the issue and a full accounting of the injustices born by both sides and a statement of how these should be dealt with. See the Declaration of Independence for an example (there were no relevant injustices by America in that case but if there were they should have been listed).

Shayne

Shayne,

Not all of us are 'bomb everything' Objectivists - nor am I in favour of trying to right wrongs (perceived and real) from the past, with hate-mongering dictators.

Do you think they will recognize the justice of this, and change attitudes?

On the point of principled action, I'm in total agreement.

But which principles? Diplomacy and pacification aren't principles.

Tony

That misrepresentation of what I said puts you into the "bomb everything" category in my book because the ultimate result of your approach will in fact be to bomb everything, because you've thrown reason and morality out the window.

My point is clear, and is expressed in the Declaration of Independence by this line: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." The Founders saw the need to put the facts and principles out there, to prove their case, spelling out what justice meant in this situation very clearly. This propaganda video doesn't cut it. It's only purpose is to make you afraid so that you sanction the politicians doing whatever the hell they want. As usual.

Shayne

Edited March 1, 2011 by sjw

[anthony]

It's not "sidetracking" to not follow your agenda Phil.

It is relevant to discuss things like why Iran is angry with us, because the best way to get them to not have nukes is to have them voluntarily do it. (I know how much you Objectivists like to bomb things (reminds me of Dr. Strangelove when you talk), but really the best way is to try diplomacy first.) And it's hard to convince someone to voluntarily back down when they don't trust your motives. And it's hard to get them to trust your motives when you lie and don't own up to past sins.

As I said originally, the whole context is relevant. The first step in this situation must be a full statement of principles about the issue and a full accounting of the injustices born by both sides and a statement of how these should be dealt with. See the Declaration of Independence for an example (there were no relevant injustices by America in that case but if there were they should have been listed).

Shayne

Shayne,

Not all of us are 'bomb everything' Objectivists - nor am I in favour of trying to right wrongs (perceived and real) from the past, with hate-mongering dictators.

Do you think they will recognize the justice of this, and change attitudes?

On the point of principled action, I'm in total agreement.

But which principles? Diplomacy and pacification aren't principles.

Tony

That misrepresentation of what I said puts you into the "bomb everything" category in my book because the ultimate result of your approach will in fact be to bomb everything, because you've thrown reason and morality out the window.

My point is clear, and is expressed in the Declaration of Independence by this line: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." The Founders saw the need to put the facts and principles out there, to prove their case, spelling out what justice meant in this situation very clearly. This propaganda video doesn't cut it. It's only purpose is to make you afraid so that you sanction the politicians doing whatever the hell they want. As usual.

Shayne

Nope. I haven't seen the video, yet. I'm no more afraid than I have been for 40 years.

What can one think when a nation arms itself, and simultaneously makes threatening noises?

Against Israel, just for existing. Against the USA for all manner of perceived wrongs.

Without present -or even recent- provocation, Iran is sabre-rattling with nukes. Nobody has threatened to attack them, so what's their point? Self defence, or vengeance? They can't have it both ways.

These are the facts. From these we can discuss morality and reason.

Tony

[sjw]

Nope. I haven't seen the video, yet. I'm no more afraid than I have been for 40 years.

What can one think when a nation arms itself, and simultaneously makes threatening noises?

Against Israel, just for existing. Against the USA for all manner of perceived wrongs.

Without present -or even recent- provocation, Iran is sabre-rattling with nukes. Nobody has threatened to attack them, so what's their point? Self defence, or vengeance? They can't have it both ways.

These are the facts. From these we can discuss morality and reason.

Tony

That's just a lot of empty statements ranging from the barely plausible to deranged absurdity. Can you back it up with an objective case that takes into account all relevant facts? No. Which is why you spew this nonsense instead. This is very true to Objectivism though, you're exactly in the spirit of it here.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

At best I tend to be unconventional in terms of quoting responses of my posts due to the fact of the confusion I, and I am sure many others, on these boards experience when following along a conversation.

However, I do not usually respond to insults yet your having done so after I have calmly replied and outlined my objections/thoughts to your statements. Consequently, I would not assume you were a pacifist or anything you were not unless I had specifically said so.

I usually do not accuse unless it is in the context of arguing only for the purposes of goading my opponent to expand upon their accusations against me and in hopes of pointing out the fallacies of their irrational conclusions.

Suffice it to say, I reject neo-conservativism and (despite your accusation) at face value the Objectivist view on foreign policy may seem similar to what neo-conservatives call for but, in reality, is not.

If you knew anything about Objectivist philosophy you would know that Objectivists not only reject neo-conservatism as a philosophy but also do not subscribe to the neo-conservative view that war is a means to the end of giving life meaning, fomenting bravery and patriotism.

As far as Objectivism itself is concerned with regards to war, I would refer you to William Thomas's essay on the matter found here: http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/war-objectivist-view

and Thomas's essay on Pre-emptive Strikes and Iraq: http://www.atlassociety.org/pre-emptive-strikes-and-iraq

The movie in and of itself is highly informative and (I think) factually driven despite what might be an element of hype. Yet the makers of the film obviously have to balance the presenting facts to make their case while keeping the audience's interest.

Is there anything one can do to get you to adopt the normal convention at OL to write below what you're quoting? This reverse-methodology is quite annoying.

Anyways, I'm not a pacifist so your remarks are quite misguided. In simple terms all I was calling for was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and objecting to the video on the grounds that it is propaganda. I never said we shouldn't deal with objective threats, on the contrary I supported the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes. One problem with your propaganda-driven approach is that it's hard for honest people to discern what's really an objective threat and what's just dishonest drivel.

Shayne

Edited March 1, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

As far as Objectivism itself is concerned with regards to war, I would refer you to William Thomas's essay on the matter found here: http://www.atlassoci...bjectivist-view

and Thomas's essay on Pre-emptive Strikes and Iraq: http://www.atlassoci...trikes-and-iraq

Mr. Thomas writes a good, well-reasoned essay; one that should be read. Bottom line, though, he doesn't even begin to deal with the nature of State power-mucking in foreign affairs or such travesties as the Indian wars and the Civil War. It's been one unnecessary war after begetting war helping create the monsters we end up fighting.

--Brant

[sjw]

As far as Objectivism itself is concerned with regards to war, I would refer you to William Thomas's essay on the matter found here: http://www.atlassoci...bjectivist-view

and Thomas's essay on Pre-emptive Strikes and Iraq: http://www.atlassoci...trikes-and-iraq

Mr. Thomas writes a good, well-reasoned essay; one that should be read. Bottom line, though, he doesn't even begin to deal with the nature of State power-mucking in foreign affairs or such travesties as the Indian wars and the Civil War. It's been one unnecessary war after begetting war helping create the monsters we end up fighting.

--Brant

Thomas makes a very crude and dangerous metaphor between individuals under threat by other individuals and nations under threat by other nations. Such thinking is at the heart of nationalism.

The essay does have virtues compared to what those in this thread have posted here, at least he refers to relevant facts and even relevant principles.

Shayne