Bidinotto "responds": TNI article on Ron Paul


sjw

Recommended Posts

For the record, as far as passing eternity in the Christian hell is concerned, that particular shoe does not fit any Objectivist I know of.

I consider this to be silly rhetoric.

Michael

So, if you disagree with me, then it's against the posting guidelines?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shayne,

I see you've nicely segued from "most" to "many." I'm sure there are "many." I don't think you are taking any responsibility for your ridiculous rant against Objectivists probably 99% of whom no one including you knows.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you've nicely segued from "most" to "many." I'm sure there are "many."

Brant, is it that you like to play word games, or that you can't read? I said most and many, and in fact both are true: most I've seen (who have stated positions on this constellation of issues), which is all I can speak for, and many, which is the number of those I've seen.

Quit rummaging around for contradictions that aren't there and then blathering on about them.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you've nicely segued from "most" to "many." I'm sure there are "many."

Brant, is it that you like to play word games, or that you can't read? I said most and many, and in fact both are true: most I've seen (who have stated positions on this constellation of issues), which is all I can speak for, and many, which is the number of those I've seen.

Quit rummaging around for contradictions that aren't there and then blathering on about them.

First you went from "most Objectivists" after I called you on it to "many" now you land on the locution "most I've seen." This is like screwing up an attempt at parallel parking and not starting over--just keep working off the original attempt.

You can now have the last word unless you say "Thanks;" I'll say "You're welcome."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you went from "most Objectivists" after I called you on it to "many" now you land on the locution "most I've seen."

Are you quibbling as an underhanded debate tactic or just because your mind was too small to fit all my other points into?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you went from "most Objectivists" after I called you on it to "many" now you land on the locution "most I've seen."

Are you quibbling as an underhanded debate tactic or just because your mind was too small to fit all my other points into?

Shayne

I agree with MSK, Shayne. Feels like you're abusive, careening out of control.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with MSK, Shayne. Feels like you're abusive, careening out of control.

Why don't you all just pile on me then. It's OK when Barbara and Brant attack me, but when I point out the illogic in their attacks and fight back, then I'm "out of control" or violating the policies or whatever. If that's the case then the policy is: let the imbecile have his say, but don't make too good of a counter-point or you'll be banned.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a friend, okay? I get ignored a lot. Sometimes it baffles me that others don't understand or appreciate what I posted. No matter what the situation, I try to stick to objective comments about topics other than the moral stature or brainpower of other OL members. And when my best efforts get ignored or misconstrued, I don't see any dignified way out except to shrug.

I already regret having said anything to you about this, because I don't have any business trying to mediate or patch things up. But we're here to discuss principles, not personalities. You did a good job refuting Bidinotto and explaining Dr. Paul's position. If you want somebody to agree with you, okay, I agree.

W.

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way we are going to get rid of these bad ideas is to change the minds of people. This requires philosophical and intellectual warfare, not physical warfare.

Indeed.

"Philosophical and Intellectual" warfare do not work in nations which have no free speech. How far do you think you would get preaching individualism and free markets in North Korea before you were 'dissappeared'? I believe yours and studiokadents attitudes on this are completely biased by the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a nation where you can speak your mind and not be killed and have your family killed. In East Germany under Soviet rule, documents released since the fall of the Soviet Union have shown that nearly 10% of the population actively spied on their neighbors, reporting on habits, movements, discussions, or even a mere passing deragotory comment about communism. How far do you think 'intellectual and philosophical warfare' would get when 10% of your fellow man was ready to turn you in?

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Philosophical and Intellectual" warfare do not work in nations which have no free speech. How far do you think you would get preaching individualism and free markets in North Korea before you were 'dissappeared'? I believe yours and studiokadents attitudes on this are completely biased by the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a nation where you can speak your mind and not be killed and have your family killed. In East Germany under Soviet rule, documents released since the fall of the Soviet Union have shown that nearly 10% of the population actively spied on their neighbors, reporting on habits, movements, discussions, or even a mere passing deragotory comment about communism. How far do you think 'intellectual and philosophical warfare' would get when 10% of your fellow man was ready to turn you in?

You are making my point. You are giving reasons why we need to vigorously use our freedom of speech to defend individual rights in this country, as opposed to being content with being the least worst country. I think attitudes like yours is causing an erosion of freedom of speech in this country, e.g. granting telecoms immunity from spying on us and passing bills that violate the constitution.

America, while being the least worst, still violates the rights of her citizens on a vast scale. Even given this hypocrisy, America has historically served as an agent of positive change in the world. Without the hypocrisy, none of the evil foreign governments would have a chance. If you fight for change on foreign soil, you might win a small victory here and there, but if you can change America, then you'll win the war for the whole earth.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I lived under a regime like that during the right-wing military dictatorship in Brazil.

Ideas do get spread, but by indirect means. For example, a very popular song at the time said "if you run the beast will catch you and if you stop the beast will eat you," and everybody knew what that meant. It meant there was no real justice system anymore, despite the government saying there was.

O Estado de São Paulo (Brazil's largest newspaper) came up with a very creative way to indicate where the government had censored its articles, often on the front page. It published recipes for common foods in those places. So you would read that there had been an earthquake somewhere, that so-and-so had won the Nobel prize and a recipe for cookiing rice and beans would be beside it, headline and all. Everybody knew what that was.

All this forms a pressure cooker and one day it explodes. That's how it works.

And that's how the Internet is destroying these regimes, one after another. Educated people are hard to rule. When too many oppressed people see a huge disparity between what a dictator says and what reality is, they start a process of protesting, indirectly at first. This takes the most creative forms you can imagine. When people believe in something, they find a way to express it. There's lots of really smart people—good people—living under dictatorships. This builds up pressure over time and eventually becomes impossible for the dictator to control.

Then what happens, happens.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Philosophical and Intellectual" warfare do not work in nations which have no free speech. How far do you think you would get preaching individualism and free markets in North Korea before you were 'dissappeared'? I believe yours and studiokadents attitudes on this are completely biased by the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a nation where you can speak your mind and not be killed and have your family killed. In East Germany under Soviet rule, documents released since the fall of the Soviet Union have shown that nearly 10% of the population actively spied on their neighbors, reporting on habits, movements, discussions, or even a mere passing deragotory comment about communism. How far do you think 'intellectual and philosophical warfare' would get when 10% of your fellow man was ready to turn you in?

You are making my point. You are giving reasons why we need to vigorously use our freedom of speech to defend individual rights in this country, as opposed to being content with being the least worst country. I think attitudes like yours is causing an erosion of freedom of speech in this country, e.g. granting telecoms immunity from spying on us and passing bills that violate the constitution.

That's a false dichotomy Shayne, you act like you can only be EITHER against encroachments on free speech HERE or against encroachments on free speech elsewhere. Why can I not be opposed to both? And always strive to deal the worst blow I can with available resources and the surrounding contexts against the worst enemy I face?

I never said, and I don't think anyone here even remotely implied, that I am 'content' with being the 'least worst' country. I think attitudes like *yours* are causing the erosion of freedom of speech around the globe, and consequently threatening it domestically, because you act like its the same thing that we cant start a business in the US without fileing a DBA in our town, as being executed in North Korea of criticizing the dear leader. Any assault on free speech anywhere on the globe to any person is an assault on the very concept of free speech, and if you allow it anywhere to grow in strength or to get entrenched it will always come back to you ten fold. You, in practice, promulgate the global growth of the worst kinds of restrictions on speech, while nit picking the details in an all ready mostly free nation. You could care less if every other nation on the planet became an orwellian totalitarian hell hole, because you have to recycle here. If America had followed your aboslutist isolationistic solipsism during the cold war, we would today be a Soviet hell hole. You must always deal the worst blow you can with your available resources against the worst enemy you face.

America, while being the least worst, still violates the rights of her citizens on a vast scale. Even given this hypocrisy, America has historically served as an agent of positive change in the world. Without the hypocrisy, none of the evil foreign governments would have a chance. If you fight for change on foreign soil, you might win a small victory here and there, but if you can change America, then you'll win the war for the whole earth.

Oh, a small victory here and there, I thought you said:

They don't support those evil systems, but they do support slow movement toward those systems. I.e., their ideal is in fact these worse systems, not consciously and on purpose, but in effect.

So which is it, does opposiing the assaults on liberty in all parts of the world lead to the loss of liberty here always, or does it make a small victory 'here and there' I think you need to get your opinions straight on this before calling all other objectivists the equivalent of blithering idiots.

Why not fight on both fronts, one should fight all battles by always striving to deal the best blow they can against the worst enemy they face with whatever oppurtunities arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think attitudes like *yours* are causing the erosion of freedom of speech around the globe, and consequently threatening it domestically, because you act like its the same thing that we cant start a business in the US without fileing a DBA in our town, as being executed in North Korea of criticizing the dear leader. Any assault on free speech anywhere on the globe to any person is an assault on the very concept of free speech, and if you allow it anywhere to grow in strength or to get entrenched it will always come back to you ten fold. You, in practice, promulgate the global growth of the worst kinds of restrictions on speech, while nit picking the details in an all ready mostly free nation....

Really good post, Matus. Shayne, even if the U.S. were perfect in every way, I don't think our shining-beacon-ness alone would save the rest of the world (*edit*), OR keep us safe from the rest of the world.

Edited by Laure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you act like its the same thing that we cant start a business in the US without fileing a DBA in our town, as being executed in North Korea of criticizing the dear leader.

You used these tactics before--introducing wildly bogus premises as if they were my own, and I had to keep saying that they weren't. Your whole method in the other debate was to do this, it confuses the other readers as to what my position is and adds an unjust burden to me to keep denying your ridiculous claims.

So back on the ignore list for you. I won't waste my time discussing this with someone who is so dishonest.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne, even if the U.S. were perfect in every way, I don't think our shining-beacon-ness alone would save the rest of the world (*edit*), OR keep us safe from the rest of the world.

You lack vision.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne, even if the U.S. were perfect in every way, I don't think our shining-beacon-ness alone would save the rest of the world (*edit*), OR keep us safe from the rest of the world.

You lack vision.

Shayne

You are naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you act like its the same thing that we cant start a business in the US without fileing a DBA in our town, as being executed in North Korea of criticizing the dear leader.

You used these tactics before--introducing wildly bogus premises as if they were my own, and I had to keep saying that they weren't. Your whole method in the other debate was to do this, it confuses the other readers as to what my position is and adds an unjust burden to me to keep denying your ridiculous claims.

So back on the ignore list for you. I won't waste my time discussing this with someone who is so dishonest.

Shayne

These comments are the literal implication of your comments on this thread, and also taken directly from the discussion you are likely referring to. You complained explicitly about how difficult it is to start a business in the US, and suggested I knew nothing about what I was talking about because I had never 'tried to do anything' (like starting a business) The difficulty in starting a business was one of the first pieces of evidence you suggested in that thread (I admit I am just going from memory here) you offered as evidence of how 'not free' the US is.

Your readers are confused because you are confused about your own position, in one post you say:

They don't support those evil systems, but they do support slow movement toward those systems. I.e., their ideal is in fact these worse systems, not consciously and on purpose, but in effect. ... These Objectivists are pretenders, betrayers, hypocrites, they are more dangerous to the cause of Individual Rights than the worst enemy, because they while pretending to stand for ideals of Individual Rights, in fact give comfort and aid to those who are trying to abolish them.

Then two post laters contradict yourself when you say:

If you fight for change on foreign soil, you might win a small victory here and there, but if you can change America, then you'll win the war for the whole earth.

Which is it, are we implicitly allowing the encroachment of civil liberties domestically by opposing their loss internationally? Or can small victories be one against the loss of civil liberties domestically while large victories are made internationally? You seem to embrace a zero sum perception of this struggle. It is a non zero sum struggle though, any losses are bad, and any gains are good. Gains abroad are not correlated with losses domestically.

Everyone in this thread has found little value in your comments since you essentially called everyone else in the world a blithering idiot, even those who started out agreeing with you in this thread. If there is any one worthy of putting on ignore, it's you. Too bad you can't ignore yourself eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I lived under a regime like that during the right-wing military dictatorship in Brazil.

Ideas do get spread, but by indirect means. For example, a very popular song at the time said "if you run the beast will catch you and if you stop the beast will eat you," and everybody knew what that meant. It meant there was no real justice system anymore, despite the government saying there was.

Michael, I don't know much about Brazil, but it seems in the grand scheme of orwellian hell holes, it was pretty low on the totem pole if it let so many obvious infractions slip by. I recall stories from East Germany where every single speck of a car was searched at border crossings, including underneath floor mats above sheet metal floors, where no gun could possibly be hidden, but a pamphlete certainly could be.

And that's how the Internet is destroying these regimes, one after another. Educated people are hard to rule. When too many oppressed people see a huge disparity between what a dictator says and what reality is, they start a process of protesting, indirectly at first. This takes the most creative forms you can imagine. When people believe in something, they find a way to express it. There's lots of really smart people—good people—living under dictatorships. This builds up pressure over time and eventually becomes impossible for the dictator to control.

It's a compelling thought, but I don't buy into that wholesale. The democratization of information might very well make totalitarian oppression even more total. MIT's "Oxygen" prorgram, and many of the likely advances from nanotechnology, will enable dust particle sized survaillance systems, which under the control of a totalitarian state, could literally keep an eye on everyone, every moment. The nature of the technology would demand that it controlled by a massive centrallized repository of the collected information, something which though amenable to open source technology, could easily be monopolized by a massive invasive government. Current understandings of Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that we may be able to build devices which can view the past, so literally no act could go completely hidden. Arthur C Clarke's book "the Light of Other Days" and Isaac Asimov's short story "The Dead Past" both explore this possibility. Combined with total survaillance, the possibilities for abuse of such systems is mind numbing.

On the other hand, I see tremendous potential in the internet for promulgating freedom and would certainly advocate any and all uses for it in that regard. China spends a considerable amount of time and money trying to filter questionable content. The totalitarian nations which offer internet access usually force everyone to go through government controlled firewalls, where international information is easily controlled. Perhaps clandestine operations where satelite internet ready computers are dropped into totalitarian nations, the hi-tech equivalent of leaflet drops, might create a foundation for freedom in these rogue states. I'm sure in such instances these governments would hunt down and kill anyone with such devices though.

I would certainly advocate rational efforts to use subversive internet access technologies to undermine murderous regimes, but I've not so rosy a view of technology to think that our myspace pages about Brittany Spears CNN comments and You Tube videos will so easily bring about a revolution of freedom while conveniently letting us go about our daily routines.

The entire world stands in stark contrast, as a shinning beacon of ... everything really, to North Korea, yet it remains an incredibly oppressive hell hole and seems to be getting worse despite new technologies.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

On the contrary, Brazil was not a hell-hole at all when I was there. For the average working person, a dictator has little bearing on his day-to-day affairs. If there is one misunderstanding here in the USA about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, that is probably it. People live and get by. The ugle stuff in the news is not the day-to-day experience of the vast majority.

A real hellhole is some place like Ethiopia, and even then, not in the big cities.

To get an idea of what a true visualization of this is, imagine, say, 3 or 4 thousand people (or more) all living their normal lives—workers, shop owners, service providers, repairmen, etc. Their kids go to school, they meet for parties and get-togethers or church or whatever, they watch TV, they gossip about the neighbors. One day, one of them has a serious problem with the government. Sometimes the problem gets resolved (which is most of the time), sometimes the person goes to jail, sometimes the person disappears.

Most of those 3 or 4 thousand people whisper about it with misgiving and uneasiness, but life goes on. The bitterness is in the family of the person wronged. That part grows over time.

When you see a dictator toppled, this is because among the 3 or 4 thousand, once in a while one or another will look at the wronged family and start to do things (however little or much) to right that wrong. This is not because of the 3 or 4 thousand, but because of that one. As time goes on, there will be another 3 or 4 thousand with one wronged and these people start getting in touch with each other and organizing. After this grows further in this direction, a public voice is born and the dictator had a huge headache.

Be very careful with your image of what goes on in other countries. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND traveling and seeing with your own eyes.

Speaking of China and its attempts to control the Internet, I have no doubt—none at all—that its days as a totalitarian dictatorship are numbered. We have a member of OL who teaches on that side of the border. Ask him if life is horrible and the country a hellhole. You might be surprised by the answer.

None of this means I do not think dictators need to be toppled. They most certainly do. I had the privilege of watching nearby as one after another fell in South America. This was due mostly to information coming from abroad and people comparing it against the lies of their leaders.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been in the PRK(North Korea) but I am certain it is a hellhole.

Don Parrish's report on North Korea at the TOC Summer Seminar at Chapman Univerisity is all I need to know about that awful country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

On the contrary, Brazil was not a hell-hole at all when I was there. For the average working person, a dictator has little bearing on his day-to-day affairs. If there is one misunderstanding here in the USA about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, that is probably it. People live and get by. The ugle stuff in the news is not the day-to-day experience of the vast majority.

A real hellhole is some place like Ethiopia, and even then, not in the big cities.

Michael, I did not suggest Brazil was a hell hole, it seems pretty decent now from what I understand of it, still it's violent crime rate is some 20x that of the US.

You must differentiate your assessment of shitty nations between ones that control the economy and ones that do not. While China is not very shitty in the grand scheme of things today, although it is still pretty shitty, it damn well was during the cultural revolution and the engineered famines. Right wing dictatorships, like Chile, ultimately did not control your average person's means to stay alive. As long as you minded your business and kept quiet about complaints, those dictators were more likely to leave you alone. In China, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia (interesting that you mention that, their biggest holiday now is the celebration of the day the Soviet government left) no matter how nice you were, how quiet you were, disastrous economic policies would still kill you.

When you see a dictator toppled, this is because among the 3 or 4 thousand, once in a while one or another will look at the wronged family and start to do things (however little or much) to right that wrong. This is not because of the 3 or 4 thousand, but because of that one. As time goes on, there will be another 3 or 4 thousand with one wronged and these people start getting in touch with each other and organizing. After this grows further in this direction, a public voice is born and the dictator had a huge headache.

And he kills 50,000 people, like Saddam did post Gulf War I. Or he pretends to be opening up for reforms, like Mao's hundred flowers campaign, then collects and kills everyone who revealed themselves as a reformer.

Be very careful with your image of what goes on in other countries. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND traveling and seeing with your own eyes.

Of course, I build the best assessment I can by reading as much as possible right now, but unfortunately I can't travel the world on a whim. And most of these countries I would not want to visit.

Speaking of China and its attempts to control the Internet, I have no doubt—none at all—that its days as a totalitarian dictatorship are numbered. We have a member of OL who teaches on that side of the border. Ask him if life is horrible and the country a hellhole. You might be surprised by the answer.

Because of major market reforms and political restructuring, I don't consider China to be a 'hell hole' right now, although for many people, such as those who protest and write about democracy, it certainly is. I know it is a common libertarian position that with globalization and international investment, markets must be opened concurrently with the political structure, I hope that proves to be true in the long run. If China retains it's closed political structure yet becomes a global economic and military power house, it could be a dangerous situation.

None of this means I do not think dictators need to be toppled. They most certainly do. I had the privilege of watching nearby as one after another fell in South America. This was due mostly to information coming from abroad and people comparing it against the lies of their leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are separating the effect from the cause, you are focusing on the particulars of the situation (the individuals which actually attack) and not the over arching concept (the totalitarian dictators that promulgate the idealogy and arrange the attacks)

I doubt that the totalitarian dictators themselves are involved with terrorist attacks.

Saddam Hussien directly paid for terrorist attacks against Israel and paid rewards out to the families of suicide bombers. *I* doubt this is out of the ordinary for arab / muslim tyrants.

It is possible (potentially probable) that some of these dictators directly bankroll terrorists. However, that does not imply they are involved in the planning (although if they are, and by "if" I mean it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that they are planning attacks against the USA, then I would support killing said dictator, ideally with spec-ops and tactical warfare).

I do not see why it matters if they are involved in the planning, if they are directly bankrolling terrorist attacks, then they are outright enemies of America and it's allies.

You like to assert that Iraq and Saddam was 'relatively' secular, yet Saddam was directly funding terrorist attacks against Israel and paying out tributes to the families of suicide bombers. That *alone* is reason enough to remove him from power.

Since when do we have to defend other nations like Israel? Yes, its somewhat better than the rest of the middle east, but why does that mean we should treat agression against Israel as agression against the US?

You gloss over the criticism of the secular nature of Iraq, while I wouldnt consider it relevant even if it were true, Iraq under Saddam was definately not secular in any meaningfull way, it was merely slightly less theocratic than your average majority arab / islam nation.

Israel is an ally, it is a free nation and helping to defend it against assaults on individual freedom and liberty is helping to defend the very concepts of those. We don't *have* to do anything, we don't have to call the police when we see our neighbor being raped, we don't have to consider any act immoral unless its directly effects us. Would you suggest ignoring murders and rapists unless they actually try to kill *you*? Why then would you suggest ignoring murderous terrorists unless they actually attack *you*? Even so, in this case, they have attacked American people and American property over and over again, but I think your assessment of retailatory force and defence are rather narrow minded and hardly distinguishable from pacifism, as you would watch the whole world crumble and burn as long as no one actually explicitly attacked *you*.

Of course not, nor did I ever suggest anything of the sort. I am talking about attacking the people who actually commit attacks, and the primary cause of those people deciding to commit those attacks, where that cause violates fundamental civil liberties. If a lone preacher advocates this stuff, but has no literal power of his people, he falls under the realm of free speech. Where a totalitarian dictator forces a murderous fundamentalist ideology down the through of his prisoners and kills everyone who speaks out against him, we can certainly take every reasonable action to remove him from power and remove the oppressive infrastructure he left in his wake.

Again, you are conflating Islamo-Fascism and the present totalitarian governments of the region. This is a half-truth. Most governments of that region are mixtures of Islamic statism and secular statism (arab nationalism). Many find their power-base eroded by Islamo-fascism domestically (Saudi Arabia for example, although yes they fund international Islamo-Fascism). You are simplifying a complex issue.

Well we are trying to have a reasonable length discussion, not work out a PhD dissertation. Some majority Arab / Islam nations leaders will be good allys against murderous fundamentalism, when and where they would be that should be exploited. Some of them are acting like they are, yet promulgating and funding more terrorism. Some are outright and open supporters of terrorism. They should each be delt with in the best possible manner that coincides with the long term over arching goal of ending tyrannical rule in the middle east and promulgating the growth of liberal constitutional democracy.

You act as though since Saddam Hussein *himself* did not literally attack us, and that no Iraqi Battleship was steaming up the Hudson, we have no just cause to act against him. We had plenty causes for action

I never stated Saddam did not deserve being thrown out. I never said Saddam did not deserve death. I simply do not see how he was even remotely dangerous to the US. The point of the US Defense Forces is to safeguard the US, not to spread the message of Liberty via military coercion.

In an age of transcontinental flights, globalization, bioterrorism, nuclear terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, how you can seriously think a murderous tyrant with a track record of funding fundamentalist terrorism *poses no threat* to American people is beyond me. In a coming age of synthetic life, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, the threat these people pose will increase 10 or 100 fold. Again, you consider threats based on a 19th century modality. Technological growth perpetually allows ever smaller numbers of people with ever fewer resources to kill more and more people with less and less effort. This trend is only going to get worse, where sometime in the future a single individual could intentionally or accidently wipe out all life on earth. All murderous tyrants are a threat to free people, any assault on individual freedom and civil liberties is an assault on the very concept of those. Saddam Hussien was a threat because of his choking control of a dominant world energy supply, which he used, among other things, to start wars, preech murderous hatred, and fund terrorism. His devastatingly oppressive political and economic structures further incite murderous intolerance and fundamentalism. He acquired, used, and actively sought more weapons of mass destruction. You don't think he was a threat because you don't find someone a threat until he has literally fired a gun at your head. By your rational, I could conquer every nation on the planet, and kill every human alive, but as long as I did not touch YOU or YOUR nation, I would not be 'a threat'.

The internal strife's and disagreements about how to best go about killing westerners and wiping isreali off the face of the earth does not constitute being 'against' islamic terrorist groups.

Again, you are conflating Israel and the US. Israel is not defenseless, the Jews are not pathetic and weak, they can defend themselves.

I never said they are defenseless, but lack of defenselessness is not the nature by which we judge allies nor choose to act in accordance with. The Jews are not pathetic and weak in large part because we are thier allies, which seems to be a critical point you miss. Do you think Israeli would have built it's own fleet of F16's which it used to devestate arab armies bent on it's total annihalation? Nixon's emergency support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war, where 10's of thousand of tons of weapons and ammunition delivered through over 500 jumpo military jet flights over 30 days turned a near defeat into a victory. I guess they can't completely defend themselves always in every circumstance. If the policies you, Ron Paul, SJW, etc, support were followed, you would have comdemned Israel to near certain doom and yet anohter holocaust, because, as you ask "since we do we have to help defend other nations, like Israel"

And both preach the destruction of the west, the only difference is in who they considered the rightful heir to Islam, Muhammad's relatives or Muhammad's students. Nearly every majority Arab / Islam nation is ruled by Sunnis, regardless of whether or not Sunni's comprise the Majority in that nation. Only Iran is ruled by Shias. Despotic totalitarian nations, theocratic or secular, which preach and act in accordance with the destruction of freedom and individual liberties, are not just nations and their 'leaders' are nothing more than massive hostage takers and oppressive cultists. Every reasonable effort should be made in the long term to remove every one of them from power, they are unjust, they breed terrorism, start all the wars, cause all the major global instabilities, are hotbeds for famine and pandemics, and ultimately may lead to the destruction of all life on earth.

I actually agree with this statement. However I differ as to what I believe "reasonable effort in the long term" constitutes. I also doubt that simply enforcing regime change will be effective, mainly because Afghanistan and Iraq have a Constitution that explicitly makes Islam the ruling body (and we all know that the interpretation of Islam in these areas is NOT one compatible with modernity).

You acknowledged that a nation so steeped in religious tradition could not be expected to leap frog into a modern constitution, yet you seem to suggest that efforts in Iraq and Afghanastan are complete failures because these nations do not have 'modern' constitutions. It's a catch 22, you would suggest they remain under the rule of the taliban, until, miracurously, they are suddenly ready for a 'modern' constitution? How would perpetuatuan of indoctrination, totalitarianism, and fundamentalism for many more decades prepare a people and a nation steeped in a cultural tradition of religious fundamentalism for a 'modern' constitution?

You are also waging the fate of the the middle east on your 'doubt' that 'enforcing regime change' will be effective. How well thought out is this doubt? Do you have a crystal ball with which you can so confidently make such absolute proclamations of failure?

Afghanastan's constitution offers more real oppurtunity for progress in the middle east than anything has since Anwar Sadat. Freedom House's ratings for Afghanstan on politicl and civil liberties climb every year, and it now rates Afghanstan as "Partly Free"

Agreed. Saudi Arabia is a problem. Sending battallions of Marines to Riyadh, however, is not the solution. The solution to the Saudi problem is very complex. As Michael Moore showed in Farenheit 911, the Al-Saud's get a Secret Service detail protecting them! (I hate Moore but he is right on this issue).

Agreed, Saudi Arabia is a problem, and the solution is very complex. What do you propose the solution be? Whatever it is, it must have as it's motivating principle the promulgation of rule of law, markets, and liberal constitutional democracy in Saudi Arabia as the ultimate goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam Hussien directly paid for terrorist attacks against Israel and paid rewards out to the families of suicide bombers. *I* doubt this is out of the ordinary for arab / muslim tyrants.

Again, you are treating Israel like the 51st State. It isn't.

Israel is an ally, it is a free nation and helping to defend it against assaults on individual freedom and liberty is helping to defend the very concepts of those.

Those are all half-truths. Yes, Israel is better than every other dump in the middle east, but thats simply not good enough. Even though I do not agree with everything he says, www.ariwatch.com has a good section dealing with Israel. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not a one-sided "good guy and bad guy" situation, indeed the best assessment of it is given by Christopher Hitchens in God Is Not Great. Its a situation where two groups of religious fascists have staked a claim to the same piece of land, and the fighting will basically endure as long as religious fundamentalism on either side endures.

We don't *have* to do anything, we don't have to call the police when we see our neighbor being raped, we don't have to consider any act immoral unless its directly effects us. Would you suggest ignoring murders and rapists unless they actually try to kill *you*? Why then would you suggest ignoring murderous terrorists unless they actually attack *you*?

Context-dropping. States are not individuals and should not be treated as such. Additionally, when we have a mixture of States and non-state-organizations involved in a conflict, you cannot simply treat each as an individual and make deductions accordingly.

Even so, in this case, they have attacked American people and American property over and over again, but I think your assessment of retailatory force and defence are rather narrow minded and hardly distinguishable from pacifism, as you would watch the whole world crumble and burn as long as no one actually explicitly attacked *you*.

I do support going after the organizations that have attacked American people and their property. I simply do not support treating the entire Islamic world as one giant memetic complex, a giant abstract entity with one mind. MSK has done a lot of work showing that even the modern Islamic world is by no means a monolith of "Jihad against America"ism.

Well we are trying to have a reasonable length discussion, not work out a PhD dissertation. Some majority Arab / Islam nations leaders will be good allys against murderous fundamentalism, when and where they would be that should be exploited. Some of them are acting like they are, yet promulgating and funding more terrorism. Some are outright and open supporters of terrorism. They should each be delt with in the best possible manner that coincides with the long term over arching goal of ending tyrannical rule in the middle east and promulgating the growth of liberal constitutional democracy.

Why not free Venezuela? They are a dictatorship with a lot of oil as well. Why not free the citizens of North Korea? NK is the most oppressive regime in the world at the moment. Venezuela funds Marxist militias, and who knows what NK is doing but its bound to be evil. If the US government has a mandate to reshape the world in its own image then why give the Middle East special treatment?

All murderous tyrants are a threat to free people, any assault on individual freedom and civil liberties is an assault on the very concept of those.

"Any assault on individual freedom and civil liberties is an assault on the very concept of those" is epistemological moderate realism (Aristotelian intrinsicism). Further, assaults on individual freedom and civil liberties are happenning in the US as well! There are American citizens demanding their own country is subjected to their own version of religious rule! There are enough problems inside US borders to be concerned with waging a global war.

If the policies you, Ron Paul, SJW, etc, support were followed, you would have comdemned Israel to near certain doom and yet anohter holocaust, because, as you ask "since we do we have to help defend other nations, like Israel"

Playing the Holocaust card is generally regarded as extremely impolite. I am not an anti-Semite. Yes, I am against Zionism, but no, I am no racist. Anti-Zionism is only racism if you assume national self-determination is valid on the basis of bloodline, which is simply biological collectivism.

You acknowledged that a nation so steeped in religious tradition could not be expected to leap frog into a modern constitution, yet you seem to suggest that efforts in Iraq and Afghanastan are complete failures because these nations do not have 'modern' constitutions.

The goal of the Iraqi and Afghan Constitutions (or at least the professed goals of the Neocons who engineered these constitutions) was to make these countries respect individual rights. That was the goal, and both constitutions failed miserably at it. It was the Neocons who did not acknowlege the stubbornness of religious traditions.

Afghanastan's constitution offers more real oppurtunity for progress in the middle east than anything has since Anwar Sadat. Freedom House's ratings for Afghanstan on politicl and civil liberties climb every year, and it now rates Afghanstan as "Partly Free"

And as we both know, the constitution concedes all the principles to the Islamofascists. Once the principles are conceded, the rest is just a matter of time. You cannot wed individual rights with religious fundamentalism, as the American Conservative movement demonstrates.

Agreed, Saudi Arabia is a problem, and the solution is very complex. What do you propose the solution be? Whatever it is, it must have as it's motivating principle the promulgation of rule of law, markets, and liberal constitutional democracy in Saudi Arabia as the ultimate goal.

To be perfectly honest I do not know what the solution could be. I once offered the following plan, please tell me what you think:

1. Officially declare non-interventionism in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Yes, Israel may be better than most mid-east states (which isn't saying much), and it may be more free than PA-controlled Palestine. But when so many Palestinians are saying that there hatred of America is due to its support of Israel, I think that we should at least acknowlege that is a probable cause. After all, the Jews are not pathetic and weak, they can take care of their own issues. Also, this will mean any attacks on the US after the declaration of non-interventionism cannot be rationalized as "you are supporting Israel."

2. Cripple the Al-Sauds economically by removing their investments from the US. This may cause a recession or at least damage some sectors of the economy. But they are the main bankroller's of Wahhabbi Islam (which is a part of Salafi Islam, but its the worst part!) and if we want to make them suffer, we have to stop letting them make money off the west. After all, the Al-Sauds got their money from nationalized oil revenues, not free market.

3. Make it well known that the Al-Sauds do not lead an Islamic lifestyle. Send their credit card bills to many Muslim clerics.

4. The Al-Sauds will retaliate with petrol prices. Maybe the government should advise (not force) the public to buy hybrid vehicles.

5. Get out of Iraq. It is a waste of time, money and a distraction from the true target (Al Qaeda). Also gets rid of another grievance against the US and so prevents a rationalization of attacks on one other ground.

6. Continue tactical strikes at Bin Laden and his ilk.

7. The Irshad Manji Strategy: set up a microcredit scheme that allows women in Muslim countries to start small businesses. In Islam, there is agreement amongst all sects that if women earn money they get to keep 100% of it to do what they please. Therefore, they could teach themselves to read the Koran, and since they do not like the "beat your wives" interpretation they would be more than open to other interpretations. Ideally I would like this scheme to be funded voluntarily.

8. Intellectual Warfare: promote Mutazilite Islam, Averroes, etc (i.e. the pro-reason tradition that flourished during the Islamic Golden Age) as an alternative to Wahhabism, use intellectual means to encourage individual interpretation of the Koran. In other words, try to make Islam fight over theology, hence destabilizing doctrinal power-blocs. This will promote multiple different strains, including many that are liberal-minded (liberal in the "modernity" sense). Groups like Project Ijtihad (Manji's group) are good in this regard.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Israel is gone the bastards will come for us (in fact they already have); Americans are the Jews of the world. The Muslim philosophy of subservience and death is in basic conflict with the Western philosophy of life. The Arab/Muslim fascists have to keep killing. If not the West, each other. It's a storm of force and envy. If you don't think the Arab/Muslims don't envy the Jews--apparently Hitler's problem--all I have to say is that envy is much easier than living a productive, creative, intellectual life or creating a society that honors such. When the back of envy is broken, the Jews and Americans and the formerly envious will win. The Jews are fighting against envy. The Arab/Muslims are fighting for envy. Whose side are you on? The moral side or the "utilitarian" side? Well, "The moral is the practical."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now