Lenny froths over Iran on live TV


Recommended Posts

Well, Bob, this thread is more about style and method of presentation than how to fight a war. Peikoff came across as an hysteric which gutted his whole argument.

If the U.S. hadn't bombed Japan, a naval blockade would have starved millions to death.

Harris and LeMay were like vicious attack dogs both controlled and unleashed by their masters. If LeMay had had his way during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, there would have been a nuclear exchange that would have quite likely escalated into general thermonuclear war.

You can't put a smiley face on war and feel good about it.

--Brant

Brant; May I recommend Max Hastings book Retribution which is about the last two years of World War II in the Pacific. Hastings talks about LeMay bombing of the Japanese cities. He also say that US submarine had provided a blockade of the Japanese main islands. The Japanese government caused a huge amount of suffering by their refusal to recognize that they had been defeated by the early part of 1945. Hastings says the Japanese government still thought they could retain Manchuria before the atomic bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.

The blockade already existed. There were suggestions of not invading the main islands but of just keeping the blockade on.

I agree with your last comment about not putting a smiley face on war

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob,

When you gush about the glories of slaughtering women and children because of righteousness, would you enslave them?

If not, why not?

What makes killing righteous and enslavement not righteous?

Michael

I sense something about the moral superiority of the Jews in not enslaving people, as opposed to the inferior British, Afircans, Chinese, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Japanese, Siberians, Aryans, Arabs, Mayans, East Indians and every other Goy on the planet ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob,

When you gush about the glories of slaughtering women and children because of righteousness, would you enslave them?

If not, why not?

What makes killing righteous and enslavement not righteous?

Michael

When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good advice for primitives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life.

Bob,

That did not answer my question.

Isn't slavery vengeance? Say, wouldn't enslaving a man's wife and children be great vengeance against him?

What's the operating standard?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good advice for primitives.

Why is it good advice?

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw that video I just burst out laughing, it's so bad that it becomes comical. Mr. Rational Philosophy Himself like a raving lunatic, continuously interrupting the other fellow with his rants. If it were a movie, you'd say that the characterization of the bad guy had been exaggerated. I think even many ARI-ans must be embarrassed by this spectacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fiasco of that interview is a good lesson in what happens when you isolate yourself from the world.

I almost felt sorry for Peikoff several times. He has built up a structure around him where he is deified by yes-men and women on pain of excommunication. Thus if he gets angry and emphatic, he is used to seeing the world shake around him and people cower in fear (or smirk at the one he is railing against).

He literally didn't know how to handle O'Reilly interrupting his rants and saying: "Take a breather, Doctor." He looked confused and disoriented at those times, although he did recover pretty quickly. It's kind of embarrassing that this happened more than once.

Strangely enough, he seemed to be more comfortable when O'Reilly mocked him by calling him Dr. Strangelove, since (I think he thinks) that this could only be utterred by an enemy of Objectivism or someone seriously confused. He has encountered that kind of thing before, so it was familiar.

One fact is for certain. He cannot excommunicate Bill O'Reilly, so his fire and brimstone foot-stamping came off as comedy, not something terrible and fearful. If he wants to take on competent interviewers of that caliber and convince them (and their audience) of anything, he would do well to hire himself some coaching—but most of all, listen to his coaches.

I don't have high hopes of that ever happening.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Roger,

I have a follow-up question to your Post #19.

As I recall, when Peikoff was on TV five years ago proposing that we attack Iran, he was spotlighting the proposition that it is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed. Do you have any thoughts on that proposition as a general principle?

Peikoff was very concerned in that interview about the loss of American military personel if we were to invade Afghanistan. We all were. (We knew who had attacked us, and we knew he had meant to draw us into war with him on his terrain, where he thought he could win. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding our unsureness of the usefulness of the Northern Alliance, over 90% of us thought the day after the 9/11 attack that we should send our military to Afghanistan and get those guys in their hideout and headquarters.) Peikoff also expressed the view that the Afghan people would wrongly suffer were we to attack their country to get our enemies. He pleaded on that particular O'Reilly show that we not attack Afghanistan.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't remember why Peikoff thought that our correct military target after the 9/11 attack should be Iran and not Afghanistan. Whatever his reasoning to that target, Iran, he wanted to urge that once our country goes to war with another country, such as Iran, one implication from Rand's moral philosophy is this: It is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed.

Do you have any thoughts about that issue? Is Peikoff's principle morally sound? Didn't Rand write something once that was in synch with this principle?

Stephen

Does anyone have a tape of Peikoff's appearance on O'Reilly? I'd be very interested in hearing it.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
Strangely enough, he seemed to be more comfortable when O'Reilly mocked him by calling him Dr. Strangelove, since (I think he thinks) that this could only be utterred by an enemy of Objectivism or someone seriously confused. He has encountered that kind of thing before, so it was familiar.

Michael

Dr. Strangelove! That is rich.

Miss Rand! I can walk!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Thanks for putting an approximate date on this interview. The person who posted it on YouTube did not give any information at all.

Incidentally, my favorite part of the interview was the last two statements, which could have come straight out of a Kurt Vonnegut novel.

After O'Reilly called Peikoff Dr. Strangelove, and Peikoff berated O'Reilly for saying that in our system in the USA civilians control the military and that's how it should be, and Peikoff (incorrectly as it turned out) claimed that if we did not kill women and babies in Afghanistan (but preferably Iran), we would see American women and babies killed in the USA (meaning more after 9/11), with both interrupting each other nonstop, here is how it ended:

Peikoff: Let's have pity for Afghanistan and take on Iran.

O'Reilly: All right. I gotta run. Thanks very much. (pause) When we come back... I don't know how to make this transition. (chuckle) The Miss America Pagaent was...

Then the tape cut off.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Having a need to kill 'innocents' (defined here, in this context, as non-combatants who are living under the power of the Enemy) is to be revulsed...just as having a need to saw off one's pinned arm to save one's own life; that is, IF it is a need (properly determinable ONLY by the military), and not just an alternative quick fix.

~ To be sure, that we have a Civilian (1st 'Citizen', need I add?) in charge of the military is not only nice, it's a purposely built-in part of our checks-balances system: no military 7 DAYS IN MAY military coups to worry about, plus, the constant reminder that the military is accountable to the citizens it's (ostensibly) there to protect...from foreigner attacks.

~ An innocent non-combatant non-citizen foreigner is not to be compared in worth in lethal situations to a citizen...or combatant...of 'our' side. To do so is to prepare for seppuku.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites

~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery, other than what survivors of us will have to put up with if we lose as a result of Marquis de Queensbury rules about 'innocent' foreigners who've seen no worth in acquiring official protection from the U.S. (via dual-'citizenry'); indeed, their priorities show an opposite evaluation of everything 'U.S.'

~ Finally, LP's appearance has been discussed; his conclusion has been discussed; have his r-e-a-s-o-n-s been discussed?

~ BTW, this whole argument is moot,, since no forseeable US President will attack Iran. They won't have to: --> Israel will initiate it when Iran gets threatening enough to them. You can bet that all candidates, as well as Bush, are aware of this.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to post
Share on other sites
~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery...

John,

Well I do from an epistemological basis. It's called liking clear definitions. I don't like intellectual fog.

If you have a definition of human being that does not include "an end in himself" as part of the characteristic, I am interested in hearing it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was walking down the street the other day with a friend at my side. We bumped into a homeless man screaming about the chip the government had in his brain. When I told him that was unlikely he scuffed and accused me of being an alien. He included everything from the formation of Israel to sun spots as evidence of my unearthly origin. As we walked away I turned to my friend and said "Wow, what a nut job."

Funny thing, my friend didn't expect me to counter argue the lunatic's points.

We're talking about someone who watched the Titanic and had this to say -

I kept asking my twelve year old daughter, "Why does Rose want to commit suicide?" And then we find out that she's bored by having to go to parties. Poor girl! Such a stultifying life! She would have had such a much better life in Steerage, where they did the folk music, and tossed each other around. And also, she learned how to spit. She would have been way ahead in Steerage. And then we find out that she's really a prostitute.
And there was Rosie, left as an old lady all by herself, and her contribution to the end of the whole thing, you know, you see her, was looking for this diamond, and it turns out at the very end of the three plus hours that Rosie had the diamond all along.

And what does Rosie do with this diamond, the cost of which just surpasses the mind? She threw it away! In the last act of the movie, she throws it back! Now I don't know, maybe she's dissociating herself from the evil rich.

Peikoff doesn't need refutation, he needs pills for his dementia.

Call it an example of "philosophical detection".

Edited by Joel Mac Donald
Link to post
Share on other sites
~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery...

John,

Well I do from an epistemological basis. It's called liking clear definitions. I don't like intellectual fog.

If you have a definition of human being that does not include "an end in himself" as part of the characteristic, I am interested in hearing it.

Michael

Darn. I had, "A human being is Brant Gaede." I guess that's too "end in himself" and you're not "interested." At least I'm a fairly good facsimile. No? No! Then you agree with Lindsay Perigo!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Leonard Peikoff highy entertaining when I've had too many and can disregard the broader context. I found Lindsay Perigo entertaining when I realized they had the same initials. Not much, but it's something.

--Brant

the one and true master of argumentum ad hominem.

Link to post
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