Recommended Posts

NOTE FROM MSK: A flame war erupted on this thread that got mixed with the substance, but ultimately hogged the topic, so rather than spend a couple of hours separating this from that and keep it all trying to make sense, I've thrown the entire thread in the Garbage Pile and locked it. Michael

 

 

Not Good - Iran Escalation

The context:

Gulf of Oman attack – US says Iran is behind ‘torpedo’ attack on American-linked oil tanker and bombing of second ship

 

The reaction:

Let's see how this turns out, but it's already not good.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not Good - Iran Escalation

The context:

Gulf of Oman attack – US says Iran is behind ‘torpedo’ attack on American-linked oil tanker and bombing of second ship

 

The reaction:

Let's see how this turns out, but it's already not good.

Michael

Local talk show guy, Duke Brooks said that in 1986 Iran was spoiling for a fight to raise the price of their oil on the black market, and we had the foreign tankers fly American flags. We were locked and loaded as the saying goes. I guess that means once again we are locked on target and ready to begin the war. Remember Sadam from Iraq went ahead and shot a scud at Israel since we were coming to get him any way. If they torpedo or shoot at another tanker we may just missile them back or have a two week build up of forces and then take them out big time. Imagine how the decent Iranians must feel when an American buildup occurs. The bread will be off the shelves. The mullahs and the Iranian legislature will just chant, "Death to America," as usual. We piss them off, but damn if they don't piss off the rest of the world. I wonder what crap Vlad Putt-in is doing? Peter  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This story is false. Islam is the religion of peace. No Islamic government would do such a thing. Muslims do not do acts of violence. Maybe some other religion but not Islam.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS wrote, “This story is false. Islam is the religion of peace. No Islamic government would do such a thing. Muslims do not do acts of violence. Maybe some other religion but not Islam.”

Are the Persians real Muslims then or some peaceful offshoot like B’hai’s Seals and Croft? “Hummingbird don’t fly away.” I agree with your satire, JTS. They be monsters and perhaps something wicked this way comes .

Iran has the motive but is taking no credit or blame for the damage to the oil tankers. And they don’t seem to be donning an Alfred E. Newman face when Newman says, “What, me worry? Or when the other Newman says, “Aren’t you worried, Jerry, because Iran is pure evil.” Who else could it be, conspiracy buffs?

Some suspicious but silly choices?

Iraqi revenge, because of their horrible war with Iran which included the use of nerve gas and human waves of suicide fighters? Let America eliminate the threat for Iraq.

Israel? Mossad chief: Let’s get rid of those creeps once and for all. What plan would get your approval, Bebe?    

Russia’s Putin: Oh this plan is hilarious! You Spetsnaz guys are the greatest!

President Trump humming as he listens to the Beach Boys: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

I would not go with Trump because of a lack of serious motive. We are at peace. Lil Kim might start acting out. The Dow is over 26 thou. But that leaves several other choices. Any other suggestions? Peter  

Notes. Newman makes his first physical appearance in "The Suicide", but he is first established as a character in the earlier episode "The Revenge", in which only his voice is heard. Newman was created as a counterpoint to the Jerry character, though the reason for their animosity is never revealed. Seinfeld once described Newman as the Lex Luthor to his Superman. Knight has described him as "pure evil" as did Jerry in the episode "The Big Salad" when he says "I've looked into his eyes. He's pure evil."

Oh hummingbird, mankind was waiting for you to come flying along.
Heavenly songbird, we were so wrong. We've harmed you.
Oh hummingbird, lend us your wings. Let us soar in the atmosphere of Abha.
Lift us up to the heaven of holiness, oh source of our being, oh hummingbird.
Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away. Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away.
In you I've found a fragrance. I'll love you 'til I die.
I just love you, love you, love you. I don't even know the reason why.
Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away. Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away.
The sweetness of your nectar has drawn me like a fly.
I just love you, love you, love you. I don't even know the reason why. Now,
Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away. Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away.
Haven't you noticed the days somehow keep getting longer?
And the spirit voices whisper in us all.
Haven't you noticed the rays? The spirit sun in stronger
And a new day is dawning for us all.
Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away. Hummingbird don't fly away, fly away.
Songwriters: DARRELL G. CROFTS,JIMMY SEALS

Those of the B’hai faith.

Rulers and Politicians:
- Queen Marie of Romania - first crowned ruler to embrace Baha'i Faith (not officially enrolled, but a Baha'i at heart, whose devotion is expressed in her letters published in Priceless Pearl)
- Cynthia Shepard Perry - US Ambassador to Sierra Leone, West Africa and Burundi during Bush administration
- David Kelly - British Ministry of Defence (MoD); expert in biological warfare; former UN weapons inspector in Iraq; uncovered Iraq's former biological weapons program; Nobel Peace Prize nominee

- Dizzy Gillespie - Jazz musician (trumpet player)
- Jim Seals and Dash Crofts - "Seals & Crofts" songwriting/musician duo (soft rock); best known for "Summer Breeze" and "Get Closer"; Also: "We May Never Pass This Way Again"
- Charles Wolcott - film composer; former MGM and Disney Studios Music Director; 3 Academy Awards
- Dan Seals - country and western singer
- Affe Adel - singer/songwriter with chart-topping hits in the U.S. and U.K.
- James Moody - Jazz saxophonist
- Vic Damone - jazz singer
- Film and Television:
- Earl Cameron - Bermudan born veteran TV/film actor; The Interpreter (2005); Thunderball (1965); The Message (1976); etc.
- David Hofman - actor, "Voice of the BBC"
- Carole Lombard - actress, movie star
- Rainn Wilson - actor: Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006); Almost Famous (2000); Galaxy Quest (1999); America's Sweethearts (2001); Sahara (2005); received Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series from Screen Actors Guild Award for Six Feet Under in 2001) [see American Baha'i 23 November 2005]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Remember the oil tankers!

--Brant

 

That doesn't have the zing of "Remember the Maine!" Darn yur smart. I get it. Brant, I think Iran did it, but are they now spooked? Will they do one more act of war? I think the Hate America First, Iranian Crowd have one more atrocity in them before they start to quiver in their boots. They are maniacs but I think they have enough sense and insight to avoid 50,000 air strikes and the leveling of their country. But, one more "hit' without a loss of life or an oil spill is plausible. Eyes are watching.  Peter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say Iran did it, especially because President Trump's people said they did, but once the oil people get involved, God knows what happens.

I mean, how many friggin' wars do we have to fight--wars involving a lot of oil--where we go "oops" when people take a second look at the causes?

Besides, oil aside, remember the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin...

(I support President Trump, but not all his people. This one makes me want more verification than normal...)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed 100 percent. Was it Iran? To be PC . . . and moral . .  . we can never say nuke them again. A fly swatter should be used until they say Ouch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Peter said:

Agreed 100 percent. Was it Iran? To be PC . . . and moral . .  . we can never say nuke them again. A fly swatter should be used until they say Ouch.  

From: Jimmy Wales To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800. Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual.

From “Unrugged Individualism:” The Selfish Basis of Benevolence. p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary. "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards?  I am an individualist."  But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning.  It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language.  But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms.  Someone who does not practice these forms is rude.  We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner).

A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic. "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude?  Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?"  The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it.  Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling.  (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.)

Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus Jimmy destroyed the unique culture of the old Atlantis today unrepeatable and inimitable and, frankly, unimaginable to anyone who hadn't experienced it.

If it isn't broke don't fix it.

At least he went on to better things and we went to Yahoo Groups, AtlantisII.

---Brant

it seems only Peter has this stuff archived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Wales has done all right for himself sucking up to establishment authoritarians, especially those on the left.

The Wikipedia thing was a great idea, though.

(That last line is true, but I only threw it in to be civil. :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea Jimbo lived in the U.K. I fear for his sanity, as he fears for his safety. I must say he demonstrated that he can turn a phrase when he said: “easily triggered,” and “MAGA bots.” I may just remember those for later use. Let’s see. Lefty bots. Biden bots. Elizabeth Warren is easily triggered. Peter   

From the Alabama State website: Jimmy Wales, Alabama native and Wikipedia founder, says he’s leaving UK during Trump visit. Updated Jun 3, 2019; Posted Jun 3, 2019. Jimmy Wales, Alabama native and founder of online encyclopedia Wikipedia, isn’t a fan of President Donald Trump. Wales now lives in the United Kingdom. Trump is in the middle of a state visit to the UK, prompting the Huntsville native to tweet: “I will be back when he leaves." When asked on Twitter if anyone cares, Wales shot back: “A whole lotta easily triggered (Make America Great Again) fans apparently.” Wales later said his UK exit was part of a “long-planned trip to visit family in Florida.” “Tweet was just to rile up the MAGA bots. Mission accomplished,” he wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Jimbo lives in London. Is it lucky or unlucky Wales does not live in Wales? Try saying that three times fast. Peter

In August 2013, Wales criticized U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for an Internet porn-filter, saying that the idea was "ridiculous." In November 2013, Wales also commented on the Snowden affair, describing Edward Snowden as "a hero" whom history would judge "very favourably"; additionally, Wales said the U.S. public "would have never approved [the] sweeping surveillance program [publicized by Snowden]", had they been informed or asked about it . . . . Wales has visited Israel over ten times and taken over $1M in donations from Israeli universities but claims neutrality over Israel-Palestinian issues . . . .  Wales is a self-avowed Objectivist . . . . in 1992, founded an electronic mailing list devoted to "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy". Though he has stated that the philosophy "colours everything I do and think", he has said. . . . An interview with Wales served as the cover feature of the June 2007 issue of the libertarian magazine Reason. In that profile, he described his political views as "center-right". Prior to 2008, Wales attended George Soros's birthday. In a 2011 interview with The Independent, he expressed sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London protesters, saying, "You don't have to be a socialist to say it's not right to take money from everybody and give it to a few rich people. That's not free enterprise." Dan Hodges in The Telegraph has described Wales as a "Labour sympathizer" . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just three more from Jimbo? Then I will stop. These do illustrate his cognitive skills. I closed up the paragraphs for brevity. I left web addresses because when I saw “bomis” I remembered it, but not Aristotle bomis. Wikipedia said he is worth a million bucks, but I don’t think he has any hush money. joke.  I may have recently quoted the first letter because it seems familiar so I will just show his older web address. Peter

From: Jimmy Wales jwales@aristotle.bomis.com To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Whose directing the abortion debate? Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:52:37 ‑0500. Doris Gordon wrote: A question for anyone who is thinks that I've disregarded the philosophical question of the person:  Have you ever taken a peek at . . . .

From: Jimmy Wales To: objectivism Subject: Re: OWL: Gun Proliferation is not an answer Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:52:15 -0600. Ted Hordeski wrote: I think a license implies a privilege granted and limited by the state.  Gun ownership should not be considered a privilege, which the state, upon it's whim, is within it's right to suspend.

It is true that a license tends to imply a privilege granted and limited by the state.  But there are important subtle distinctions that can and should be made as we work to advocate practical changes to existing laws. A big trend in the 1990s was for states to change their laws pertaining to the carry of concealed weapons to liberalize the granting of permits.  33 states are now "shall issue" states – in these states, the government _must issue_ a permit to people who meet certain minimal conditions.  Usually the conditions are: a background check to make sure you haven't committed violent crimes or felonies, the successful completion of a training course (usually 4-8 hours of training), and being 21 or older.  There are minor variations from state to state, of course, just as there are with drivers licenses. Only a few states completely ban the carrying of concealed weapons. Most of the remaining states have "discretionary issue".  In California, for example, to get a permit requires you to show "good cause", which can vary from county to county depending on the views of the local Sheriff and/or Police Chief.

Vermont has no laws regulating the carry of concealed weapons at all. So while it is true that only in Vermont to people really have a legal _right_ to carry a concealed weapon, the situation in the 33 shall-issue states isn't all that bad, especially when compared to the situation before, which was mostly "discretionary issue".

>Though you may not 'feel' your freedom being diminished by having to apply for a license, it is the presumption upon which licensing is based that can, and ultimately will, come back to bite you.

This is true, but we can and should remember that "shall issue" laws are a lot different from "discretionary issue" laws, and be grateful that the trend here has been strongly in the right direction. --Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com To: objectivism. Subject: OWL: Kinds of weapons Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:40:00 -0600. What kinds of weapons ownership is consistent with individual rights? Although it is of course not philosophically conclusive in any way, it may be instructive to review the terms of the recent Circuit Court decision that held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.  We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the genera kind or type excluded by Miller."

So, according to this court, Americans have a broad right to own weapons that are "suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller".  (Miller refers to a Supreme Court decision of 1939.) The Miller case is specifically about a sawed-off shotgun, but the "general kind or type" excluded by Miller would be weapons which are "not part of the ordinary military equipment" nor such "that its use could contribute to the common defense."  However, notice that the 1934 act upheld in Miller involves a tax and regulations on machine guns, which are of course part of the ordinary military equipment and are suitable as personal, individual weapons. One school of thought says that the 2nd Amendment protects the type of weapon that can be carried and usefully employed by a single soldier, and does not protect "crew served" weapons.  I'm not sure that this distinction is particularly useful, except as a contemporary convenience. Without personally taking a very strong position on the issue, I would say that it does seem reasonable to me that the "line" should be drawn at such a level that the people, acting as a militia in a time of crisis, could fight effectively against a tyrannical government. –Jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has seen the Soros interview and what are the chances Wales did not?

He discusses his childhood in Hungary during WWII. He discusses how he went door-to-door to Jewish homes. You really have to see it yourself. The interviewer asks if it was psychologically difficult, being a young boy and treating people this way.

Soros: “Not at all. Not at all.”

Who is behind the expensive caravan attacks on our southern border? Soros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, do hunt it down.

You are going to love what Soros said after twice saying “Not at all.” He explains himself, makes it all clear.

You go hunt that down and then you ask yourself what is really going on with someone who attends a party to celebrate that man’s life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to say Iran did it, especially because President Trump's people said they did, but once the oil people get involved, God knows what happens.

I mean, how many friggin' wars do we have to fight--wars involving a lot of oil--where we go "oops" when people take a second look at the causes?

Besides, oil aside, remember the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin...

(I support President Trump, but not all his people. This one makes me want more verification than normal...)

Michael

 

"The Japanese owner of the Kokuka Courageous, one of two oil tankers targeted near the Strait of Hormuz, said Friday that sailors on board saw "flying objects" just before it was hit, suggesting the vessel wasn't damaged by mines."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-tanker-attacks-gulf-of-oman-tanker-owner-seems-to-dispute-us-account-of-gulf-of-oman-attack-today-2019-06-14/

 

US Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 1986, Investigations Into Secret Military Assistance to Iran

“There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”

That is who hit the two tankers. They want WWIII in order to avoid their defeat, prosecution and hanging. The world is not ready to learn about that so the Trump—led Alliance has to say what the world is ready to hear and just get the job done, as they did in Syria.

It is going to look and feel a lot like Syria did. Obvious false flags will occur such as the poison gas attacks we saw that did Assad no good and could not be his doing. Trump and his people will accept the false blame for those attacks, like he did in Syria. Trump and his people will say they are going to teach the evil doers a lesson. Anti—war people will get upset. Precision missiles will be launched, dozens of them, and the "bad guys" (Assad then, the Ayatollahs now) will go on tv, enraged that we attacked them, yet there won't be any meaningful harm done to them, and everyone will be left wondering who most of the missiles really did fall on. This will repeat a few times, go on for a few months, and then be over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that Objectivists were thinking about our options with Iran, fifteen years ago. And of course Iran took a lot of our citizens hostage before that. Their leaders are evil and they initiative force. We owe them something worse than a black eye and sanctions . . . so obviously and objectively, their nuclear program must be halted. Presto! Below I made every mention of Iran turn bold. Peter

2004/ Liberty & Power: Group Peter Schwartz and the Abandonment of Rand’s Radical Legacy The Current War by Chris Sciabara. . . . . To some extent, it can be said that Schwartz retains some vestiges of Rand’s “isolationist” predilections. He is careful to emphasize that the freedom philosophy of the U.S. “does not mean we ought to declare war on every tyrant in the world. Before we decide to wage war,” Schwartz explains, “there must exist a serious threat to our freedom. Our government is not the world’s policeman. It is, however, America’s policeman” (15). This is why, Schwartz maintains, foreign policy cannot be “divorced from the moral principle of freedom. If freedom is the basic value being safeguarded, then our foreign policy can give us unambiguous guidelines: we use our power to preserve that value—and only to preserve that value” (65). For Schwartz, then, thankfully, “it is not our business to resolve some distant conflict centering on which sub-tribe should enslave the other.” Indeed, when the proper moral goal is left undefended or undefined, “everything [becomes] our business,” and what results is an unprincipled, “ad hoc foreign policy” (67).

In terms of guiding moral principles, Schwartz’s argument is basically sound. Moreover, by limiting the role of U.S. military action overseas, Schwartz justifiably leaves open the possibility for military response in the face of legitimate threats to security. Schwartz believes, however, that “Iraq ... was a threat to us—not nearly the threat presented by some other nations, but a threat nonetheless” (44), and on this basis, he supported the invasion of that country.

Alas, he and I disagree on this. In my view, Iraq was most assuredly not a “serious threat to our freedom” and should not have been invaded or occupied by the U.S. military. As I have argued in many essays over the past two years, Hussein could have been contained and deterred from future aggressive actions. Though Schwartz supports the Iraq war, he maintains that it is Iran that is the “vanguard” for all those Islamic groups that are merely “parts of one whole.” Schwartz’s emphasis here on the “ideology of Islamic totalitarianism” (24)—and kudos to him for not using that tired phrase “Islamo-fascism,” which distorts the meaning of the word fascism—is important to note:

The promoters of Islamic totalitarianism wish to establish a world in which religion is an omnipresent force, in which everyone is compelled to obey the mullahs, in which the political system inculcates the duty to serve, in which there is no distinction between mosque and state. (25) ... America is a nation rooted in certain principles. It is a culture of reason, of science, of individualism, of freedom. The culture of the Muslim universe is the opposite in every crucial respect. It is a culture steeped in mysticism rather than reason, in superstition rather than science, in tribalism rather than individualism, in authoritarianism rather than freedom. (26) Though Schwartz gets some crucial things right in this passage, I do think there are certain complexities he does not grasp; for example, it is not at all clear that the problems he cites are strictly the result of Islamic theology or some combination of that doctrine with specifically Arab cultures. (See this discussion with Jonathan Dresner and Gus diZerega on L&P, for example.) Schwartz readily admits too that, “ronically, it was life in the Islamic countries during Europe’s Dark Ages that was further advanced and less oppressive—because the Muslims at the time were under the influence of a more pro-reason philosophy, a philosophy they subsequently abandoned” (27). In this larger ideological war, however, Schwartz argues that the U.S. “should always give moral support to any people who are fighting for freedom against an oppressive government.”

But it is Iran that remains “the pre-eminent source of Islamic totalitarianism today” (30), and it is therefore “the government of Iran that needs to be eliminated,” in Schwartz’s estimation (32). By targeting Iran, “the primary enemy,” “the chief sponsor of terrorism,” all the other “lesser” Muslim states—“Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan—will likely be deterred” (32-33).

I don’t believe it’s that simple. Schwartz tells us that a “principled foreign policy anticipates future consequences” (62). But, given the difficulties of invading and occupying Iraq, and the current drain on U.S. money, military, and munitions, I don’t believe that Schwartz has given much thought to the long-term consequences of invading and occupying Iran, which is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq, and has more than 3 times the population. (And if Schwartz does not envision invasion and occupation, then it is legitimate to ask if he, like some other Objectivists, envisions the decimating of the entire country—see here, for example.) Aside from the fact that a large-scale military option would almost certainly require the reinstatement of the draft and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, it would most likely short-circuit the existing and growing liberal tendencies among the vast majority of younger Iranians who yearn to topple the mullahs. It could very seriously destabilize Iraq as well. (See my various archived posts on Iran, here and here.)

It should also be pointed out that “Islamic totalitarianism” is no more of a monolith than Communism was. Just as there were deep divisions in the Communist “bloc” during the Cold War, so too are there deep divisions in the Islamic world. These divisions might be profitably exploited by U.S. policymakers, who must also be careful not to be consumed by them—as in Iraq, where Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi’ite forces might opt for civil war rather than the ballot box.

There are, of course, consequences for a policy of inaction in the face of a real or imminent threat. But those of us who have opposed the Iraq war and any current extension of that war into Iran have not embraced “inaction”; what we have embraced is a strictly delimited strategic vision focused on precise military targets, which seeks to marginalize extremist theocratic forces—and a much broader intellectual vision focused on the realm of ideas. Ultimately, this is an ideological and cultural conflict. And as Rand observed, while a military battle of any scope is like a “political battle”—“merely a skirmish fought with muskets[,] a philosophical battle is a nuclear war”—and only rational ideas will ultimately win it (“‘What Can One Do?’”). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkish Robert Tracinski wrote on June 16th “If it were up to me, this is the moment I would tell the Iranians "nice navy you used to have." It is, after all, a longstanding mission of the United States Navy to guarantee freedom of navigation, particularly for such a strategic area as the Persian Gulf. So far, for all of this president's penchant for blustering on Twitter, his actual response has been much more cautious and timid.” end quote

I am more cautious though I think Robert is spot on with what Ayn Rand would advocate. Isn't the Iranian military navy a bunch of speed boats? And weren't the boats used in these attacks part of the "Revolutionary Guard?" I suppose drones with small explosives could put a hole in every one of those without killing everyone on board, fanatic or not.

A lot of expat Iranians are now Americans with families still there. So the use of force could be moderated. Iranians, especially the young in Iran have had protests to stop the theocratic dictatorship. Unless this becomes a *war* as with Nazi Germany or Japan I am for the use of retaliatory force beyond a fire cracker, but less than a kaboom that kills all aboard or near the vessel in dry dock. I remember President Trump warned the Russians and therefor the Syrians when we were going to bomb some of the Syrian facilities. If one more incident occurs I would support such action. Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are more fascinated with the female wearers of the crown, Elizabeth the First, Elizabeth the Second and Queen Victoria. And Henry the 8th in a negative way. In the PBS theme to the show Victoria, the words, “Gloriana” and “Hallelujah” are used beautifully. Queen Victoria was born in 1819, just five years after hostilities ceased, and she died in 1901. The War started June 18, 1812 and ended Feb 17, 1815. By then I think we may have become friendlier with some friction during the Civil War.

The reason for this call? I was thinking about how we treat prisoners of war compared to other countries. The War of Independence and the War of 1812 were not so hot for us or the Brits. Of course we were being invaded in 1814 but come on! It’s was the British, our predominant cultural ancestor and I am extremely happy, that was the case. Peter

What are the English lyrics to “My country tis of thee?”

God save our gracious Queen! 
Long live our noble Queen! 
God save the Queen! 
Send her victorious, 
Happy and glorious, 
Long to reign over us, 
God save the Queen.

The War of 1812, was fought over issues that continued to plague relations between the United States and Britain after the Revolutionary War, like impressment of American sailors and trade restrictions on American shipping.

From PBS: Military captives in the War of 1812 posed a particular problem for both sides. Neither the British nor the Americans could maintain large prisons – they lacked the military facilities and the manpower to hold soldiers for long periods of time. And, in a war that stretched along half of North America, prisoners posed a logistical nightmare – prisoners taken in battle were often hundreds of miles away from the nearest military garrison. The British often paroled captured militiamen and army officers, releasing them after they’d made a pledge to stay out of the war for the duration. Regular troops and militia officers were not paroled; they were imprisoned and often kept in filthy, vermin-ridden barracks, with inadequate food and almost no medical care. The American prisoners usually ended up in Quebec, the British were sent deep into US territory. Both were used as bargaining chips for the exchange of prisoners.

Wikipedia: The two nations are bound together by shared history, an overlap in religion and a common language and legal system, and kinship ties that reach back hundreds of years, including kindred, ancestral lines among English Americans, Scottish Americans, Welsh Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, Irish Americans, and American Britons, respectively. Today, large numbers of expatriates live in both countries.

Through times of war and rebellion, peace and estrangement, as well as becoming friends and allies, Britain and the US cemented these deeply rooted links during World War II into what is known as the "Special Relationship". In long-term perspective, the historian Paul Johnson has called it the "cornerstone of the modern, democratic world order".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we drop sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and instead allow a free trade policy? Is the following intuitive, or do the following two sentences NOT make sense? Frank wrote about trade with China: "If one of these vendors decided to ‘screw’ us, we would have no effective legal recourse. Yet these vendors are honest and deliver quality products on time." end quote  

From: Frank Bubb To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Trade Is A Free Society's Best "Weapon" Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:54:24 EDT.  Within Objectivist circles there seems to be significant support for the view that the best way to deal with those societies which virulently oppose American values is to refuse to ‘sanction’ their evil by cutting them off from the benefits of dealing with our society.  See, e.g., the post entitled ‘Economic Exclusion Now’ by Ralph Hertle. I will argue that this strategy is 180 degrees out of phase with reality, that trade is a free society’s best ‘weapon’ in the fight against dictatorship and terrorism.  From the standpoint of every dictator, trade spreads the cancer of individual independence, mutual understanding with ‘foreign devils’ and unwillingness to believe or obey the dictator.

THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE. Most Objectivists understand the moral benefit to the individual of dealing with others by trade for mutual benefit, and the role of habits in developing a moral personality.  Regardless of one’s moral starting point, the experience of trading with others on a regular basis implicitly and often imperceptibly inculcates certain habits, such as (1) honesty, (2) productiveness (to have something worth trading), (3) dependability, (4) expecting to receive value in an exchange, (5) understanding the other party’s need to receive value in an exchange, and (6) perceiving one’s trading counterpart as a human being with similar core interests.

These benefits apply both to trade in one’s immediate locale and to trade with people in other lands.  The latter has the additional benefit of making one aware of the fact that people with very different customs and initial beliefs are still human beings (not ‘foreign devils’) who share one’s core interests. I work as general counsel for a sporting goods retailer.  One of my colleagues is in charge of importing significant quantities of sporting goods from China.  He travels regularly to China and deals extensively with various factories and trading companies.  If one of these vendors decided to ‘screw’ us, we would have no effective legal recourse. Yet these vendors are honest and deliver quality products on time.  Despite their government's policies, they and millions others like them have become part of a vast network of people who in fact operate substantially in accordance with the moral standards of modern commercial culture.

Most Objectivists readily understand that foreign aid shifts power and influence in the recipient society from the private sector toward those with political power.  It should be as readily understood that trade has the reverse effect, imperceptibly but ultimately shifting power and influence in a society toward those who engage in trade.  Traders benefit economically.  As they hire or contract with others in their society to support their trade with outsiders, they bring these others into the ambit of the habits and beliefs they have developed.

Finally, trade gives those in each society a stake in continued peaceful relations with those in the other society.  Whatever influence the trading culture in a society has at any given time, that influence will be in favor of continued trade and its prerequisite, peace.

THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF BANNING TRADE. Imposing trade sanctions against regimes or societies we oppose not only deprives Americans of the positive benefits listed above, but also imposes the following costs on us. To the extent people are harmed by our government’s trade sanctions, the people who are harmed grow to hate the American government and, by association, the capitalist system it represents (granted, they may have hated it already, but sanctions tend to reinforce their hatred).  This hatred is not confined to the target country. A couple of my colleagues at work are from the Middle East. They confirm what is sometimes reported in our media: America’s sanctions against Iraq have inflamed hatred of America through the entire region, as stories of starving Iraqi children are a staple in media reports in that region. Trade sanctions give dictators an excuse, a scapegoat, for the failure of their state-run economies, and create patriotic sympathy and support for the very regimes our sanctions are designed to hurt.

Finally, our government’s trade sanctions hinder its own human intelligence efforts.  To the extent that Americans have numerous contacts in a country, those contacts are a natural source of human intelligence that could benefit our government in times of emergency.  It is no accident that our government is virtually clueless about what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

CONNECTING THE DOTS. This post has done nothing more than ‘connect the dots’ on some very standard Objectivist and free market theory.  Yet it runs totally counter to much of the bluster being emitted from various quarters within the Objectivist movement. Those who work themselves into a righteous froth over the Islamic world in general should ‘check their premises,’ and discover just how far they have strayed from them.  There is no reason to believe the trader principle stops at America’s borders. Frank Bubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot. Frank, of The Atlas Society died in 2012. Young Onset Alzheimer's disease? Crap. So long Frank.

Bubb, Frank W., 65, a former resident of Boca Raton, passed away on November 8 after a five-year struggle with Young Onset Alzheimer's disease. Born in St. Louis, MO, Frank grew up in surrounding Webster Groves and earned his bachelor's degree in economics, Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Washington University in St Louis. Frank attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he met his wife, Diana Paulonis. They were married in 1971. Frank was employed by Scott Paper Company as staff vice president and chief financial counsel. The Bubbs relocated to Boca Raton in 1995 where he served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of The Sports Authority until he retired in 2003. Frank was a respected intellectual and influential political activist in the Libertarian and Objectivist movements throughout his adult life. He enjoyed sharing his passion for his principles through dialogue and writing. Through the early and mid-1980s, Frank wrote numerous op-ed articles that were distributed nationally by the Cato Institute or placed directly with such newspapers as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Orange County Register. He also wrote articles for The New Individualist and its predecessor publication, Navigator. Frank was a founding contributor of the Society of Individual Liberty and The Atlas Society - where he served on the Board of Trustees - and was an active member of the Libertarian party. In 1980, he ran as the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania State Treasurer. Frank is survived by his wife, Diana, two sons, Daniel of Swarthmore, PA, and David of New York City. He is also survived by his mother, three brothers, and a sister. Frank was an extraordinarily kind and gentle man, a loving father and a devoted husband. He brightened the lives of those around him - quick to engage in intellectual discussion and spur fun and games with friends and family. There will be a Memorial Celebration in Frank's honor on January 5 at Springhaven Club in Wallingford, PA at 11:30 am. Published in Sun-Sentinel on Nov. 16, 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.