Out on a limb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been watching the conventions and I am going to go out on a limb.

I believe there are two fine men running for President and they make me proud to be an American. I just watched Sarah Palin deliver an extremely impressive speech and I believe she is a reformist who will make a real change if elected.

I have lived through Nixon and some Brazilian politicians you would not believe. I see nothing of that caliber in these candidates. They are men and a woman of principle. I do not agree with all their principles, and each candidate has shortcomings, but I agree with enough of their principles and I see enough of their strengths to know they are good reasonable people who will work hard to improve everything.

Irrespective of who wins, the USA will be in good hands. I don't believe for a minute in all the prophesies of doom. The USA will not go to hell in a handbasket. It will still be around after the term of whoever wins, and I predict it will be much stronger.

This is a beautiful election. A high-quality election. A win-win election. A libertarian-Republican candidate managed to put Objectivist values into mainstream politics. A black and a woman are on the ticket and they got there by their merits. Each person on the ticket is a principled maverick.

What a great time to be in this country!

I feel much better about this election than I did about the one between Bush and Gore, then Bush and Kerry.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Obama will be a disaster for the country if only because the Democrats will controll Congress. Michael, you lived in Brazil much too long. That an empty-headed, weak-kneed, crypto-Muslim, pandering, collectivist, extremely liberal, charismatic rhetorician might be President is almost enough to make me move to Brazil. I mean, have you read Atlas Shrugged? Above all, this country needs someone who understands power and how to use it in foreign affairs or we might get a war disaster as Obama tries talking with people he should be kicking in the ass.

--Brant

Edited September 4, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

I have been watching the conventions and I am going to go out on a limb.

I believe there are two fine men running for President and they make me proud to be an American. I just watched Sarah Palin deliver an extremely impressive speech and I believe she is a reformist who will make a real change if elected.

I have lived through Nixon and some Brazilian politicians you would not believe. I see nothing of that caliber in these candidates. They are men and a woman of principle. I do not agree with all their principles, and each candidate has shortcomings, but I agree with enough of their principles and I see enough of their strengths to know they are good reasonable people who will work hard to improve everything.

Irrespective of who wins, the USA will be in good hands. I don't believe for a minute in all the prophesies of doom. The USA will not go to hell in a handbasket. It will still be around after the term of whoever wins, and I predict it will be much stronger.

This is a beautiful election. A high-quality election. A win-win election. A libertarian-Republican candidate managed to put Objectivist values into mainstream politics. A black and a woman are on the ticket and they got there by their merits. Each person on the ticket is a principled maverick.

What a great time to be in this country!

I feel much better about this election than I did about the one between Bush and Gore, then Bush and Kerry.

Michael

I am tired of voting for the lesser evil. This election I am writing in Cthuhlu for President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's funny, but I was around when Rand formally endorsed Richard Nixon and when she blasted Reagan for his anti-abortion stance. I can easily see her doing something similar here. Peikoff is certainly in that ballpark.

I also don't share the "lesser of two evils" view, except when looking at the shortcoming of each candidate. Since I perceive much good in all of them, including the VP's, much more good than bad (and I mean a lot, a whole lot, because I have been intimate with bad mixed with power so I know it well), I see this as a choice between two goods, not two evils.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It's funny, but I was around when Rand formally endorsed Richard Nixon and when she blasted Reagan for his anti-abortion stance. I can easily see her doing something similar here. Peikoff is certainly in that ballpark.

I also don't share the "lesser of two evils" view, except when looking at the shortcoming of each candidate. Since I perceive much good in all of them, including the VP's, much more good than bad (and I mean a lot, a whole lot, because I have been intimate with bad mixed with power so I know it well), I see this as a choice between two goods, not two evils.

Michael

Ayn ended up all but a conservative, especially compared to the radical vision one might observe in her magnum opus. She sanctioned Greenspan's basic choice to seek and wield political/economic power, which he did so long, so badly, so disastrously. Greenspan thought he could be more effective that way than writing pamplets. He personally got away with it long enough to write and sell his book in his undeserved, too-late retirement. But this was entirely consistent with her top-down approach. The implicit message at the end of Atlas was that Thompson was gone, Galt was in. The whole philosophy of Objectivism was window dressing and rationalization and justification for her. The philosophy of reason was given to the world as such, complete and true. Nobody says, wait a minute John Galt, let's talk about this. Rand would, until you refused to get it.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; With all due respect you're misreading Atlas.

Mr. Thompson is defeated after Galt is rescued. Galt doesn't take over. He and Dagny go back to the valley. I think there is a suggestion that Judge Narragansett's revisions to the Constitution will be presented to the people.

I suspect in a take it or we go back out on strike.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant; With all due respect you're misreading Atlas.

Mr. Thompson is defeated after Galt is rescued. Galt doesn't take over. He and Dagny go back to the valley. I think there is a suggestion that Judge Narragansett's revisions to the Constitution will be presented to the people.

I suspect in a take it or we go back out on strike.

You can read it that way.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

I have been watching the conventions and I am going to go out on a limb.

I believe there are two fine men running for President and they make me proud to be an American. I just watched Sarah Palin deliver an extremely impressive speech and I believe she is a reformist who will make a real change if elected.

I have lived through Nixon and some Brazilian politicians you would not believe. I see nothing of that caliber in these candidates. They are men and a woman of principle. I do not agree with all their principles, and each candidate has shortcomings, but I agree with enough of their principles and I see enough of their strengths to know they are good reasonable people who will work hard to improve everything.

Irrespective of who wins, the USA will be in good hands. I don't believe for a minute in all the prophesies of doom. The USA will not go to hell in a handbasket. It will still be around after the term of whoever wins, and I predict it will be much stronger.

This is a beautiful election. A high-quality election. A win-win election. A libertarian-Republican candidate managed to put Objectivist values into mainstream politics. A black and a woman are on the ticket and they got there by their merits. Each person on the ticket is a principled maverick.

What a great time to be in this country!

I feel much better about this election than I did about the one between Bush and Gore, then Bush and Kerry.

Michael

From "A Choice of War Criminals", by Arthur Silber.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/...-criminals.html

We have witnessed an ongoing series of monstrous war crimes, a genocide, countless lives destroyed forever -- but to hold even one person responsible would be to engage in "a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

In his speech tonight, Barack Obama said not a word about holding anyone responsible for these crimes. But as noted above, how could he? He would have to hold himself responsible, too. Besides, if Obama is elected President, it will be time for "unity," and time "to move on." Accountability? Justice? Forget it.

And that brings us precisely here:

You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.

And for this monstrous, unforgivable fact, you can thank the Democrats and those who whore themselves for the Democrats' success in our disgustingly meaningless elections.

If you vote for the candidate of one of the two major parties, this is your choice: John McCain, war criminal -- or Barack Obama, war criminal.

In view of all this, are people still going to seriously tell me -- are they going to seriously tell me -- that it is crucial to vote for Obama, because McCain is a crazy old man? Why exactly? Are they going to tell me it is critical for Obama to be the next President so that he can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever? But, they will whine, Obama would never do that. They may hope he will not, and I hope they are right -- although the prospects are alarming in the extreme -- but he will have the power to do all of it.

There is only so much I can stomach, and there are limits to what I will support. I will not vote for a war criminal, especially a war criminal who has insulated himself from all accountability for his own acts. Barring unexpected developments, I refuse to vote for either of these men. They are both vile, cynical, lying, ignoble, contemptible, sickening human beings. I therefore intend to follow a very different course.

But one of these men will be the next President. May God have pity on us, and may God have pity on the world.

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, I'll now attempt to cut off the limb you're out on. Here's something I wrote after hearing Obama's acceptance speech:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barak Obama’s acceptance speech tonight was the most frightening speech by an American politician I have ever heard. He said nothing that could not have been said – and has not been said – by any communist, fascist, or socialist, by any potential dictator intending to win his countrymen’s vote before he attempts to outlaw all possibility of choice. It consisted only of demands that each man, to the extent that he is a producer, give to … government, a government which in its infinite wisdom will decide what is to be done with the fruits of their labor. The “new politics?” No, this was politics as old as absolutism.

And his audience applauded wildly, tears of joy in the eyes of many of them, as they listened, lemming-like, to this Ellsworth Toohey of politics. Except Obama lacks the strength of conviction of a Toohey; increasingly over the months of the campaign, as he shifted from one position to another, I have had the impression of a man without a center, without convictions of his own, a malleable man who speaks too often and too convincingly of the many people – from his mother to his minister -- who have been his mentors, his leaders, whose example he follows. He seems not a person, but a distorted reflection of others, a man always awaiting his next mentor to tell him what he thinks.

Almost equally horrifying were the comments by American journalists that followed the speech. I listened to Fox, and heard conservative journalists praise parts of the speech and criticize other parts – but never mention that it was a speech advocating the usurpation of total power over society by government, the rescinding of the Bill of Rights, the enforcement of the dictum, “I am my brothers’ keeper” in the only way it can be enforced: at the point of a gun.

And no one noticed the missing concept in the speech by a man who tells us he is fit – no, more than fit, ordained – to be president of the United States, a man who refers again and again to “the American dream,” and “the promise of America.” We all know what that promise that became a reality consisted of, that promise that made us the envy of the world, that caused men and women to crawl through barbed wire to get here, that raised the standard of living for its citizens beyond anything conceived of before.

Barak Obama never once used what Ayn Rand might have termed “the sacred word”: Freedom.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I just watched Sarah Palin deliver an extremely impressive speech and I believe she is a reformist who will make a real change if elected."

Yes, her speech was impressive and she is impressive, But one of the changes she will make if she can is to outlaw abortion, from the moment of conception on. I remember the days when abortion was illegal and I remember the thousands of girls and young women who died each year because reputable doctors were afraid to break the law. That was not impressive.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

But one of these men will be the next President. May God have pity on us, and may God have pity on the world.

G-D has nothing to do with it. And pity won't help us. What you are seeing is the reductio ad absurdum of democracy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Greybird]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nobody sawed my limb off. I am still sitting quite comfortably on it and very, very happy to be in America at this time.

I happened to have lived in a country where torture was routinely practiced against its citizens (during the military dictatorship in Brazil) and I can assure you that the USA is nothing like that, nor is it even close to becoming something like that. And I had the privilege to watch it go away in Brazil. Here in the US there are sporadic abuses of gross power like what I have seen, but they few and far between when compared with a DOI-CODI or Operation Condor (which shamefully counted on the intimate involvement of the USA). And when such abuses here are uncovered, there is hell to pay for the perpetrator.

I do agree that the Iraq war was grossly mishandled and seriously doubt whether it should have happened in the first place. Bush is now paying for it and his credibility is shot to hell. If the USA were to have a third term for the Presidency, he would be hard-put to even win the primaries for nomination. I see neither Obama nor McCain making that kind of blunder. It really is a wonderful election.

Barbara,

Either Obama is a man of conviction or he is not. You attribute him with both.

I find Obama to be a pragmatist who is after power, but also has a very clear notion of decency. I do not expect intellectual consistency from him, but I do expect him to adhere to his sense of decency to make decisions. That might not be a comfort when the issues are liberal (or consistency), but I see a very strong sense of decency in that man. I believe it is his pragmatism wedded to his thirst for power and his sense of decency that makes him flip-flop. I do not attribute his flip-flopping to being a Hitler or Stalin deceptively cashing in on collectivist ideas to get elected, nor do I think he is a stupid man. I do feel a center in him: decency and ambition. They explain to my satisfaction everything I have seen so far out of him. And I have seen politicians who have a strong sense of decency become very good officials, despite their election rhetoric.

A case in point in Brazil is President Lula, who was elected on a left-wing agenda and has moved Brazil closer to the capitalist dream more than any President in Brazil's history. He started out as an uneducated man with a strong sense of decency, a big mouth and a lot of left-wing rhetoric. I see a strong parallel to Obama.

I agree with you about Palin's stance on abortion (and McCain's for that matter). I still think she is a wonderful candidate and I don't expect anything like overturning the Supreme Court should the Republicans win the White House. I expect our system of checks and balances to prevail in the end. The system of checks and balances is the unspoken candidate who will automatically win, regardless of which party wins.

There is something about McCain that I find comforting and disturbing at the same time. He proclaims words that would make any Objectivist shiver with horror when he talks about serving a cause greater than himself. But this is a two-edged sword.

I do not think he is talking about veiled slavery when he says that, but instead about serving an inner vision. I have read a lot of confusion on this and very little of what I have read focuses on the difference between vision and goal. A vision is seeing the world as you would like it to be and working toward making it real. A goal is a specific issue. In that sense, Rand herself "served a cause greater than herself." She wedded her will to a dream of what her world should be like and spent her life in the service of that dream. I sense the same commitment in McCain and it brings me joy to realize that such a caliber of man won the nomination. (In fact, this bears on the decency I sense in Obama.)

Where I get uncomfortable with McCain is in the choice of words. They get perilously close to communicating chauvinism, i.e., being an American first and a human being second. I feel deep down when he says he wants to serve his country, he means his vision of the American way of life. But he keeps saying his country as if it were a master and we have seen time and time again in human history where that kind of thinking leads to.

His stated pro-individualist "get the federal government off our backs" stance is a check on that, but I am still uncomfortable. Issues like his anti-abortion stance are the source of this discomfort. Also, I am uneasy with the way such words can easily be twisted by cunning folks.

For the record, I do intend to vote for McCain and Palin. Even with my misgivings about specific issues, overall it will be a pleasure. But I would not have a crisis of consciousness in voting for Obama and Biden. Not a bit. They are all professional politicians with all the negative stuff that entails, but they are all, also, a cut way above normal professional politicians, each in his/her own way. My only caveat is Biden because I still do not know enough about him. From what I have heard in MSM, though, he is his own man warts and all.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael: "I just watched Sarah Palin deliver an extremely impressive speech and I believe she is a reformist who will make a real change if elected."

Yes, her speech was impressive and she is impressive, But one of the changes she will make if she can is to outlaw abortion, from the moment of conception on. I remember the days when abortion was illegal and I remember the thousands of girls and young women who died each year because reputable doctors were afraid to break the law. That was not impressive.

Barbara

These are not good days for the republic. The choices to be made in the coming election are - awful.

Bil P (Alfonso)

[Martin Radwin]

But one of these men will be the next President. May God have pity on us, and may God have pity on the world.

G-D has nothing to do with it. And pity won't help us. What you are seeing is the reductio ad absurdum of democracy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Mr. Silber is speaking poetically. He is a hardcore atheist who knows perfectly well that God does not exist. Incidently, since you are also an atheist, why do you label God as "G-D"? This is the label used by some Jews, based on the idea that God is so great that it is not proper even to spell out God's name directly. Since you also believe that God does not exist, why do you adhere to this convention?

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

Thanks, Greybird. I've been reading Arthur Silber for quite some time now, and the man is simply brilliant, not to mention a great writer. All the horrors of the Iraq war which he predicted long before the US invasion began, horrors which have pretty much been ignored not only by the MSM but also by the entire objectivist community, have come to pass. Hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, four million refugees, two million who have had to flee Iraq and are living in squalid refugee camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, US use of chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium, all of these unspeakable horrors have happened right in front of our eyes, and all that most people, including most objectivists, can say is that this has perhaps been an unfortunate mistake. I wonder if they would think it all nothing more than an unfortunate mistake if millions of Americans were killed and driven from their homes in an attack launched by a foreign government against us.

I post here with little hope that it will change anyone's mind. I do it only because it is the truth and needs to be said.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

Thanks, Greybird. I've been reading Arthur Silber for quite some time now, and the man is simply brilliant, not to mention a great writer. All the horrors of the Iraq war which he predicted long before the US invasion began, horrors which have pretty much been ignored not only by the MSM but also by the entire objectivist community, have come to pass. Hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, four million refugees, two million who have had to flee Iraq and are living in squalid refugee camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, US use of chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium, all of these unspeakable horrors have happened right in front of our eyes, and all that most people, including most objectivists, can say is that this has perhaps been an unfortunate mistake. I wonder if they would think it all nothing more than an unfortunate mistake if millions of Americans were killed and driven from their homes in an attack launched by a foreign government against us.

I post here with little hope that it will change anyone's mind. I do it only because it is the truth and needs to be said.

Martin

I was against the Iraq war from the getgo, but when the mess got going stopped wasting my time with it. But the crap quoted abve is 95% unmitigated. As for Silber, his idea of who is a war criminal is pretty catholic. You have a lot of nerve coming here and shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

Thanks, Greybird. I've been reading Arthur Silber for quite some time now, and the man is simply brilliant, not to mention a great writer. All the horrors of the Iraq war which he predicted long before the US invasion began, horrors which have pretty much been ignored not only by the MSM but also by the entire objectivist community, have come to pass. Hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, four million refugees, two million who have had to flee Iraq and are living in squalid refugee camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, US use of chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium, all of these unspeakable horrors have happened right in front of our eyes, and all that most people, including most objectivists, can say is that this has perhaps been an unfortunate mistake. I wonder if they would think it all nothing more than an unfortunate mistake if millions of Americans were killed and driven from their homes in an attack launched by a foreign government against us.

I post here with little hope that it will change anyone's mind. I do it only because it is the truth and needs to be said.

Martin

I was against the Iraq war from the getgo, but when the mess got going stopped wasting my time with it. But the crap quoted abve is 95% unmitigated. As for Silber, his idea of who is a war criminal is pretty catholic. You have a lot of nerve coming here and shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference.

--Brant

A single reference to what, exactly? The death toll in Iraq? Or the number of Iraqi refugees created by the war? Or the US use of chemical weapons in Fallujah? All of these things are well documented, although the exact death toll is not known and estimates vary widely. Silber provides multiple links in the referenced article.

According to Iraq Body Count, the confirmed death toll is between about 86,000 and 94,000. But these figures are almost certainly too low, given the methodology employed. The Lancet study estimated a death toll of over 600,000, and this was a couple of years ago. The ORB study estimated a death toll of over 1,000,000.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, the absolute lowest figure, the 86,000 lower estimate of Iraq Body Count. These are confirmed deaths, and their numbers are beyond dispute. Given that Iraq is a nation of about 25,000,000 people, 1/12 the population of the US, if we scale this number to the US population, this would be proportionally equivalent to about 1,000,000 American deaths, or the equivalent of more than one 9/11 for Iraq every week since the invasion of Iraq began. Based on the one 9/11 attack that the US suffered, everything is now supposed to be forever different for us, and our society is being transformed into a police state, supposedly for our own protection. Well, Iraq has suffered the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every week for the last five years.

The millions of refugees created by this war is also well documented and has even been extensively reported in the mainstream media, unlike the Iraqi death toll, which I have never heard mentioned in the MSM.

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

You came in here cold with your wagonfull of horseshit distorted and selected information without even the courtesy of making the semblance of a reasonable post and YOU ask ME for real references contra your totally non-existent? I'm no apologist for the Iraq War, but I remember Vietnam and Congress pulling the plug and all the shit that followed that. Of course, that war was a big mistake to begin with. At least 5 million Vietnamese and Cambodians died because of our disastrous involvement there. That's at least 10-20 times worse than Iraq, so far.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One thing is for sure.

Nobody on OL is running for President. Obama and McCain are. So one of them will get to decide what to do.

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

Thanks, Greybird. I've been reading Arthur Silber for quite some time now, and the man is simply brilliant, not to mention a great writer. All the horrors of the Iraq war which he predicted long before the US invasion began, horrors which have pretty much been ignored not only by the MSM but also by the entire objectivist community, have come to pass. Hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, four million refugees, two million who have had to flee Iraq and are living in squalid refugee camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, US use of chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium, all of these unspeakable horrors have happened right in front of our eyes, and all that most people, including most objectivists, can say is that this has perhaps been an unfortunate mistake. I wonder if they would think it all nothing more than an unfortunate mistake if millions of Americans were killed and driven from their homes in an attack launched by a foreign government against us.

I post here with little hope that it will change anyone's mind. I do it only because it is the truth and needs to be said.

Martin

I was against the Iraq war from the getgo, but when the mess got going stopped wasting my time with it. But the crap quoted abve is 95% unmitigated. As for Silber, his idea of who is a war criminal is pretty catholic. You have a lot of nerve coming here and shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference.

--Brant

A single reference to what, exactly? The death toll in Iraq? Or the number of Iraqi refugees created by the war? Or the US use of chemical weapons in Fallujah? All of these things are well documented, although the exact death toll is not known and estimates vary widely. Silber provides multiple links in the referenced article.

According to Iraq Body Count, the confirmed death toll is between about 86,000 and 94,000. But these figures are almost certainly too low, given the methodology employed. The Lancet study estimated a death toll of over 600,000, and this was a couple of years ago. The ORB study estimated a death toll of over 1,000,000.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, the absolute lowest figure, the 86,000 lower estimate of Iraq Body Count. These are confirmed deaths, and their numbers are beyond dispute. Given that Iraq is a nation of about 25,000,000 people, 1/12 the population of the US, if we scale this number to the US population, this would be proportionally equivalent to about 1,000,000 American deaths, or the equivalent of more than one 9/11 for Iraq every week since the invasion of Iraq began. Based on the one 9/11 attack that the US suffered, everything is now supposed to be forever different for us, and our society is being transformed into a police state, supposedly for our own protection. Well, Iraq has suffered the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every week for the last five years.

The millions of refugees created by this war is also well documented and has even been extensively reported in the mainstream media, unlike the Iraqi death toll, which I have never heard mentioned in the MSM.

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

Your characterization of the war in Iraq needs to be argued for, not just stated. You presume to tell us, and, I guess, the whole world, what we "need to realize." You are presuming to think for us. You are trying, not to convince people of certain things, but to insert your beliefs into their minds, uncritically.

Among other things, you picked the wrong place to do that!

Merely in reading your post, I saw error after error in what you were saying. The "ranting" character of your post tells me it would be pointless to try to engage you in discussion of those errors. What you need to realize is you have to prove your points, and your fears and misconstruals, and general hysteria don't mean a thing.

--Mindy

[Mindy Newton]

Michael, I'll now attempt to cut off the limb you're out on. Here's something I wrote after hearing Obama's acceptance speech:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barak Obama’s acceptance speech tonight was the most frightening speech by an American politician I have ever heard. He said nothing that could not have been said – and has not been said – by any communist, fascist, or socialist, by any potential dictator intending to win his countrymen’s vote before he attempts to outlaw all possibility of choice. It consisted only of demands that each man, to the extent that he is a producer, give to … government, a government which in its infinite wisdom will decide what is to be done with the fruits of their labor. The “new politics?” No, this was politics as old as absolutism.

And his audience applauded wildly, tears of joy in the eyes of many of them, as they listened, lemming-like, to this Ellsworth Toohey of politics. Except Obama lacks the strength of conviction of a Toohey; increasingly over the months of the campaign, as he shifted from one position to another, I have had the impression of a man without a center, without convictions of his own, a malleable man who speaks too often and too convincingly of the many people – from his mother to his minister -- who have been his mentors, his leaders, whose example he follows. He seems not a person, but a distorted reflection of others, a man always awaiting his next mentor to tell him what he thinks.

Almost equally horrifying were the comments by American journalists that followed the speech. I listened to Fox, and heard conservative journalists praise parts of the speech and criticize other parts – but never mention that it was a speech advocating the usurpation of total power over society by government, the rescinding of the Bill of Rights, the enforcement of the dictum, “I am my brothers’ keeper” in the only way it can be enforced: at the point of a gun.

And no one noticed the missing concept in the speech by a man who tells us he is fit – no, more than fit, ordained – to be president of the United States, a man who refers again and again to “the American dream,” and “the promise of America.” We all know what that promise that became a reality consisted of, that promise that made us the envy of the world, that caused men and women to crawl through barbed wire to get here, that raised the standard of living for its citizens beyond anything conceived of before.

Barak Obama never once used what Ayn Rand might have termed “the sacred word”: Freedom.

Barbara

I second all of that; beautifully put.

--Mindy

[Martin Radwin]

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

You came in here cold with your wagonfull of horseshit distorted and selected information without even the courtesy of making the semblance of a reasonable post and YOU ask ME for real references contra your totally non-existent? I'm no apologist for the Iraq War, but I remember Vietnam and Congress pulling the plug and all the shit that followed that. Of course, that war was a big mistake to begin with. At least 5 million Vietnamese and Cambodians died because of our disastrous involvement there. That's at least 10-20 times worse than Iraq, so far.

--Brant

It was not my intention to post specifically about the Iraq war at all. That is not the subject of this thread. This all started by me referencing an article by Silber in response to Michael's assertion that either McCain or Obama would make great presidents. In a subsequent post to Greybird, I added some comments about the Iraq war, but this was never intended as a stand-alone post on the subject.

It's true that I have not posted direct links, other than the Silber article, although the Silber article itself is full of many links. It is not particularly difficult to google "Iraq Body Count", "Iraq Lancet Study", "Fallujah", etc. I saw no reason to do this, as this is not a thread about Iraq.

So far, you have repeatedly accused me of spreading distorted horseshit, without actually bothering to refute a single thing I have said.

Regarding your comment about Vietnam and Cambodian deaths, is this supposed to be an argument against anything I have said? Have I ever argued that the Iraq war has been worse than the Vietnam war? Your argument in fact supports the general thesis of what I have been saying, namely, that the US govenment has committed crimes against foreigners that have cost huge numbers of lives. Iraq is only the latest war in this continuing pattern.

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

Martin, I'd say that you (and Arthur Silber) sawed through that limb, but good.

At first I thought that some sarcasm might fit this occasion — since argument clearly does not — but I realized that it's pointless. Further words simply fail me.

Thanks, Greybird. I've been reading Arthur Silber for quite some time now, and the man is simply brilliant, not to mention a great writer. All the horrors of the Iraq war which he predicted long before the US invasion began, horrors which have pretty much been ignored not only by the MSM but also by the entire objectivist community, have come to pass. Hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, four million refugees, two million who have had to flee Iraq and are living in squalid refugee camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, US use of chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium, all of these unspeakable horrors have happened right in front of our eyes, and all that most people, including most objectivists, can say is that this has perhaps been an unfortunate mistake. I wonder if they would think it all nothing more than an unfortunate mistake if millions of Americans were killed and driven from their homes in an attack launched by a foreign government against us.

I post here with little hope that it will change anyone's mind. I do it only because it is the truth and needs to be said.

Martin

I was against the Iraq war from the getgo, but when the mess got going stopped wasting my time with it. But the crap quoted abve is 95% unmitigated. As for Silber, his idea of who is a war criminal is pretty catholic. You have a lot of nerve coming here and shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference.

--Brant

A single reference to what, exactly? The death toll in Iraq? Or the number of Iraqi refugees created by the war? Or the US use of chemical weapons in Fallujah? All of these things are well documented, although the exact death toll is not known and estimates vary widely. Silber provides multiple links in the referenced article.

According to Iraq Body Count, the confirmed death toll is between about 86,000 and 94,000. But these figures are almost certainly too low, given the methodology employed. The Lancet study estimated a death toll of over 600,000, and this was a couple of years ago. The ORB study estimated a death toll of over 1,000,000.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, the absolute lowest figure, the 86,000 lower estimate of Iraq Body Count. These are confirmed deaths, and their numbers are beyond dispute. Given that Iraq is a nation of about 25,000,000 people, 1/12 the population of the US, if we scale this number to the US population, this would be proportionally equivalent to about 1,000,000 American deaths, or the equivalent of more than one 9/11 for Iraq every week since the invasion of Iraq began. Based on the one 9/11 attack that the US suffered, everything is now supposed to be forever different for us, and our society is being transformed into a police state, supposedly for our own protection. Well, Iraq has suffered the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every week for the last five years.

The millions of refugees created by this war is also well documented and has even been extensively reported in the mainstream media, unlike the Iraqi death toll, which I have never heard mentioned in the MSM.

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

Your characterization of the war in Iraq needs to be argued for, not just stated. You presume to tell us, and, I guess, the whole world, what we "need to realize." You are presuming to think for us. You are trying, not to convince people of certain things, but to insert your beliefs into their minds, uncritically.

Among other things, you picked the wrong place to do that!

Merely in reading your post, I saw error after error in what you were saying. The "ranting" character of your post tells me it would be pointless to try to engage you in discussion of those errors. What you need to realize is you have to prove your points, and your fears and misconstruals, and general hysteria don't mean a thing.

--Mindy

It is customary, when putting words in quotation marks in response to another poster, for these to be an actual quotation from the poster. Since I never used the phrase "need to realize" anywhere in my posts, your putting these words in quotation marks as though I actually said them is entirely inappropriate. So is your subsequent extrapolation from these non-existent words that I never used that, "You are presuming to think for us. You are trying, not to convince people of certain things, but to insert your beliefs into their minds, uncritically." So nice of you to tell me what I am presuming and what I am trying to do. No doubt, your extrapolation of my mental state and intentions is at least as accurate as your use of quotation marks for words that I never said.

Thank you for pointing you that you saw error after error in what I was saying. You sure do have an excellent justification for not pointing out what any of these supposed errors actually are, based on your analysis of my mental state, which you have done such an excellent job of determining.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Rather than accusing me of "shoveling this shit on us without so much as a single reference", if you think that any of the information I have provided here is wrong, why don't you post your own references containing contrary information?

Martin

You came in here cold with your wagonfull of horseshit distorted and selected information without even the courtesy of making the semblance of a reasonable post and YOU ask ME for real references contra your totally non-existent? I'm no apologist for the Iraq War, but I remember Vietnam and Congress pulling the plug and all the shit that followed that. Of course, that war was a big mistake to begin with. At least 5 million Vietnamese and Cambodians died because of our disastrous involvement there. That's at least 10-20 times worse than Iraq, so far.

--Brant

It was not my intention to post specifically about the Iraq war at all. That is not the subject of this thread. This all started by me referencing an article by Silber in response to Michael's assertion that either McCain or Obama would make great presidents. In a subsequent post to Greybird, I added some comments about the Iraq war, but this was never intended as a stand-alone post on the subject.

It's true that I have not posted direct links, other than the Silber article, although the Silber article itself is full of many links. It is not particularly difficult to google "Iraq Body Count", "Iraq Lancet Study", "Fallujah", etc. I saw no reason to do this, as this is not a thread about Iraq.

So far, you have repeatedly accused me of spreading distorted horseshit, without actually bothering to refute a single thing I have said.

Regarding your comment about Vietnam and Cambodian deaths, is this supposed to be an argument against anything I have said? Have I ever argued that the Iraq war has been worse than the Vietnam war? Your argument in fact supports the general thesis of what I have been saying, namely, that the US govenment has committed crimes against foreigners that have cost huge numbers of lives. Iraq is only the latest war in this continuing pattern.

Martin

That's right. I have no objection whatsoever to criticism of the Iraq War per se. The U.S. has dissipated itself abroad and at home. The country has been flushing itself down the toilet for years under President Bush. There's not much point in pulling out of Iraq now; we won!

--Brant

Edited September 6, 2008 by Brant Gaede