An Invasion of Iran is Eminent

[dan2100]

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!

In my opinion, the Soviet Union would have fallen much faster if the US government had no supported it over the years, especially in its early years.

Your other comments here strike as of the sort that if someone is against the US government or its policies, then she or he must be for the putative targets of those policies. This is like saying that people who don't want the US government to ban smoking want everyone and his sister to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. One can be both against the US government or its policies and things like terrorism and other crimes with victims.

[Brant Gaede]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

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!

In my opinion, the Soviet Union would have fallen much faster if the US government had no supported it over the years, especially in its early years.

Your other comments here strike as of the sort that if someone is against the US government or its policies, then she or he must be for the putative targets of those policies. This is like saying that people who don't want the US government to ban smoking want everyone and his sister to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. One can be both against the US government or its policies and things like terrorism and other crimes with victims.

Nowhere did I say, or did Rand say, that all positions taken by the U.S. government in its foreign relations, have been appropriate. Rand was was very critical of some aspects of U.S. foreiegn policy.

However, that does NOT mean that all criticisms of U.S. actions are equally valid. To say that the U.S. is the primary supporter of terrorism (paraphrase - you want the exact quote?) is totally unjustified and outrageous.

To claim, or imply, that a radical Islamist regime (Iran) and the Hezbollah, do not have malevolent intent, and to attempt to justify or excuse the actions of a theocratic government such as Iran, is to be blind to their actions and statements.

Further, one can and should be tolerant toward those who have different religious or philosophical beliefs, up to but not including when they point a gun at you. Objectivism would support your right to be a Moslem or a Christian, or whatever. But that does not mean that one can philosophically agree with all of Christianity and claim to be an Objectivist. The same obviously holds true for those who are Moslem. One or the other.

[dan2100]

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!

In my opinion, the Soviet Union would have fallen much faster if the US government had no supported it over the years, especially in its early years.

Your other comments here strike as of the sort that if someone is against the US government or its policies, then she or he must be for the putative targets of those policies. This is like saying that people who don't want the US government to ban smoking want everyone and his sister to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. One can be both against the US government or its policies and things like terrorism and other crimes with victims.

Nowhere did I say, or did Rand say, that all positions taken by the U.S. government in its foreign relations, have been appropriate. Rand was was very critical of some aspects of U.S. foreiegn policy.

My point about being against both sides in a conflict was not so much about what Rand said or wrote, but about one being against both the Soviet Union and the US government. One can validly take that position. E.g., one can admit that the Soviets were bad and, at the same time, believe that US action against the Soviets was bad.

However, that does NOT mean that all criticisms of U.S. actions are equally valid.

I agree, but this won't lead to the conclusion you want.

To say that the U.S. is the primary supporter of terrorism (paraphrase - you want the exact quote?) is totally unjustified and outrageous.

Yes, if you're going to make that accusation -- that someone here is making a claim you find "totally unjustified and outrageous" -- then I believe you should be willing to back it up.

To claim, or imply, that a radical Islamist regime (Iran) and the Hezbollah, do not have malevolent intent, and to attempt to justify or excuse the actions of a theocratic government such as Iran, is to be blind to their actions and statements.

And the same applies, in my view, to all governments and criminal organizations.

Further, one can and should be tolerant toward those who have different religious or philosophical beliefs, up to but not including when they point a gun at you. Objectivism would support your right to be a Moslem or a Christian, or whatever. But that does not mean that one can philosophically agree with all of Christianity and claim to be an Objectivist. The same obviously holds true for those who are Moslem. One or the other.

I'm not sure where you're going with this... Has anyone here claiming to be an Objectivist or follow Objectivist principles told us that she or he also agrees "philosophically agree" with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or pick-some-other-religion?

[algernonsidney]

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).

Almost anyone who has any Rand knows how much she hated the Soviet Union. Yet, I don't ever remember reading her or hearing her advocate openly attacking the Soviet Union. Rand was strong enough in her belief in capitalism that she knew that it would collapse. History proved her right. History has also proven that not attacking the Soviet Union was the best course of action.

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!

Are you implying then that their immoral system could have maintained itself in perpetuity? Are you implying that socialism can produce as much wealth as capitalism?

Fundamentally, what you are saying here is that the USA only "won" because it had the better state. In your belief, it had nothing to do with the fact that a freer economy is able to produce more wealth. It had nothing to do with people like Steven Jobs or other great innovators. I especially like to mention the example of computers because by the time the wall came down in 1989, the USA was about 30 years ahead of the USSR in computer technology. You naturally have to wonder if this made them realize that their "war" was unwinnable.

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!).

I am standing with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Unlike about 99.99% of Objectivists, I have actually read Thomas Jefferson. You only attempt to smear me because you have not a leg to stand on.

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.

The USA loved Saddam Hussein up until 1989. What was the reason for this love affair? Would you have also defended this love affair back then? There's even a possibility that the US provided him with intelligence that later helped him invade Kuwait in 1990.

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?).

Are you going to tell me that the Shah of Iran was a great capitalist who supported freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Give me a break. Are you going to tell me that he respected due process of law and things like a bill of rights?

Not only was the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime not "inexcusable," it was justified.

So, you support totalitarianism. If that's the case, what motivates your hatred for the Soviet Union? If you love the shah, you should love Stalin as well.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra once commented to me that the Objectivist movement is "going down the tubes." When I look at spew like this, I understand why. I do wonder why I still waste my time.

[algernonsidney]

A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a "Greater Iran" that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam's expected messiah.

...

Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran's other regional adversaries, whom he called "cancerous tumors." He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran's growing regional clout with deep concern.

As I have said many times before, LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER. If a bunch of Moslems want to kill a bunch of Moslems, I don't care one iota. We should let them fight and die. The more of them die, the better.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I know all the arguments. I don't sympathize with any of them on an either-or basis, but that doesn't mean I sympathize with the communist side or radical Islamist side either.

I am one who happens to think the alternative is not to replace one bloody dictator with another and call that rational. If that isn't a false dichotomy, I don't know what is.

And yes, the USA runs on oil from foreign countries that hate us and products produced by people earning wages so low as to almost be subhuman. There's no denying it, either. All this is protected by USA government agreements with dictators. How's that working out for you?

I say we need to produce our own oil and other stuff.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

A lot of these [Middle Eastern] 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.

Chris B,

How did Israel accomplish this particular result?

Did Israel exhort the Jewish populations of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey to rise up and overthrow their Muslim rulers?

Robert C

[algernonsidney]

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).

Almost anyone who has read any Rand knows how much she hated the Soviet Union. Yet, I don't ever remember reading her or hearing her advocate openly attacking the Soviet Union. Rand was strong enough in her belief in capitalism that she knew that the USSR would collapse. History proved her right. History has also proven that not attacking the Soviet Union was the best course of action.

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!

Are you implying then that their immoral system could have maintained itself in perpetuity? Are you implying that socialism can produce as much wealth as capitalism?

Fundamentally, what you are saying here is that the USA only "won" because it had the better state. In your belief, it had nothing to do with the fact that a freer economy is able to produce more wealth. It had nothing to do with people like Steven Jobs or other great innovators. I especially like to mention the example of computers because by the time the wall came down in 1989, the USA was about 30 years ahead of the USSR in computer technology. You naturally have to wonder if this made them realize that their "war" was unwinnable.

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!).

I am standing with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Unlike about 99.99% of Objectivists, I have actually read Thomas Jefferson. You only attempt to smear me because you have not a leg to stand on.

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.

The USA loved Saddam Hussein up until 1989. What was the reason for this love affair? Would you have also defended this love affair back then? There's even a possibility that the US provided him with intelligence that later helped him invade Kuwait in 1990.

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?).

Are you going to tell me that the Shah of Iran was a great capitalist who supported freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Give me a break. Are you going to tell me that he respected due process of law and things like a bill of rights?

Not only was the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime not "inexcusable," it was justified.

So, you support totalitarianism. If that's the case, what motivates your hatred for the Soviet Union? If you love the shah, you should love Stalin as well.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra once commented to me that the Objectivist movement is "going down the tubes." When I look at spew like this, I understand why. I do wonder why I still waste my time.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

Tell the Children the Truth

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

And that was certainly plenty of information, Michael. I had never heard of Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. And that site motivated me to look elsewhere for more information about him. He sounds like a real son of a bitch.

I am naturally curious as to why the Arab / Islamic world has declined so much in the past 100 years. While it has not been equal to Europe since 1700 or earlier, the people have clearly went backward in the past 100 years. Islam has gotten worse even in my own lifetime.

[Brant Gaede]

A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a "Greater Iran" that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would As I have said many times before, LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER. If a bunch of Moslems want to kill a bunch of Moslems, I don't care one iota. We should let them fight and die. The more of them die, the better.

What a silly statement.

--Brant

Edited May 18, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[algernonsidney]

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.

I'm merely pointing out that the Zionists were unwilling to accept anything else. In 1934, for example, Stalin actually set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. It was supposed to be a homeland for Jews as well. Needless to say, a lot of Jews didn't really care.

Your non sequitirs are really getting old. I'm getting tired of responding to your comments because you twist whatever I post on here. Basically, you take what I write here. Then, you give it some type of meaning which is totally different of what I intended to convey. Then, you respond to your own twistifications. If it was only a few isoltated incidents, I might pass over it. But you do it every time I post here. You seem like a pretty intelligent person, so I don't think it's an honest error.

No nation in the history of the world has done more for Jews than the USA, at least up until the 1920's (immigration controls). There were a few injustices like the lynching of Leo Frank. On the whole, the US has treated Jews very well, since they first arrived in Newport, Rhode Island, back in 1658.

The concept of a homeland is collectivist by its very nature (I thought Objectivism opposed to collectivism). I personally have no sentimental attachments to the lands of my own ancestors (real or imagined). I may visit those places. But I really don't care what the owners do with the land. It's their land, after all.

A truly special homeland does need to exist for people who sincerely do believe in freedom though. And those people are a pretty small minority. It would be rich, prosperous, and healthy. The people would also realize that they don't need anyone else.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Chris Baker

[Jerry Biggers]

Dan,

Regarding totally unjust and outrageous statements," try this: #27 in this thread: Chris Baker responding to a quote from Adonis Vlahos that the U.S. supports terrorists all over the world, responds, "Indeed it does. It has been since 1900." And again, "The U.S. regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism." These statements are totally unjust and outrageous.

Dan: You wrote,

"My point about being against both sides in a conflict was not so much about what Rand said or wrote, but about one being against both the Soviet Union and the US government. One can validly take that position. E.g., one can admit that the Soviets were bad and, at the same time, believe that US action against the Soviets was bad."

Really? Exactly which U.S. actions against the Soviet Union were "bad?" In what way? Please name some. Were they not strong enough in their opposition to Soviet intentions (in which case, I agree)? Or are you saying that we just should been a lot nicer to them?

You wrote: "I'm not sure where you're going with this... Has anyone here claiming to be an Objectivist or follow Objectivist principles told us that she or he also agrees "philosophically agree" with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or pick-some-other-religion?"

Mr. Vlahos can correct me if I am mistaken, but in many of his voluminous and erudite posts, he has quite clearly identified himself as a Moslem, not just as someone defending Moslems (and not just Moslems in general, but the policies and intentions of Ahmadinejad and also of Hezbollah. Presumably, he also has some interest in Objectivism. Whether it is just curiosity or whether he actually thinks these two beliefs systems are actually congruent or hold some basic principles in common, is not clear to me.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[algernonsidney]

How did Israel accomplish this particular result?

Israel did not "accomplish" it. I'm merely pointing out that there is now enough anti-Jewish sentiment in these countries that it has become more difficult to Jews to live in them.

I do think this is what some of them wanted though. After all, the dream of the Zionists has always been to unify all Jews into "Greater Israel."

Did Israel exhort the Jewish populations of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey to rise up and overthrow their Muslim rulers?

They haven't tried to do that.

That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between Sephardic Jews (of Arab nations) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern Europe). This may very well destroy Israel before the Arabs do. If the Arabs and Muslims had any sense, they would play these groups against each other.

[Jerry Biggers]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

I don't know why I need to spell out exactly what Rand said about U.S. foreign policy. One can find it in her Playboy interview, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. She was not exactly shy about giving her opinions in these areas.

Her views can also be found in the many other collections of her essays, including The Ayn Rand Lexicon.. I would assume that participants in OL would be familiar with these sources.

[Jerry Biggers]

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).

Almost anyone who has any Rand knows how much she hated the Soviet Union. Yet, I don't ever remember reading her or hearing her advocate openly attacking the Soviet Union. Rand was strong enough in her belief in capitalism that she knew that it would collapse. History proved her right. History has also proven that not attacking the Soviet Union was the best course of action.

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!

Are you implying then that their immoral system could have maintained itself in perpetuity? Are you implying that socialism can produce as much wealth as capitalism?

Fundamentally, what you are saying here is that the USA only "won" because it had the better state. In your belief, it had nothing to do with the fact that a freer economy is able to produce more wealth. It had nothing to do with people like Steven Jobs or other great innovators. I especially like to mention the example of computers because by the time the wall came down in 1989, the USA was about 30 years ahead of the USSR in computer technology. You naturally have to wonder if this made them realize that their "war" was unwinnable.

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!).

I am standing with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Unlike about 99.99% of Objectivists, I have actually read Thomas Jefferson. You only attempt to smear me because you have not a leg to stand on.

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.

The USA loved Saddam Hussein up until 1989. What was the reason for this love affair? Would you have also defended this love affair back then? There's even a possibility that the US provided him with intelligence that later helped him invade Kuwait in 1990.

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?).

Are you going to tell me that the Shah of Iran was a great capitalist who supported freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Give me a break. Are you going to tell me that he respected due process of law and things like a bill of rights?

Not only was the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime not "inexcusable," it was justified.

So, you support totalitarianism. If that's the case, what motivates your hatred for the Soviet Union? If you love the shah, you should love Stalin as well.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra once commented to me that the Objectivist movement is "going down the tubes." When I look at spew like this, I understand why. I do wonder why I still waste my time.

Chris,

I did not say that Rand advocated attacking the Soviet Union.

Regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The immediate reason that the Soviet Union collapsed was that their inefficient economic system could not create the wealth to allow it to match the increasing military build-up (and the technological expertise)of the U.S. I think that is pretty much what you said, above. And no, I did not say that the U.S. won because it had a "better state."

Nice that you read Thomas Jefferson. And that you have access to a previously unknown poll indicating that a remarkable 99.9% of all Objectivists have not read any Jefferson. What any of that has to do with justifying your stated position that "The U.S. regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism [and since 1900, yet]" is not clear.

I don't think that I said anything indicating that I supported the self-defeating policy of the U.S. government in its attempts to undermine the Iranian mullahs by backing Saddam in the 1980's.

Regarding the Shah, yes, he probably was a capitalist, just not of the type we would approve. Yes, Iran under the Shah was freer than it was after the mullahs took over. Under the Shah, women had gained the right to dress as they saw fit and to enter and compete in areas that were prohibited before the Shah and certainly prohibited later under Khomeini. In terms of religious tolerance, you could ask the Bahai's (a religion native to Iran) and the Jews living in Iran, as to which regime was more tolerant of their religious practices. Well, you could ask them, if you could find any left in Iran under Khomeini and the mullahs. Most have been either thrown-out, terrorized, or are now languishing in Iranian prisons for the "crime" of practicing their religious beliefs. The Shah was no democrat, but in comparison to what Khomeini and his ilk have done to that nation, his crimes pale. To say that there is no differance between Iran under the Shah, and Iran under Ahmadinejad, is like saying there is no differance between Franco's Spain and Russia under Stalin.

As for Mossadegh, the man was no democrat. Helping to overthrow a thug planning to align with the Soviet Union is commendable. The CIA got it right, for once. Too bad the Shah didn't fulfill all our expectations for an enlightened ruler and did not institute democratic reforms along with his more successful attempts to bring the nation, socially, out of the Middle Ages. Now, with the counter-revolution of Khomeini, Iran has been plunged back into theocratic terror, and the world may soon face the prospect of a nuclear-armed religious fanatic quite willing to destroy the world in order to save it.

[Brant Gaede]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

I don't know why I need to spell out exactly what Rand said about U.S. foreign policy. One can find it in her Playboy interview, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. She was not exactly shy about giving her opinions in these areas.

Her views can also be found in the many other collections of her essays, including The Ayn Rand Lexicon.. I would assume that participants in OL would be familiar with these sources.

Let's start with your first sentence. Just what foreign policy statements are you objecting to? Once we know those we can correlate with somethings Rand said like the US had the right, but not the obligation, to invade "any slave pen."

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

I don't know why I need to spell out exactly what Rand said about U.S. foreign policy. One can find it in her Playboy interview, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. She was not exactly shy about giving her opinions in these areas.

Her views can also be found in the many other collections of her essays, including The Ayn Rand Lexicon.. I would assume that participants in OL would be familiar with these sources.

Let's start with your first sentence. Just what foreign policy statements are you objecting to? Once we know those we can correlate with somethings Rand said like the US had the right, but not the obligation, to invade "any slave pen."

--Brant

Hmmm,...are we reading the same thread? I was referring to statements made by Adonis Vlahos and by Chris Baker, which I reiterated in other posts today.

[Brant Gaede]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

I don't know why I need to spell out exactly what Rand said about U.S. foreign policy. One can find it in her Playboy interview, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. She was not exactly shy about giving her opinions in these areas.

Her views can also be found in the many other collections of her essays, including The Ayn Rand Lexicon.. I would assume that participants in OL would be familiar with these sources.

Let's start with your first sentence. Just what foreign policy statements are you objecting to? Once we know those we can correlate with somethings Rand said like the US had the right, but not the obligation, to invade "any slave pen."

--Brant

Hmmm,...are we reading the same thread? I was referring to statements made by Adonis Vlahos and by Chris Baker, which I reiterated in other posts today.

That's the problem: lack of initial specificity. You were "referring" but you didn't refer us. You still haven't, but we are getting a lot closer.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And that was certainly plenty of information, Michael. I had never heard of Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. And that site motivated me to look elsewhere for more information about him. He sounds like a real son of a bitch.

Chris,

Now you know why Israel is where Israel is? A Grand Mufti is the Islamic leader of Jerusalem. The Zionists had their dreams of the holy land based on Jewish tradition and the dude in charge of that particular region backed Hitler. The Nazis lost, so it was a no-brainer to put Israel there, although why any person would want to live next door to serial killers who tried to wipe his own race out is, to my thinking, not very smart. And that's saying it diplomatically.

You would think that they would at least finish the military occupation job I mentioned and totally defeat the Nazi serial killers. But they didn't.

After WWII, the entire Islamic-Nazi network was not dismantled in the Middle East. It just went underground a little. But it gets worse. Instead of just looking the other way, the USA and England actually hired those fine folks as spies and allies against the communists.

After Hitler fell and WWII ended, we hired and supported Nazis knowing they were Nazis!

And Israel was founded right next door to them--and Jews migrated there from all over the world!

Un-frigging-believable!

Here's a simple equation. Whenever you find pockets of Muslims in the Middle East where there is virulent antisemitism, look beneath the surface and you will find Nazi leftovers who managed to survive and thrive on USA and British funding.

If you want to bash the USA government (and its allies) for unbelievable acts of stupidity, there is a good place to start.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

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).

You need some actual Rand quotes here or the previously uninformed reader won't understand just what you are talking about. I'm not uninformed, but am still scratching my head. I could flesh this out for you, but I suspect you'd take issue with the results. So, what are your results, aside from your ambiguous conclusion(s) above? It's back to you because you have raised some issue with some something but what something?

--Brant

I don't know why I need to spell out exactly what Rand said about U.S. foreign policy. One can find it in her Playboy interview, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. She was not exactly shy about giving her opinions in these areas.

Her views can also be found in the many other collections of her essays, including The Ayn Rand Lexicon.. I would assume that participants in OL would be familiar with these sources.

Let's start with your first sentence. Just what foreign policy statements are you objecting to? Once we know those we can correlate with somethings Rand said like the US had the right, but not the obligation, to invade "any slave pen."

--Brant

Hmmm,...are we reading the same thread? I was referring to statements made by Adonis Vlahos and by Chris Baker, which I reiterated in other posts today.

That's the problem: lack of initial specificity. You were "referring" but you didn't refer us. You still haven't, but we are getting a lot closer.

--Brant

Gee, Brant, I'm trying... I think that I spelled it out who I was referring to in post #63 (please see): comments from Chris Baker from his post in #27 (which was his response to comments made by Adonis Vlahos). These comments were of such an incendiary nature, that I did not think that anyone reading this thread would not know who I was referring to.

Regarding the voluminous comments of Mr. Vlahos (in this thread and elsewhere on OL), he appears to be writing an "Encyclopedia Islamica" (Wahabi version? Or maybe it's the Hezbollah version). Many others have responded with a sort of "Encyclopedia contra-Islamica." These comments by Mr. Vlahos and his critics are very educational and show a depth of investigation of the doctrines and history of Islam that I cannot match. It's all very impressive, and they have made their opposing positions on Islam quite clear. But both sides of this debate cannot be right (duh).

At the risk of jumping the gun, I choose Objectivism. Or, more broadly, the culture and values of Western Civilization as expressed in classical liberalism. If others wish to live in an authoritarian/totalitarian theocracy that suppresses all dissenting opinion, they are welcome to it (but not here). If some wish to practice their Islamic faith in the West, that's okay, too. Just don't engage in any type of coercion, threats, or violence to convert the rest of us.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Robert Campbell]

Regarding the voluminous comments of Mr. Vlahos (in this thread and elsewhere on OL), he appears to be writing an "Encyclopedia Islamica" (Wahabi version? Or maybe it's the Hezbollah version).

Jerry B,

Adonis claims to support Shi'a Islam. He's had nothing good to say about the salafi or Wahhabi variety.

I'm not sure how strongly he supports Hezbollah. But given his apologetics for the Hamas regime in Gaza (even though Hamas is a fanatical Sunni organization), my guess would be that he sympathizes with Hezbollah.

Robert C

[Jerry Biggers]

And that was certainly plenty of information, Michael. I had never heard of Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. And that site motivated me to look elsewhere for more information about him. He sounds like a real son of a bitch.

Chris,

Now you know why Israel is where Israel is? A Grand Mufti is the Islamic leader of Jerusalem. The Zionists had their dreams of the holy land based on Jewish tradition and the dude in charge of that particular region backed Hitler. The Nazis lost, so it was a no-brainer to put Israel there, although why any person would want to live next door to serial killers who tried to wipe his own race out is, to my thinking, not very smart. And that's saying it diplomatically.

You would think that they would at least finish the military occupation job I mentioned and totally defeat the Nazi serial killers. But they didn't.

After WWII, the entire Islamic-Nazi network was not dismantled in the Middle East. It just went underground a little. But it gets worse. Instead of just looking the other way, the USA and England actually hired those fine folks as spies and allies against the communists.

After Hitler fell and WWII ended, we hired and supported Nazis knowing they were Nazis!

And Israel was founded right next door to them--and Jews migrated there from all over the world!

Un-frigging-believable!

Here's a simple equation. Whenever you find pockets of Muslims in the Middle East where there is virulent antisemitism, look beneath the surface and you will find Nazi leftovers who managed to survive and thrive on USA and British funding.

If you want to bash the USA government (and its allies) for unbelievable acts of stupidity, there is a good place to start.

Michael

Well, it certainly is a mess. To a large degree, this powder keg was set up by France and Britain when they carved-up the Arabic lands that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. Their attempts to rewrite the map and create "nations" that had never existed before (in that form. Examples are Iraq, Jordan, and much later, "Sudan"), was a disaster that came to explode after WW II. The bungling Britain had done was made much worse with their spectacularly bad decisions regarding Palestine. I am not saying that the Jews did not have a right to move there and to set up their own nation, I am saying that Britain mis-managed the Palestinians in that process. There must have been a better way to resolve the issues between Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. Now, the whole world is paying the price for that initial failure.

But just to show that the "Allies" were "Equal Opportunity" screw-ups, they created "Yugoslavia" out of ethnic groups that had long enmity for each other. That turned-out well. Just to show that imperialists haven't lost their touch in messing with other people, the British divided India by attempting to create a new Moslem nation out of ethnic groups that don't really like each other, "Pakistan." That also has turned out well. [Judging from how some of my earlier remarks have been mis-interpreted, I guess I should hasten to point-out that my remarks about the "success" of imperialist "nation-building" are facetious!].

Anyway, as for residual Nazi influence, not all the unemployed Nazis found jobs with Western powers. A significant number went to work for many of the Arab regimes (in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and now for Iran. writing "anti-semitic" (more properly, anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist) propaganda. Nassar, Saddam, Hassad, and their predecessors, to name a few. Each side had found their soulmates. Love at first sight.

[BaalChatzaf]

If some wish to practice their Islamic faith in the West, that's okay, too. Just don't engage in any type of coercion, threats, or violence to convert the rest of us.

Also not providing aid, comfort or financial assistance to the activities of assassins, terrorists and saboteurs. That includes public demonstrations of support for such unsavory parties. On 9/12/2001 some Jordanian cab drivers in New York City formed a cheering squad and a dancing circle to celebrate the destruction of the WTC. If I had my way, I would have had these jokers deported forthwith. I take it with ill grace for guests in my country to cheer and praise those who come to my country to do wicked deeds against us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I know all the arguments. I don't sympathize with any of them on an either-or basis, but that doesn't mean I sympathize with the communist side or radical Islamist side either.

I am one who happens to think the alternative is not to replace one bloody dictator with another and call that rational. If that isn't a false dichotomy, I don't know what is.

And yes, the USA runs on oil from foreign countries that hate us and products produced by people earning wages so low as to almost be subhuman. There's no denying it, either. All this is protected by USA government agreements with dictators. How's that working out for you?

I say we need to produce our own oil and other stuff.

Michael

Michael,

I agree in general with what you said.

The problem is, most of the world is not democratic and never has been. Dictatorships, absolute monarchs, and other forms of tyranny have been the rule, not the exception, in human history. It is unlikely that this will substantially change in our lifetime. Maybe, many lifetimes. Perhaps, never.

There is no way that the U.S. can convert all anti-democratic countries to carbon-copies of our republic. For the time being, we will have to deal with other countries that do not agree with our concepts of human rights.

So, for the sake of argument, what should the U.S. do? We intervened, disastrously, in Viet Nam. We intervened in Korea -stalemate. Now we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iran glaring at us and Pakistan continuuing to teeter on the brink.

Trying to force a Western-style democracy on countries that have never had democracy in their cultural history is probably futile. We will be lucky if Iraq, after we leave, does not suffer a return to anti-Western anti-democratic rule. The same is true for Afghanistan.

So if we can't persuade the rest of the world to become democracies, we have to deal with the unpleasant fact that we will be dealing with dictators, some worse than others. When the Soviet Union was around, we often had to choose between pro-Russian dictators or pro-Western dictators. Democracy was often not even a prospect. Usually, we chose the pro-Western dictators. A grim choice. The alternative is to pack-up our belongings and go home. Sounds tempting, but in an era of power politics, and instantaneous communication, isolation is probably not possible.

Arghh! Where's Atlantis? I want to escape to Atlantis!!

But in the real world, the only "Atlantis" is in The Bahamas. Not what Rand had in mind. Reality does not often imitate fiction. Or, it doesn't imitate Rand's fiction closely enough to suit me!

Edited May 18, 2010 by Jerry Biggers