An Invasion of Iran is Eminent


Mike Renzulli

Recommended Posts

If what you say is true, Ahmadinejad should have nothing to hide from IAEA inspectors. This is all a house of cards. Sure, there is always the choice to go to war or not, but you also have the choice not to be fooled by the nature of rogue regimes. Invariably when you open the concentration camps, the gulags and Evin prison what you find is systematic torture and murder of large numbers of people who did nothing but belong to the wrong ethnic group or say the wrong things. Regimes like that bear a heavier burden of proof when it comes to nuclear technology.

Jim

Concentration camps? Gulags? Sounds like the Japanese internment, Guantanamo Bay and the secret prisons in Eastern Europe that the CIA runs. There's a series of rogue regimes right there for you since WW2 that are still continuing today.. Perhaps those who live in glass houses...

What makes you so sure that Iran is hiding something?

You know, if Iran really had the intention to build and use weapons of mass destruction, you'd see a history of use by Iran.. However all history proves is that when Saddams forces were using chemical weapons supplied by their US and European masters on Iranian cities, the Iranians still refused to use such weapons on Iraq in retaliation. You have no historical basis for your claims that Iran would use such weapons.. But I guess the right to be presumed innocent before being proven guilty has no merit when it comes to people outside of the US right? That everyone has to answer to you?

Pfftt..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which also means that attacking Iran would be in the same category.. The US has intervened in Iran covertly and overtly many times in the last 40 years.

It's closer to 60 years.

The US committed an act of war in 1953 when the CIA launched a terrorist campaign of bombings to overthrow Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president and installed the Shah.

The US also trained his SAVAK secret police that were brutal.. The US also tried to destabalize Iran after the Iranian revolution.

I would love to know what percentage of Americans even know that this happened. I imagine it's less than 10%. I wonder what percentage of people on this board. Even more interesting is how many people on this board even care that it happened.

Adonis, are you by chance related to Kelly Vlahos?

The US supports terrorists all over the world.

Indeed it does. It has been since 1900.

You would have created a war that you can not win.

The US already has a few of those going on right now.

The Iranian regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism. The Iranian government must be directly taken out with the full force of our military. Military action is the only way to ensure justice for the past and present victims of terrorism and to ensure the long-term safety of the United States, its citizens and our allies.

The US regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true, Ahmadinejad should have nothing to hide from IAEA inspectors. This is all a house of cards. Sure, there is always the choice to go to war or not, but you also have the choice not to be fooled by the nature of rogue regimes. Invariably when you open the concentration camps, the gulags and Evin prison what you find is systematic torture and murder of large numbers of people who did nothing but belong to the wrong ethnic group or say the wrong things. Regimes like that bear a heavier burden of proof when it comes to nuclear technology.

Jim

Concentration camps? Gulags? Sounds like the Japanese internment, Guantanamo Bay and the secret prisons in Eastern Europe that the CIA runs. There's a series of rogue regimes right there for you since WW2 that are still continuing today.. Perhaps those who live in glass houses...

What makes you so sure that Iran is hiding something?

You know, if Iran really had the intention to build and use weapons of mass destruction, you'd see a history of use by Iran.. However all history proves is that when Saddams forces were using chemical weapons supplied by their US and European masters on Iranian cities, the Iranians still refused to use such weapons on Iraq in retaliation. You have no historical basis for your claims that Iran would use such weapons.. But I guess the right to be presumed innocent before being proven guilty has no merit when it comes to people outside of the US right? That everyone has to answer to you?

Pfftt..

Adonis,

I oppose state abuses in the US as well. What FDR did in Japanese internment was wrong. The response has been to limit Presidents to two terms and pass specific legislation, issue apologies redress mistakes. But if you are arguing for moral equivalence between the US and its enemies in WW2 and the Soviet Union it's an empty argument.

In the US we have elections, leaders are term limited. The US population elected a leader that is sympathetic to your position. Has anything remotely close to this happened in Iran? It is a country where dissent is crushed and protesters are routinely killed or jailed.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USA is a saint.

The USA is Satan.

Islam is Perfection.

Islam is evil.

Ahmadinejad is a perfectly reasonable objective inquirer (rather than a sleazy politician).

Ahmadinejad is Hitler.

Israel is the innocent God-fearing life-loving David facing the evil death-worshiping Goliath of the Arab world.

Israel is a brutal sadistic force of military occupation and colonization.

The Palestinians are all terrorists.

The Palestinians are all victims.

(yawn...)

Seriously, folks. I wonder if a rational discussion of these matters is even possible...

The interesting intellectual thing I always observe when these positions start becoming clear is the level of reality denial people show. And it's on all sides. It almost seems like people want to be irrational by conscious choice.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USA is a saint.

The USA is Satan.

Islam is Perfection.

Islam is evil.

Ahmadinejad is a perfectly reasonable objective inquirer (rather than a sleazy politician).

Ahmadinejad is Hitler.

Israel is the innocent God-fearing life-loving David facing the evil death-worshiping Goliath of the Arab world.

Israel is a brutal sadistic force of military occupation and colonization.

The Palestinians are all terrorists.

The Palestinians are all victims.

(yawn...)

Seriously, folks. I wonder if a rational discussion of these matters is even possible...

The interesting intellectual thing I always observe when these positions start becoming clear is the level of reality denial people show. And it's on all sides. It almost seems like people want to be irrational by conscious choice.

Michael

So what's your position, Michael? How would you rate the government of Iran and the government of US in terms of accountability and human rights? I do think that comparison can be done without sweeping US excesses under the rug.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he [Ayatallah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi] won't get into power that can be assured.. The Iranian people wouldn't vote for him and his followers are very small in numbers.

Adonis,

How much confidence should anyone put in the unelectability of someone like the Ayatollah Kharrazi?

Did the Iranian voters actually re-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Do you think that Iran should develop or acquire nuclear weapons?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concentration camps? Gulags? Sounds like the Japanese internment, Guantanamo Bay and the secret prisons in Eastern Europe that the CIA runs. There's a series of rogue regimes right there for you since WW2 that are still continuing today.. Perhaps those who live in glass houses...

Adonis,

What do you think actually happens in Evin Prison?

Are prisoners there ever raped, tortured, or beaten to death?

If they ever are, do you approve or disapprove of such conduct by the Iranian regime?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I have already written a lot on this. But here are some of the highlights.

What the USA did in Iran with the Shah is inexcusable. The USA government (after the Bretton Woods agreement and supposedly to check the spread of communism) began to systematically cozy up to tin-pot dictators or place USA puppet dictators in developing countries. This gave the USA first dibs on infrastructure development, which more often than not, merely served as an excuse for creating huge debts the country could not pay. The thinking was that a country in debt would be far easier to control than one that was economically autonomous.

The really ugly part about this is that the USA government sent teams of trainers in covert operations into these countries to train the respective secret police forces--or they set up training centers for the same purpose in places like Panama and simply flew the trainees in. The dictators, of course, used their secret police forces to terrorize their own populations.

You have no idea the hatred against the USA this caused out there in the rest of the world. Once you see it first-hand and check the facts to verify that these things actually happened, your thinking on these matters changes. I understand why Iran turned against the Shah and the USA.

But replacing one thug with another is not excusable either. Iran got the holy-man variety of thug instead of USA puppet variety of thug. For some damn reason, the Iranians have accepted this (first one, then the other) to be better than the communist puppet variety of thug. But at least that is not on the table--yet. (From the looks of more recent events, it could very well drift in that direction.)

On the Iranian side, Ahmadinejad is, spiritually and politically, a thug and bully pure and simple. He is backed by the local holy-man variety of thug. And he is taking advantage of the leftover Nazi influence in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries to foster antisemitism under a variety of ruses.

It's a commonplace accusation that Iran funds terrorism throughout the world. Well, if that's true, why not stop it? Expose to the public every known case and start getting people riled up the world over. People will get riled up, too. I suspect Iran does sponsor quite a bit of terrorism, but not as much as accused. I also suspect that people who should know better--even some who are making the accusations--are aiding them in exchange for a variety of benefits.

But since the accusers are mostly short on facts and long on accusations, and since Iran's leadership is consistently short on telling the truth to the world, and often offers just plain boneheaded excuses for obvious situations (even if and when they are right), it's hard to evaluate that objectively.

About Israel, there is a simple law of history that says whenever a major war happens, there are losers and there are winners. Israel was founded by the winners and the country got put right in the middle of a place that backed the losers. All I can say--on a fundamental level--to the people who backed the losers is, "Tough shit. You shouldn't have backed the Nazis."

But Adonis has a point that there needs to be a negotiated arrangement before the local people will accept Israel as anything but a military occupation. He conveniently ignores the role the Muslim world played in backing the Nazis, but that is a fact that will not go away. And it is stuck in the craw of every Jew just as deeply as the sense of injustice about the Palestinians is stuck in the craw of those who support Palestine. I find it amazing that the people who argue this issue always ignore how deep--and how legitimate--these feelings can be in the other side.

Now for Israel. Israel, trying to be the good guys all the time, is a perfect example of just how foolish it is to exist de facto as a military occupation in the minds of the people who came before the Jewish settlers, but simply not finish the job of military occupation once all negotiations break down--and instead, try to hold the fact that it is a legitimate sovereign country up in the place of military actions. As if that does any good. It never has and it never will. I especially think Israel has done a poor job of concentrating on--and rooting out--the Nazi influence in the surrounding countries.

If people think I am being harsh about finishing the job of military occupation, let there be no doubt that the Islamic countries who have engaged in military occupations over the centuries have finished the job, starting with Muhammad himself. This might be unpleasant, but it is part of human history. It is a double standard to imagine that Israel must do things differently than everyone else does. But since Israel is committed to sanction of the victim instead of finishing the job, that comes with a price.

Justice-wise, for those people who were actually displaced in all the hostilities and those who are actually concerned with the injustice of this, I agree with Adonis that a negotiation needs to be done. There will have to be compromises and, as with all compromises, nobody is going to be 100% content.

But, I am sick and tired of the true cases of injustice being used as a cover for blatant antisemitism. And I am sick and tired of antisemitism being claimed for instances when there is none.

Antisemitism exists in some places and in some cases, and it does not in others. It needs to be stamped out as the raw evil it is, but the cure for one form of bigotry is not another form of bigotry. All that does is keep the bigotry alive.

There is only one real solution I see to all this, and it is not something that will happen overnight.

On the force level, target those (on all sides) who resort to using force--especially force backed by bigotry--to settle ideological issues. Self-defense when attacked is legitimate. Even preemptive strikes on military targets if mass weaponry or massive build-ups of invasion-looking mobilizations are evident. But preemptive strikes targeting civilians are not legitimate. Ever. For whoever acts against this kind of principle, I believe the only effective measure is to simply take that person out one way or another.

On the intellectual level, bring the hostile parties together and keep trying until they speak to each other. And in the culture (here, there and everywhere), keep harping on the message that bigotry is evil, that ideological issues are best settled by ideas instead of guns, etc. And do not sanction veiled bigotry, neither of one side nor the other.

There are a lot of good folks who get mixed in with bigots. Rather than calling one side or the other bigoted, thus including the good folks with the bad, start singling out the individual--whoever he or she may be--who preaches bigotry and rebut that person and discredit him or her. If you have to take a stand against the side you fall on, then so be it. Neither side is served well when it is defended by a bigot, anyway.

I don't mean in a one-size-fits-all moral denunciation mode, either. There are many forms of promoting bigotry and the most effective means of dealing with each form varies.

So there it as I think it.

I see nothing to be gained by ignoring unpleasant realities and history, yet many of the people who get in these debates ignore the parts they find inconvenient. That means, those people will never resolve the issue. If you want to know the truth, they don't want to resolve it.

I believe that the people who recognize reality as it existed and exits, will be the ones who ultimately get the job done.

There is one final point and it is a seeming contradiction in light of what I said about those who selectively ignore reality. The USA will never resolve any conflict without the participation of the ones who are conflicting. So military/political efforts are not the only things that need to be developed. The folks who are conflicting have to be engaged as parties to a solution.

What does that mean? Only one thing: There is a humongous intellectual war to be fought.

And that war is not to be fought using the standards of the ones who are conflicting. Is Islam evil or is it The Truth? Is Israel evil or is it The Truth? It's just plain stupid to get into an intellectual war of that nature. Islam is simply a religion--a body of ideas, some of whach are good and some of which are not. Israel is simply a country with good and bad parts just like any country on earth.

The real war is to put new standards on the table. Starting with putting a lid on using force--and that means both not tolerating Islamist terrorism, nor tolerating secret police forces of dictators--nor anything of that nature--nor tolerating the people who promote and train folks to do that crap.

When a person asks me, who do you think is the evil one, A or B? I don't even look at A or B.

I reply that I think bullying is evil. And I want to pop every bully I come across in the nose real hard until they knock off the crap they do.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the USA did in Iran with the Shah is inexcusable. The USA government (after the Bretton Woods agreement and supposedly to check the spread of communism) began to systematically cozy up to tin-pot dictators or place USA puppet dictators in developing countries. This gave the USA first dibs on infrastructure development, which more often than not, merely served as an excuse for creating huge debts the country could not pay. The thinking was that a country in debt would be far easier to control than one that was economically autonomous.

I'm glad that somebody actually agrees that it was inexcusable. And how many other instances were there? And how many are there still today? Saakashvili is the first one who comes to my mind.

The really ugly part about this is that the USA government sent teams of trainers in covert operations into these countries to train the respective secret police forces--or they set up training centers for the same purpose in places like Panama and simply flew the trainees in. The dictators, of course, used their secret police forces to terrorize their own populations.

You have no idea the hatred against the USA this caused out there in the rest of the world. Once you see it first-hand and check the facts to verify that these things actually happened, your thinking on these matters changes. I understand why Iran turned against the Shah and the USA.

Again, I'm glad that somebody can acknowledge this reality.

But replacing one thug with another is not excusable either. Iran got the holy-man variety of thug instead of USA puppet variety of thug. For some damn reason, the Iranians have accepted this (first one, then the other) to be better than the communist puppet variety of thug. But at least that is not on the table--yet. (From the looks of more recent events, it could very well drift in that direction.)

This brings up a very difficult question: how do you get rid of thugs? It happens all too often that one thug is just replaced with another thug. Since thugs don't allow elections, you can't vote them out. How do you get rid of them without resorting to violence?

There are a FEW instances in history in which men have given up power voluntarily. They are very FEW indeed. Most of the time, the only way to deal with someone like Hitler or Stalin is put bullets into them. Violence is the only language they understand. And really bullets are exactly what they deserve.

And he is taking advantage of the leftover Nazi influence in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries to foster antisemitism under a variety of ruses.

I often find it laughable when these people do show sympathy with Hitler. Hitler NEVER would have tolerated those barbarians in his Reich. In fact, the German nazis of today despise them because they don't consider them "German."

to the people who backed the losers is, "Tough shit. You shouldn't have backed the Nazis."

What evidence do you have of this? How did they "back the Nazis"? This is the first I've heard of this.

A lot of these countries had larger Jewish populations before Israel was founded. Israel has made it nearly impossible for Jews to live in these countries where they had lived for hundreds of years.

I especially think Israel has done a poor job of concentrating on--and rooting out--the Nazi influence in the surrounding countries.

Perhaps they should concentrate on the Nazi influence in their own country. Israel is a racist, socialist, nationalist country. Israel DESPISES laissez-faire capitalism. For this reason alone, any Objectivist should despise Israel.

If people think I am being harsh about finishing the job of military occupation

To finish the job would mean that the war would be over. Apparently, you don't understand the motive for war.

Take the case of Korea as a good example. Technically, the war did not end in 1953 as no peace treaty has ever been signed. It is just a cease fire. The war is still going on, and the American military has been there ever since. We are now looking at 60 years.

There is much more profit in this for the likes of Halliburtion, Kellogg Brown Root, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and others. Winning the war would take them off the gravy train. A lot of Americans do actually understand this. The goal is to keep war going so the profiteers can keep profitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have of this? How did they "back the Nazis"? This is the first I've heard of this.

Chris,

I'm tired of posting the links. You will find this section full of links to places that document the Muslim world's involvement with the Nazis. It's all on record and verifiable, but you have to want to read the stuff.

Israel is a racist, socialist, nationalist country. Israel DESPISES laissez-faire capitalism. For this reason alone, any Objectivist should despise Israel.

That's about as bigoted as it gets. I don't know anyone named Israel. And I don't tell people, Objectivist or otherwise, what demographic they should scapegoat.

That's the kind of collectivist bigoted crap that turns me off to what you write. Shame on you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally campaigned against both incursions mainly due to my concerns about the growth of government power as a result of war, my initial concern for the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians and the lives of U.S. military personnel. At the time I also thought the U.S. lacked a legitimate reason to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan due to the U.S. government’s covert and military involvements in the middle east.

Which also means that attacking Iran would be in the same category.. The US has intervened in Iran covertly and overtly many times in the last 40 years.

ETC, ETC

Good post, Adonis. I'm glad someone has some common sense around here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear on something.

I'm not saying the way countries are established after wars--usually with military enforcement--is right or moral or anything else. It's just the way human beings do things and have done them ever since before recorded history in all cultures.

Open any history book to any era on any page and there it is.

The good stuff always comes after a settlement or takeover, more often than not violent.

I don't like that, but history--as it exists--seems to care very little for my likes and dislikes.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'm tired of posting the links. You will find this section full of links to places that document the Muslim world's involvement with the Nazis. It's all on record and verifiable, but you have to want to read the stuff.

Well, I haven't spent much time in this section of the board. That might change though. I haven't seen all these links that you have posted here.

I almost get the impression that you would be disappointed if I did read them though. You would be even more disappointed if I actually agreed with you. It is obvious that you are much more comfortable with the belief that I am always "wrong."

Israel is a racist, socialist, nationalist country. Israel DESPISES laissez-faire capitalism. For this reason alone, any Objectivist should despise Israel.

That's about as bigoted as it gets. I don't know anyone named Israel. And I don't tell people, Objectivist or otherwise, what demographic they should scapegoat.

That's the kind of collectivist bigoted crap that turns me off to what you write. Shame on you.

Anybody with a lick of sense knows what I mean by those comments. Israel is a very anti-capitalist country and has been from day one. According to the latest report by the Fraser Institute, Israel ranks 78th in the world in economic freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Israel, there is a simple law of history that says whenever a major war happens, there are losers and there are winners. Israel was founded by the winners and the country got put right in the middle of a place that backed the losers. All I can say--on a fundamental level--to the people who backed the losers is, "Tough shit. You shouldn't have backed the Nazis."

The Zionists were determined to have Israel. They would not have accepted anything else. It did not matter who won or who lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I haven't spent much time in this section of the board.

Chris,

That's pretty obvious. You mentioned that finally someone agreed with you about the USA's support of dictators--when I have been posting about that for several years now. And not only on OL. I believe that you even posted on some of the threads where I have discussed this.

But let's push the restart button.

To get you started on the links, and as a courtesy, here is a site that gives a bunch of history lessons:

Tell the Children the Truth

I even have a discussion of Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi--the guy who runs this site--somewhere around here.

I almost get the impression that you would be disappointed if I did read them though.

I don't care what you do so long as you don't be preaching bigotry on my board.

Let's say that I don't have a lick of sense.

That might make it easier for you to guide your selection when dispensing your pearls of wisdom and spite.

I don't want bigotry around here.

Period.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Zionists were determined to have Israel. They would not have accepted anything else. It did not matter who won or who lost.

Chris,

And the settlers of the New World "were determined to have" the New World.

So?

People dream about having a homeland. And they often get quite specific based on cultural values.

Even the Palestinians.

That's part of human nature. It's universal.

Everybody else does it.

So what's so wrong about Jews--even Zionist Jews--being human?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Zionists were determined to have Israel. They would not have accepted anything else. It did not matter who won or who lost.

Chris,

And the settlers of the New World "were determined to have" the New World.

So?

People dream about having a homeland. And they often get quite specific based on cultural values.

Even the Palestinians.

That's part of human nature. It's universal.

Everybody else does it.

So what's so wrong about Jews--even Zionist Jews--being human?

Michael

I know I'm not adding anything here, but I haven't had the pleasure of saying this on his site yet: Michael, I agree with you! :)

Sincerely,

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I can add is: this letter is going straight into the circular file - right where it belongs.

I wouldn't have read past the first line: "What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I do not come to lightly..." I love the drama and self-importance!

Dear Mr. President,

What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I came to whilst flossing this morning - we need to attack China, eminently! :)

Ian

Edited by Panoptic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection to this thread is the article that started it. There is no respecting it. No way at all. Not by someone like me.

--Brant

This letter is the kind of nonsense that I would expect to see coming from ARI, only stupider. The author doesn't even know how to spell "imminent". The author is also stupid enough to imagine that the president is actually going to read this letter, consider its arguments, and act upon its recommendations.

To the fool who wrote this letter, here's a revelation for you -- the president serves the interests of the ruling class. He doesn't give a damn what you, stupid working peasant, have to say. Oh, and one more thing. Before you start whining about how horrible the Iranians were for taking US diplomats hostage, perhaps you ought to consider just what the US government did to Iran during the previous 26 years. You might even consider that the US government aided the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war, a war during which Iran had about a million of its citizens killed. Then weigh the scales and decide for yourself which is the greater crime.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Noriega in Panama Hussein was basically a US stooge. He invaded Kuwait because he thought the US had given him a green light to do so and because of US diplomatic incompetence. Thus we got two different wars over oil. The two Bushes were tight with the Saudis. Never mind that the Arabs of 9/11 were almost all Saudis. Go get Iraq, for God's sake. And never mind the second war was unnecessary because with an army ready to go the US could have simply got both front and back-door concession from Iraq that would have vitiated its publicly stated concerns about WMD and so on and so forth. The invasion didn't have to happen nor was it in the interest of the US to invade except to deny Hussein oil revenues and what he might do with them. And that that war was going to be paid for by Iraqi oil turned out to be the biggest joke of all.

Because of the self-evisceration of the two wars flanking Iran going on now for the last 7-8 years, the US is all but helpless to pressure Iran with anything but its air power. There are still other ways to seriously pressure Iran, but neither this regime nor the previous has had the brains, knowledge, imagination, will or special skills required. In the meantime, the US is just getting weaker and weaker apropos its wars and domestic political-economic insanities.

--Brant

I'm afraid things are going to get much worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Noriega in Panama Hussein was basically a US stooge. He invaded Kuwait because he thought the US had given him a green light to do so and because of US diplomatic incompetence. Thus we got two different wars over oil. The two Bushes were tight with the Saudis. Never mind that the Arabs of 9/11 were almost all Saudis. Go get Iraq, for God's sake. And never mind the second war was unnecessary because with an army ready to go the US could have simply got both front and back-door concession from Iraq that would have vitiated its publicly stated concerns about WMD and so on and so forth. The invasion didn't have to happen nor was it in the interest of the US to invade except to deny Hussein oil revenues and what he might do with them. And that that war was going to be paid for by Iraqi oil turned out to be the biggest joke of all.

Because of the self-evisceration of the two wars flanking Iran going on now for the last 7-8 years, the US is all but helpless to pressure Iran with anything but its air power. There are still other ways to seriously pressure Iran, but neither this regime nor the previous has had the brains, knowledge, imagination, will or special skills required. In the meantime, the US is just getting weaker and weaker apropos its wars and domestic political-economic insanities.

--Brant

I'm afraid things are going to get much worse

Well, some in the antiwar crowd warned that wasting resources on these wars would actually weaken defense... But who will listen? And why expect anyone to listen now when they never listened in the past? Nietzsche's remark always relevant: "How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an old-school NBI-er, I take strong exception to some of the foreign policy statements that have been made here. Ayn Rand may have been in error about some things (as we often point-out), but on the whole, she was right (as we often also point-out). Particularly in regard to her positions on foreign policy regarding opposition to communist expansion. Some who admire Objectivism would do well to review what Rand wrote about foreign policy, and not just the specifics of various political developments that she commented upon, but the reasoning behind her opposition to communism and all other forms of collectivism. It should also be noted that her opposition went beyond the philosophical, she also supported active opposition to communism around the world (and that included military).

Yeah, sorry, the communists really did mean business. They really did occupy and overthrow the governments of eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., etc.) and they did hold onto most of these territories with brutal suppression for over 40 years. They did engage in active subversion in practically all areas of the globe (excepting, perhaps, Antartica) that was not already under their control.

If the Soviet Union had not collapsed in the early nineties, we would still be seeing this around the world. It collapsed, not only because of "internal contradictions" within the communist system (which they had somehow maintained for over fifty years!), but because the U.S. under the Reagan administration, essentially drove them into bankruptcy over military build-up. That's right, it was those "evil militarists," the military-industrial complex, at it again. Bringing down the poor defenseless Soviet Union and its efforts to liberate the downtrodden masses all over the globe! Think how safe we would be if we had only understood their noble intentions! In fact, they were understood; and vigorous efforts were made to stop them. That is why they are no longer here!

According to some here, the U.S. is the aggressor and supporter of terrorism and responsible for causing misery and overthrowing "democratic" governments all over the world. It is claimed that this was done to aid the interests of big business, international corporations, "big oil," etc.(Some comments along these lines have been indistinguishable from similar statements from overt Marxists. Yes, you have the right to state any position that you choose, buy you also might want to look around and see who you are standing with!).

And now, the evil U.S. is trying to destroy Islam (so it is claimed). We're doing it for the oil companies, of course. That's why we invaded Iraq, to get the oil (for which they have gained nothing). Poor Saddam, he didn't (so it is claimed) have any weapons of mass destruction. And, of course, we wrongly accused him of aiding international terrorism and Al Qaida (those that claim this attempt to brush under the rug, pictures of the jetliner fuselage found at the Salmon Pak terrorist -excuse me, "freedom fighter," camp outside Baghdad. After all, Saddam just had it there, not for training of hijackers, but to re-train them for peaceful alternative careers as "airline stewards/stewardesses/inflight attendants). What a guy.

As for Iran, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Mossadegh, who was just an innocent guy trying to help his people with "social justice," aided by the Iranian communist party (probably a coincidence), and he was loved and supported by the Iranian people. And then the sinister CIA managed to deceive the opposition to Mossadegh to support his overthrow (probably with trumped-up charges that he was preparing for greater Soviet influence in Iran! Now why would the Russians want such a thing?).

What's wrong with this picture? Let's see, the CIA was so effective and powerful that they could get Mosadegh's opposition to support a coup, but they couldn't get their act together to save the Shah (OUR "puppet," no?) from religious fanatics - AND thereby losing all Western influence and interests in the country; AND cannot effectively aid Iranian opposition to Iran's current theocratic government? Gee, and I thought they were experts in overthrowing governments.

Not only was the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime not "inexcusable," it was justified. Those who still have an open mind about this issue may wish to consult George Will and Charles Krauthammer who have written eloquently about this issue, rather than simply accepting the leftist "explanation" of what happened there. Despite what some Marxist professors may maintain, the Soviet Union did not have peaceful intentions toward Iran. It clearly wanted to gain influence and probably control of Iran (the goal being to cut-off, diminish, or control the flow of oil to the West), as it tried unsuccessfully to do thirty years later in Afghanistan.

Some comments have alleged that Israel is the source of evil in the mideast. You know, the sliver of land that has been attacked four times by overwhemingly larger Arab forces - and yet defeated them four times. It is just a short step along the road of explaining how tiny Israel could be such a "threat" to elaborating that it is "Zionism", an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers (atransparently disguised method to attack the concept of capitalism, by the way!), that is attempting to control the world (no doubt aided by the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers, etc).

Edited by Jerry Biggers
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