And just to be clear on my position (because I haven’t said much) is that the hypothetical parents of those children would be the ones to blame for their deaths if they occurred by American bombs.

I assert that nothing short of a devastating military campaign will put a stop to Islamic totalitarianism. And to pretend that such a campaign can be conducted and somehow restrict our aim to only those who we know for sure have directly initiated force against us (as the title of this thread suggests) is an impossible pipe dream.

> if you listen to older Peikoff lectures, you can hear Peikoff give an annoyed sigh every time Coates gets up to ask a question

What I'm interested in is if Mike can give an exact quote [rather than a hostile paraphrase] of, say, two of the very stupid questions I was constantly asking year after year.

Mike, just curious, where is Phil's argument about Roark vs. Frisco?

Greg,

While I'm not on board with everything you've said, don't listen to Phil. At all. Despite the fact that he participated in Understanding Objectivism 23 years ago, I've yet to see him make an insightful comment on issues relating to thinking methods. (I wouldn't dream of taking advice on rationalism from someone who once argued that
Objectivists should look up to Francisco over Roark. Yup, that's right, Coates once made this argument.) As far as I can tell, he just takes buzz words from UO and launches them at anyone he disagrees with, regardless of how they may or may not apply. (I was amused to learn that if you listen to older Peikoff lectures, you can hear Peikoff give an annoyed sigh every time Coates gets up to ask a question.) Phil's input is generally useless (he's never even wrong in an intelligent or interesting way), so unless you like being called stupid every other post, don't make the mistake of engaging him in anything approaching a serious conversation.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

It's a very side issue, but it has come up a couple of times, so I thought some might find the name helpful.

It is called the Lorenz Principle of Displaced Aggression, after Konrad Lorenz, the zoologist/psychologist/ethnologist.

When B is bigger than A, A attacks C (who is smaller than both) even those A's beef is with B and C is just a bystander.

Beta fighting fish commonly display the behavior. (As do many other species.)

> These are the same people that are storing rockets for Hezbollah...many other ways they support people actively working to kill Americans. [Greg]

First of all how on earth do you know that the parents of these kids are *the same people* [your words]? Are you psychic? Have you inspected the homes of all of the marchers?

Ayn Rand at some point explained to you the difference between i) advocating an evil idea or paying lip service to it and ii) taking physical action to support it or to initiate force or to aid and abet the inititators.

She also explained to you that you need -proof- of the latter.

.....

Jesus, I hope you're not a philosophy student...and are doing something less dangerous like designing software or chips to go into missiles. With these entry-level philosophical mistakes you are making, you are almost as dangerous to America as those people parading their children around with plastic suicide belts.

Adam, of course your comments are correct, but again, I did refer to the "words of its prophet" by which I meant the words attributable to Jesus. I assume that you will agree with me that that quite small corpus is quite pacific, while the Butcher's is explicitly inimical and hostile. Thus, while Jesus's words are subject to a benevolent interpretation and Christianity can give up temporal claims without contradicting Jesus's own words, the same cannot be said of the Butcher and his gang of throat slitters. I have read the Butcher's words in full, (not the ahadith though) and the Tanakh in rabbinical English recension, and the New Testament in Greek, and most of the apocryphal and gnostic works available in print. Judaism has reformed itself since the fall of the Temple and no Christian sect that has been deprived of temporal power has tried to justify a return to power by referring to Jesus's own words. The words of Paul and the strictures of Leviticus & Deuteronomy do espouse coercion and are easily subject to evil interpretation. I have not read any Sufi works, and would be interested if you could refer me to anything worth perusing. But I see no way in which the Butcher's words are not subject to evil interpretation.

FYI I have posted the text of Displacement Activity on RoR with a brief editorial comment regarding its context appended at the end. It is on the War Against Islam string in the Forum

Ted Keer, Sep 22, 2006, NYC

Ted: Because all religions are based on faith, every religion is a mess of contradictions. For every anti-authoritarian verse in every scripture there is also an authoritarian or violent one. And every religion, including Islam, has its anti-literalist schools. It just takes a total defeat, like the destruction of the Temple and exile for the Jews, or the 30-years War and the secularization of Europe for the Christians, to bring the anti-literalists to dominance. There is no reason why Moslems could not re-interpret the relevant parts of their scriptures as metaphors, just as Jews and Christians did with the "Old Testament," after a sufficient defeat. (Some schools of Islam, such as the Sufis, already have.) At minimum, proven strategies for victory should be given a try - as John Lewis proposes to do. What is absurd is the Bush administration's strategy of using American power to spread Islamic theocracy instead of terminating it at the source.

Letters and replies about the Sherman article and the Just War article are now up on the TOS website. Enjoy.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

I don't see how we can hope to follow the same path with Iran or any other muslim state that we did with Japan or Germany for the following reason; the throat slitters, their profit, their text and their traditional teachings all demand the violent establishment of theocracy as a central, if not the unique trait of their creed. Shintoists worshipped not death per se, but ancestors. Their emperor was left in place even given our knowledge of his guilt in the planning and execution of the war. His "above-it-all-ness" was a postwar fiction that served a purpose.

Likewise, in Germany, Nazism as a pagan Fuehrer/Volk cult was being grafted onto a resentful once-proud nation that had long accepted altruistic, authoritarian, and statist principles, but which accepted Nazism only so long as it brought psychological and economic relief from the humiliation of WWI, Versailles & Weimar Germany. Once the Allies had militarily humiliated the Reich and had established the Marshall plan there was little desire by the populace to stay with Nazism or to identify with it psychologically. The Nazi insurgency fizzled out rather quickly. Adam Reed's suggested and otherwise reasonable policy would work fine with Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea, because those cultures are not cultures with a centuries long history of sharia and jihad.

The "religion" of the throat slitters is not just one of ancestor worship, or one only superficially grafted onto a suitable populace. The mere advocacy of separation of religion and state in Iran is laudable in its goals but woefully inadequate as a plan for execution. Could the religion even be allowed to survive without its remaining an eternal threat to the state? Christianity can be freely practiced under a secular state because Jesus preached separation of church and state and none of his words support or require it:
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."
"Cast not the first stone..."
"Turn the other cheek..."
"Love thine enemy..."
"The kingdom of the Lord is within you..."
These are not the statements of a theocrat or would be dictator. Christianity as espoused by the words of its prophet (if not the actions of its followers) eschews political power while the creed of the throat slitters demands it. There is no way to practice that creed freely, since its tenets demand the initiation of force against innocents. A mere separation of religion and state is not possible, the religion must reform itself if it can and will or its adherents will eventually earn the martyrdom that its obese imams preach to their food and reason deprived flocks.

A reformation might even begin in Iran, a state with some history of moderate freedom under a secular government. This seems most likely to me to happen if Iran is put under strict embargo and all its state and military edifice are razed. Kept under strictest quarantine until the contagion becomes less virulent or destroys its host and hence itself, the reformers might have a chance to redirect the spiritual yearnings of this ancient culture. We should only help them in so far as it serves our selfish purposes, but neither extermination (which seems premature and which will begin a holocaust that we should be, but are not yet militarily or emotionally prepared to fight) nor inaction can be our best course of action now.

I fear that nothing other than a mushroom cloud over a major city will bring America to its senses. In the mean time I will not pretend that my words here address the problem in any other way than getting my fears off my chest. I can do this without either calling other posters to this list p*ssies or would-be genocides. Resorting to attacking a third party when one is thwarted by an insuperable obstacle is called
displacement activity a behavior found both among stressed out animals and un-self critical so-called egoists. I, for one, want to wake up from this collective nightmare, not swat at phantoms while I die in my sleep.

Ted Keer, Sep 22, 2006, NYC

These are the same people that are storing rockets for Hezbollah in their children’s bedrooms and other parts to their homes among the many other ways they support people actively working to kill Americans.

If there is an easy way to win a war and only aim our bullets at evil men then I have never heard of it.

Nor would I have taken it that way.

Not that I'm referring to LW.

I'm just sayin'

And I do hope you know when I am mentioning some of the 'Looney Tunes' around here, I am in no way referring to you.

L W

Dan - You write, "Does this sound extreme or unattainable? As Dr. Lewis explained (very effectively) Wednesday night, the United States did exactly these things in Japan after World War II. The military forced Japan to completely destroy all elements of the death worshiping Shinto religion in their government. This was enforced, and Japan grew very quickly into an American ally."

Thank you. This is exactly what I've been writing here. US victories over Nazi Germany and Shintoist Japan are the model of doing it right: Identify the conditions of victory, and do no more and no less than necessary to get there.

What we don't need are "Objectivists" who do their utmost to reify the altruist's caricature of Randians as reincarnation of Ol' Dzhenghis and Attilla the Hun (and yes, we've seen some of them right here on SOLO.) Rational, contextual self-interest, guys.

> a new one I've never heard before "floating concrete"

It's my own term [Phil takes a small bow and acknowledges overwhelming applause]. I thought it was clear from the rest of the post: it's a concrete which doesn't support or isn't tethered to the abstraction which it purports to illustrate.

(Fred, if you are still confused, you can read up further on it in Introduction to Philemology. I'll even autograph it for you.)

> Write posts where no one knows wtf you are babbling about

My mistake for writing in English and assuming familiarity with Objectivism.

Step 4: Write posts where no one knows wtf you are babbling about but sprinkle it liberally with Objectivist jargon like "rationalistic" or "floating context-free ABSOLUTE" or "floating abstraction" - and a new one I've never heard before "floating concrete".

I think an example of a floating concrete might be a jihadi baby tethered to a line and bobbing around like a balloon - or something.

P.S.: Mick on the other hand is an example of a brain set in concrete.

I don’t know what’s more chilling, those pictures, or the cold blood running through Mr. Mullen’s veins.

> When American bombs rightfully destroy these children’s homes their Jihadi parents are to blame for their death not the pilots. [picture of a first infant wearing fake suicide belt and a second child carring a placard advocating death for insulting Mohammed]

Context, Greg.

See paras. 5 and 6 in my original post which started this thread...and which provide relevant context which you omit.

The above quote from Greg is another example of a RATIONALISTIC STATEMENT, one in which a sweeping too broad principle in-every-case principle is offered as a floating context-free ABSOLUTE which:

a) doesn't grasp that there are specific circumstances in which it applies and in which it does not (e.g., collateral damage, no other way)...and misapplies my Hostage Principle,

b) sweeps away contemptuously the need to provide details, concretes, instances...or to address the detailed discussion which has already been going on for many posts.

[ There is another mistake, which combines a floating abstraction with a floating concrete and an inaccurate label: i) using a single adjective "rightfully" and an inaccurate throwaway line "jihadis' along with ii) using a picture as an argument -- one pictures of a baby whose parents support jihadis a opposed to -being- jihadis & a second picture which doesn't indicate even that -- in lieu of providing the details of what is necessary or successful in war-fighting and detailing the circumstances...exactly the point at issue. ]

....

The above discussion is partly for the benefit of Fred, who doesn't seem to recognize rationalism when it comes from his 'side', even though he presumably took "Understanding Objectivism" years ago.

Dr. Lewis delivered a fantastic lecture on the Islamic threat this past Wednesday at an event sponsored by the NYU Objectivist club.  Dr. Lewis made two very important points that evening: 1) We must push for the unconditional surrender of the Islamic Totalitarian state in Iran, and 2) Once they surrender we must demand the separation of religion and state in Iran.  This point #2 concretized this issue for me more clearly than ever before. 

We must tell the Iranians: "Islam has no place in your government."  No elements of Islamic law can be permitted in their government.  The teaching of militant Islam must be shut down, by force if necessary (this may require the destruction of schools and mosques).  The flow of public money to Islam must be stopped completely.  Religious leaders and teachers of militant Islam will not be allowed to participate in any new Iranian government.  The private practice of Islam will be left alone, but all elements of Islam in the government must be destroyed.

Does this sound extreme or unattainable?  As Dr. Lewis explained (very effectively) Wednesday night, the United States did exactly these things in Japan after World War II.  The military forced Japan to completely destroy all elements of the death worshiping Shinto religion in their government.  This was enforced, and Japan grew very quickly into an American ally.

I can't recommend Dr. Lewis's lecture enough.  He stayed to answer questions until we were forced to leave by university staff.  He then accompanied a group of us to a restaurant, to eat and drink coffee and talk into the wee hours of the morning.  I got a very positive impression of the man as a human being.  I’m going to have to have to subscribe to TOS to read his articles.

 
--Dan Edge

When American bombs rightfully destroy these children’s homes their Jihadi parents are to blame for their death not the pilots.

You can always tell when your opponent no longer has an argument when the worst thing he can throw in your face is that you are a "baby killer". Next, you get pictures of dead babies. "See what you did!".

Dead baby animals are also very effective.

"Pro-lifers" and PETAs use it very effectively - and apparently TASsels and OLLies like it so much they have eagerly embraced it.

Not that I'm referring to LW.

I'm just sayin'.

Step 3: Manufacture some big word to use as an excuse, such as "rationalist", when someone can identify the essentials of your argument.

"I'm Phil, therefore my arguments are sui generis and unlike anyone else's"

Come back when you can stay longer Bill; your comic relief is *essential* around here since Rex isn't posting any more. Remember now, don't forget to check under your bed every night, a person can never tell when one of those rabid 2 yr old Islamic Jihadists are going to be lurking around armed with their very own AK.

> that would be essentialization

The rationalist who disdains to concretize or make distinctions between things which are not alike always can manufacture some big word to use as an excuse.

"Oh, I'm a good Objectivist. I was just essentializing".

Thanks Bill,

As I said, my frustration was not solely with this thread or the posters hereon, so I did not "name names." Like I said, I am happy to accept the first two conditions that you had laid out on whether Biddle could be justified. And I'll repeat that comparing Coates to libertarians is like comparing chiropractors to creationists. If you have an argument against one then it can be made without tarring one target with a brush you should reserve for the other. Perhaps Coates has a bad reputation here. I don't care about his reputation here, I care about his words here.

My anger is at seeing what could be a great "mental transit system" being used for personal invective, pointless misunderstanding, at seeing personal disagreement couched in the terms of philosophical schism, at seeing the replacement of argument with jargon, at seeing a failure to try to understand the other person's argument (which I'll admit might be weak or even not exist) and at seeing so many other needless and often self-erected barriers to communication in what should be, if not a forum for orthodoxy, at least a means of testing the strongest of our own arguments against the strongest of our opponents'. I have to visit more than three sites now and search through dross to find the gold I was reading on one a decade ago.

Perhaps I am simply foolish in expecting something for free? Maybe I haven't yet found the right link? Or the forum where the real Objectivists hang out?

I appreciate your attention, and I'll extend the same remark to James Valliant with whom I had a similar discussion on another recent thread. I don't need to quote Rand to know I'm wasting my time when posters on one list start reporting on what someone said on another list like gossiping pre-adolescent girls.

The value of what I have to say either stands on its own or it doesn't.

Ted Keer, Sep 22, 2006, NYC

I second Chris and bow out for now on this subject. I've said all that I want to say. I've seen these discussions too often and they are always the same. Advocates of total war (along the lines of the Brook / Epstein article) are called "warmongers", "genocidal maniacs", "kill-them-all-freaks", etc. And all without any supporting moral argumentation.

Its an important subject and a good one for spirited debate. But I'll join in when the subject arises again. So for now, I'll throw the floor back to those minions of libertarian influenced pussification.

" But when I come and post at length on this website, I do so to get ARGUMENT..."

The arguments have already been made; in this thread and in others at this forum. If you still believe that Biddell's 5 points represent a "kill-them-all and let-god-sort-them-out" type of argument, then what more can be said.

As for clumping all those different people and libertarians and leftists together, well that's because they all demonstrate the same cognitive errors. But that would be essentialization. One of the very thinking tools that all those people I mentioned lack. But hey, there I go again.

Maybe its time to go argue with the homeless.

I'm glad to see that my pupils are keeping up with my work on every website.

Mike and Fred, such loyalty must be rewarded and pretty soon I'm going to have to withdraw some or all the mean-spirited things I've said about the pair of you

Step 2: Be overly concerned with what other people think of you.

(As in, "Why can't Objectivists learn to get along and play nice. Ohmygod what will they think of us if they see us fighting all the time")*

*One wonders how this country ever got off the ground considering how much The Founders bitterly fought amongst themselves.

Phil wrote on OL:

On some level, conscious or subconscious and from childhood, Biddle and many others at ARI and SP are deeply and profoundly alienated from human beings in the world at large.

This is an interesting point, Phil. From now on, I will follow your example and try not to alienate myself from other human beings. Step one: make sure I inform all who disagree with me that I am their intellectual superior.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

"In lightening-swift pre-dawn raids today, AFT (Alcohol, Fire & Tobacco) forces led, at gunpoint, by Janet Reno, swept into Manhattan and took Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Hugo Chavez, Jacques Chirac, and several other so-called 'heads of state' into protective custody," said Senator Hillary Clinton, "in the name of the Provisional Junta to Restore the End of History."

"These dictators and miscreants will be held for trial by a provisional (in honor to Steve Irwin, we are considering the name 'Crocodile') court to be chaired by Lindsay Perigo, whose foreign birth ensures his objectivity, and consisting of Messers. Perigo, Weiss, Visconti, Hsieh, and Roy Bean, (deceased) who will find the seized 'heads of state' guilty, as pre-arranged, and they will be hung from the nearest bridge," said Clinton, winking, "probably from that bridge my philandering slut of a husband built to the 21st Century, if we can find it." "We are looking," Clinton added, "for four more bodies to sit on the court, their actual opinions won't matter, we just want to maintain the proper formalities."

If I awoke to the above news, I would be quite a joyous man. But when I come and post at length on this website, I do so to get ARGUMENT, not ad hominem invective and chest beating. Lumping Coates in with obvious non-objectivist provocateurs, resorting to one-word jargon based ejectives, and saying that those with whom one disagrees are morally beneath the effort of a well-reasoned refutation is simply fruitless, unless one's goal is to give informal visitors to this (and any other) self named Objectivist website prima facie proof that Randians are self-absorbed, self-referential and inbred wackos.

The problem is apparently inherent to any unmoderated website. I have been away from on-line Objectivism for a while. I remember the "golden age" when one could read Cathcart, Bidinotto, Dwyer, Reed, Sciabarra, Bissell, Palin, Elliot & others putting forth reasoned positions and reacting to each other in an effort either to come to agreement or an uderstanding of their difference in principle. I lament the fact that such is now almost impossible, the effect here is more like that of graffiti taggers overwriting each other in ever more grandiose boasts than of a correspondence between scholars.

Much of what goes on here (not to denigrate or only pick out this site) is waste, many here might find agreement or enlightenment were there not so much rhetorical fog. As a "kill-them-all and let-god-sort-them-out" hawk myself emotionally, I don't find the strenth of my emotions to be a proof of the validity of my arguments.

Arguing with homeless people is getting to seem like a better investment of my time.

Ted Keer, Sep 21, 2006, NYC

P.S. This post was written in pique at response to many statements on both this thread and others, and is not meant as an attack on any specific posts below.

Mr. V's style of posting and thinking is to blur together different things -- my views, Kenny's, a laundry list of people he dislikes at TOC -- not all of whom have even given a view on military issues, and "libertarians" and leftists. As if the positions of all five people or groups were identical. Then he flings floating abstractions about like "total war" or Just War Theory as if each only meant one thing and the first were a synonym for good and the second for evil or improper. Then he throws together four or five different subjects in one post, each of which would require space and examples for discussion. Not much in the way of concretization of the sweeping terms .... a classic example of rationalism and the contempt for specifics and close reasoning. As if slapping on the label "libertarian" for anything he doesn't like were a substitute for careful, reasoned analysis.

This is not about his conclusions, but his thinking method is slovenly and, Linz is right, very "kassy".

Again, weather[sic] it is necessary to bomb every mosque and madrassah is a tactical question not a moral one. Weather[sic] or not to drop nukes is a tactical question not a moral one. Weather[sic] or not to kill a million or a *hundered million* will be a question of tactics made possibly relevant because the muslims will be so emboldened by leftist and *libertarian* pussies that it may take that kind of body count to discredit Jihad

So far your extreme ignorance has been the highlight of my day.

L W

Linz,

Such praise! Thanks. And thanks for creating one of the best O'ist forums on the net. Its got a crazy cast of characters to be sure. But that's what makes it special.

Ted, compare the comments of Diana, Fred W, Linz, James V, etc with the posts of Phil Coates or LWHall or Kenny or, you get the point. Those who are strong on the libertarianism or who still cling to libertarian premises are always soft on war. As I said its almost an axiom. Why?

Nicholas Provenzo said something about Robert Tracinski and Jack Wakeland (believe it or not) that I think applies here. In a post on his blog earlier this year he really took Tracinski and Wakeland to task (more Wakeland actually) for one of their typical "Objectivists shouldn't be too hard on Bush articles" (he even called TIA the "Fox News of Objectivism"). What's important is that in his criticism he used an expression that hits the nail on the head. He said that Wakeland (and Trancinski) were "not fully comfortable with *egoism*". Now, if that is true of Tracinski and Wakeland (which I am not sure that it is) can you imagine how much truer that is for an Ed Hudgins, or a David Kelly or a Chris Scaiabarra, or a Solo libertarian.

All of these arguments that suggest that total war (in whatever form it may take; ie Biddel's 5 points) is in some way immoral are reflections of a failure to understand Ayn Rand's moral defense of egoism. They also show a failure of applying that moral code to warfare. I've seen this too often and too consistently; just compare these two treatments of Just War Theory:

1) Brook and Epstein:

http://www.theobjectivestandar...

2)Patrick Stephens treatment of Just War for TOC, oh excuse me, TAS:

http://www.objectivistcenter.o...

How many differences can you find? Stephens never even brings in the subject of altruism!! He accepts the restrictions of Just War Theory and tries to work w/in it. This shows a failure to undestand the underlying *moral* issues at their deepest levels.

Again, weather it is necessary to bomb every mosque and madrassah is a tactical question not a moral one. Weather or not to drop nukes is a tactical question not a moral one. Weather or not to kill a million or a *hundered million* will be a question of tactics made possibly relevant because the muslims will be so emboldened by leftist and *libertarian* pussies that it may take that kind of body count to discredit Jihad.

But these will not be moral questions *if* you understand egoism and its relation to a proper self defense.

Usually, in 'net parlance, the phrase "My last post" contains an implicit qualifier everyone recognizes to be there: "for now."

Yes. it's great to see another tough guy who can hurl invectives and talk about indiscriminate killing. I say strap some explosives on his ass and send him into a Mosque crowded with women and children. Maybe ha can even give them a lecture on the nature of morals and how this is actually their fault right before he kills them.

L W

Regarding your "some observations" I agree wholeheartedly with your premises 1 & 2, and I don't believe that Phil (whom I believe you may be referring to as having started this post) wouldn't also agree, although I can't speak on his behalf. But what is the purpose of, and to whom are you referring in your assertions 3 & 4 ? Throwing around the word pussy without saying to whom one is applying it might make someone look like a coward. There seem to be three themes going on here. Some non-objectivists are against attacking Iran. Some people would allow for an all out attack, but feel that this is not currently waranted for strategic reasons or is not yet morally acceptible but could be if the situation were clarrified. And some people are throwing verbal bombs about the supposed reticence of other over throwing unncessary or unwarranted bombs. Just saying KASS is not an argument, and I came here for my full five dollars worth. This is not argument, it's just abuse. You snotty nosed malodorous pervert.

Ted

(And yes, that's Monty Python.)

Great to see another KASS & pro-KASS voice here. I despise the "pussies," as you call them, more each day, possibly because right now I'm on air each day & have them literally in my ear. I hope you enjoyed my recent Declaration of War on Appeasement (& its simpering advocates right here. Truly loathsome specimens, all the more so since they masquerade as Objectivists under the umbrellas of KASSless cowards & frords). Anyway, welcome to SOLO! KASS on!

Linz

In this discussion, the accusations of genocide are downright dishonest and deliberately misleading. Its a form of the argument of intimidation; "you cant be serious about using nukes and targeting mosques, that would be genocide!"

First off, a non-essential point but if anyone is guilty of genocide it is the muslim populations themselves. Recently, the locus of such scenes of genocide has been in the Sudan where millions of black Christians and Animists have been slaughtered over the last few decades. Historically, muslims killed an estimated 70 to 80 million Hindus in its conquest and control of India. Also, the Turks slaughtered an estimated million Greeks and Armenians during the early part of the 20th century. Hitler used this as his model for the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Muslims are no strangers to genocide. So keep that in mind when you shed tears for them. (And don't hit me with that "but it was different muslims" crap; different muslims same religion.)

More importantly though, if it were neccessary to wage an all out unrestrained and ruthless war agianst the various muslim hotspots of the world and kill millions if not tens of millions of muslims, such warfare would be conducted for purposes of self defense. Those deaths - the tens of millions of them if neccassary - are the result of the ideas held by the muslims themselves.

Once again, this whole discussion (initiated by a libertarian, who else?) reveals that libertarians and their sympathizers just don't understand the concept of self-defense as applied to nations and warfare. Actually, I can see why. You have to have automatized the process of integration; of a number of higher level abstractions and a large number of related concretes. Libertarians with their corrupted epistemologies more often than not just can't do this. So they usually cry foul with their pussified "slaughter of innocents" arguments. The objections on this thread are yet more examples.

Some thoughts on this thread:

1. The question of bombing all or some mosques and madrassahs is a tactical one. All that a proper morality can say is that *if* it is neccessary for victory - which means neccessary for protecting American lives - than bombing *all* such targets is moral (whether such structures are empty or packed full of people).

2. Using nuclear weapons is also a tactical question. All that philosophy can say is that *if* it is neccessary to use them for achieving victory at the least cost of lives and treasure for America, then it is moral to use them. Here is the best article I have read on the subject (from the awesome John Lewis):

http://www.the-undercurrent.co...

3. It never fails that libertarians or those mushy Objectivsts that come to Objectivism from a libertarian background are always pussies when it comes to war. I don't know if it is because of the subjectivism inherent in libertarian cognitive methodology or if its a general uncomfortableness with egoism or just plain stupidity. But on every Objectivist forum I have been on, its almost axiomatic that those resisting total war the most and professing all this goddamn concern for "innocents" are libertarians. I used to get stomach aches when reading such crap but now I just get bored.

4. The important things to take form Craig Biddles posts are that America should attack its enemies with ferocity and a sense of moral rightousness and should be prepared to do whatever is neccessary to achieve total victory. The specifics of his proposal are secondary. His is a welcome voice of KASS in a desert of cowardess and moral weakness. But then KASS is something that libertarians and pussie ersatz "Objectivists" would never understand.

One very important distinction between myself and Mr. Biddle; I specifially stated the clerics, and did not include the innocents while they were in the Mosques. In fact I separated them(clerics) from those they would have pay the price in their stead.

L W

Ted,

I agree. I would restrict it to the ciding of genes, which is clearly the origin and the original meaning. I.e. killing of a race. But both American Heritage and Random had the same (bad) definition.

Google it.

Jeff,

I take no exception to your own arguments, but where did you get this package-deal of a definition? You quoted:
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
Membership in a political group is voluntary and, well, political. Membership in a nationality, race, or ethnic group is a matter of birth, not choice. The combinatory root geno- comes from the same IE (Indo-European) root, *gen- meaning "to give birth" and its derivatives dealing with family relationships. Genus, generation, genetic, kin, man-kind, etc., are all from the same. Use of this term to describe the possibly just extermination of muslims gives moral clout to the idea that doing so would be racist.

Ted

Last post? We'll see...

Before I leave, I retract my use of "Nazi." Not genocide. Biddle proposed the extermination of an entire cultural group.

I hope hitting the mule between the ears with my 2 by 4 gets his attention.

I enjoyed my SOLO posts and posters and generally being here. I liked being engaged.

--Brant
last post

"I believe we must start targeting the ones who are really behind this craziness and that is the clerics who preach to these people that we should be destroyed. The same ones who all too often sit safe in their Mosques and send others out to attack us and our allies. I believe we should attack them in their places of worship and make them understand that there is no safe place for them to hide, and that we view their rhetoric and rebel rousing as an act of war against the U. S.. No more hiding behind the innocent and making them pay the price for their(the cleric's) fanaticism. If they want to die as Martyrs then I am all for obliging them." LW Hall (Quoting himself)

Now we know. LW Hall is Craig Biddle.

Er... no, it doesn't mean "genocide."

I'm with Yaron -- going after all of these sites would hardly seem necessary -- and, like Peikoff, I am wary of armchair strategery -- but such sites are perfectly appropriate targets, in my view.

Brant,

I emphatically deny this. First, I do not agree with Craig that we should target ALL mosques and madrassas. I agree with Phil that this is impractical, unnecessary, and inappropriately unselective.

That said...

Genocide:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

The mullahs of Iran constitute a political group, but that component doesn't belong in the definition.

I do favor taking out those individuals. They are preaching for the destruction of infidels, of whom I am definitely one. Their preaching is heeded and I don't think this is a situation in which free speech principles apply. (I.e. I don't blame only followers who choose to act on those those expressed views.)

If you completely destroy Iran's military materiel, and even their military personnel and other government leaders, the jihad would continue so long as the mullahs continue to help create the jihadists.

How do you propose to solve this real-world problem?

If you think the mullahs are innocent, I suggest you spend more time listening to the news and reading different newspapers. A broad enough selection to get a balanced view. It isn't difficult to get their actual views and actions, however. They make no effort to disguise them.

Do you think Salman Rushdie should have had to live in hiding half his adult life? Do you think it's ok that Hezbollah continues to exist and rain destruction on Israel? Do you think it's ok that the Iranian government, supported by (and in many cases the very same people as 'the government') should be allowed to continue threatening the safety of U.S. citizens? Do you think it's ok that the mullahs kidnapped 50 Americans and held them for over a year and a half, and have gotten only bolder since there were no consequences 27 years ago?

Why is it that being an official member of the government makes one a legitimate target, but being an unofficial member you get a free pass? (Remember, this is a totalitarian Islamic state, whose policies are set by the mullahs.)

You have many times said we should invade Iran, scour the country for nuclear weapons, then withdraw. What will you do when five years later, they have completely rebuilt all that? Do you think ideas matter at all? The mullahs are driving policy. Do you think we should just debate them?

Craig Biddle and Jeff Perren called for it. That's what targeting all mosques and religious schools means.

--Brant

No one has called for genocide -- that's just it, Brant, and it was you who started the authority swinging. Sheesh.

You aren't going to save NYC by targeting civilians.

--Brant

I do not blame all Muslims for terrorism. Where are you reading this Kenny?

Wm

You can cool it too. If posters here cut out the genocide shit I'll cut out the Nazi shit. Remember, that's what the Nazis did. I am also a decorated Vietnam comabat vet. My uncle neraly died fighting the Japanese and still has shapnel in his body. Sheesh.

--Brant

I meant mine as in "American" not in mine personally. I am truly asking this honestly: what value is Muslim culture and history? Is the proper response to terrorist acts by Muslim/Islamic-fith to learn about the culture they come from? Should my Grandfather and his brothers have studied Japanese and German culture before freeing France and raising the flag at Iwo Jima

Wm

If I may be allowed to quote myself from a post I made on John Gagnon's thread titled Poverty and Terrorism: Debunking the Myth dated 07/16, You will see I made some of the same arguments for targeting Islamic Clerics who try to incite violence against the U.S.. You can also note I specifically mention not allowing them to hide behind the innocent.

There is one other thing I want to say, and it is something we as a nation probably will never do due to the pressurer of not offending the Islamic community in this country, and which would probably bring about even more reprisals on our own people, yet I believe these things(attacks) are inevitable any way because of the fanatic's view that we are Satan incarnate.

I believe we must start targeting the ones who are really behind this craziness and that is the clerics who preach to these people that we should be destroyed. The same ones who all too often sit safe in their Mosques and send others out to attack us and our allies. I believe we should attack them in their places of worship and make them understand that there is no safe place for them to hide, and that we view their rhetoric and rebel rousing as an act of war against the U. S.. No more hiding behind the innocent and making them pay the price for their(the cleric's) fanaticism. If they want to die as Martyrs then I am all for obliging them.

Poverty and Terrorism

L W

P.S. If Mark Dow reads this, my apologies for missing his question in the post above the one I made.

Your skyscrapers? Did you own them? If not, how can they be yours unless you believe in collective ownership?

Those who attacked the World Trade Centre were terrorists. You cannot tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush any more than you can blame all Catholics for the IRA atrocities in Britain.

Pathetic!

I don't give a damn about Muslim history and culture. I just want them to leave my skyscrapers alone.

Wm

"Craig Biddle's habit of talking about principles without adequate attention to the application on-the-ground of those principles is something that he needs to work on."

That is an under-statement. Craig Biddle needs to throw away his bigotry and gain a greater understanding of Muslim history and culture.

In the Q&A after the latest Yaron Brook presentation in Irvine, he said that taking out all the madrassas and mosques in Iran would be moral if necessary - but it probably isn't necessary, because just taking out those in the "holy city" of Qom could be an entirely adequate demonstration of the failure of the mullahs' ideology.

Craig Biddle's habit of talking about principles without adequate attention to the application on-the-ground of those principles is something that he needs to work on.

You Write:

"My view is that we are MORALLY REQUIRED TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. And I would be surprised if BB or H think any differently. That doesn't mean one supports irrational military or strategic proposals which don't actually target threats."
---------

Are you in principle opposed to the specific targeting of civillians in war?  If it could be demonstrated that targeting Iranian civillians would be effective in preventing future terrorist attacks on our country, would you support it?

Or is your position that targeting civillians is an ineffective tatic in war?  If this is your position, I have to disagree, based on historical precedent.

--Dan Edge

Don't get me wrong, Brant -- I deeply honor your service and appreciate the fact that combat is an incommunicable experience. It is also true that, as a man, I will never know the experience of a pregnancy taking over my body. However, I am not thereby disqualified from discussing either war or abortion.

War is pretty damn awful.

So is the prospect of New York City becoming a pile of glowing rubble.

Cool it with that "Nazi" shit.

I happen to know some who actually fought the Nazis who share this same perspective on the current situation.

I also have a very dear friend who is a decorated Vietnam combat vet, and one of my uncles (all of whom were in the service) nearly died in Korea. You'd call these guys "Nazis," I think.

No, I haven't "killed anyone" --- but, using rhetorical tactics like that, I wouldn't be calling anyone else an "idiot," if I were you.

Lance. You are an idiot.

--Brant

Jeff, I think your brain must lack some crucial structure. If so I absolve you from your statements.

--Brant

Killing, fighting and destroying is terribly difficult emotionally. It's not something to volunteer for. But when your values are under attack (your family, your friends, your country) you have to fight to keep them or they will die.

To surrender, hoping to avoid the (real) emotional trauma that comes from the fight, is to make your consciousness the primary. And we all know that reality must be the primary. And anyway, to surrender will only lead to much greater emotional pain down the line.

Now that in disgust I'm leaving most associations with Objectivism behind--I'm almost done posting on SOLO P for instance--I might as well announce that I won't be writing any book called "Ayn Rand In America." Not when that means explaining how some "Objectivists" have de-evolved into war-mongering Nazis.

--Brant

Brant,

Valid questions.

I meant, though I'm not certain it's true, that targeting (some) things often requires a spotter on the ground. Also, even after taking out buildings and other structures, with people, etc that in order to complete the task (not of killing but of eliminating the threat and pacifying the country -- required for our long term self defense) you need to have people present in the place.

I don't think it's enough to just bomb stuff from far up. I hope it is, but I suspect it is not. Anyway, that's not really the main issue.

Your question about killing people, I leave (partly) aside for now. Suffice to say, I wouldn't have any problem with doing it personally. In fact, I would prefer it. I don't like relying on others to get a thing I want done done. That hardly makes me -- or anyone else -- a Nazi. Police officers are not, solidiers are not. Physicians are not.

A reluctance to do so is a healthy thing. The refusal to do so in self-defense or for other valid purposes is not.

"Boots on the ground," Jeff? You want American soldiers to go into mosques and madrassahs and machinegun clerics and students? Would you like to tag along and fire off a few rounds yourself? Ever kill anybody? I'm glad I no longer call myself an "Objectivist;" I might as well call myself a Nazi then explain why I am not THAT kind of Nazi.

Linz: How do you feel about this? Sick? Disgusted? Angry? Dumbfounded? I'm curious for it seems to be KASS. I'm not KASS, of course. I'm an intelligent, knowledgeable, thinking, concerned, individualist human being. KASS is stupid, ignorant, unthinking, collectivist concerned with--with KASS!

--Brant
Kick KASS

"In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout "Kill the disbelievers" and "Death to America." We should aim to kill all of them. And the best way to do this is to bomb the Iranian mosques and madrassahs when they are most likely to be occupied. Were we to do so, the practice of taking the Koran seriously and warring with America would suddenly become unattractive, and most (if not all) of the remaining Islamists in the world would quickly become mere Muslims, akin to the mere Christians next door." Craig Biddle, TOS Principles in Practice Blog, Sept 19, 2006

I like this part best: "Were we to do so, the practice of taking the Koran seriously and warring with America would suddenly become unattractive..."

By all means, jihadist activity should be made very unattractive. I have more hope for the U.S. to do something more than half-hearted, but I couldn't criticise Craig for despairing.

I suspect it's not possible to do all this from the air without boots on the ground, but I leave that debate to the military experts.

...clarified his 5 step plan on TOS. Check it out

what the difference between the average(whatever the hell that is) Muslim and a Islamist would be in that sense.(but maybe that's what you were implying.)

L W

Well, a good start would be where they congregate to knock their heads on the ground and memorize the Koran, don't you agree?

he[Biddle] is not advocating bombing the general population

Perhaps he's not,but the problem I see with what you are saying in this statement Fred falls directly in line with my last response to you concerning his use of the term "Islamists"

When I asked how he was going to sort them out from the run-of-the-mill Muslim, Chris C. made a reasoned reply of starting where they seem to be firmly entrenched; i.e. areas of government where they can be more readily identified.

Mr. Biddle's use of "Islamist" as a criteria for those to be eliminated is just ambiguous enough to leave open the possibility for a huge amount of subjectivie interpretation as to who indeed fits this mold. When a person speaks of dealing death on these large of scales it would be helpful if the means for identification were more fleshed out.

L W

"Obviously if I praise anything you did, you should rethink it."

Ok, Phil. Even though I thorougly disapprove of your immoral and impractical campaign against SOLOists, et al, I gotta give you that one.

That was really funny.

Would you change your mind about Biddle's position if bombing the mosques and madrassas killed few if any of those Iranians "where they are predominantly young, unemployed, oppressed by religious police and -hate- their regime...as has been reported." Note that vs. some other proposals on the table from various people (even OLLies), he is not advocating bombing the general population. I haven't discussed this with Craig but perhaps he's also mindful of your concern about the potential for regime change among those who oppose the theocracy.

I'm just suggesting, along with Boaz and some others, that you were a little quick to over-react given your general support of TOS, especially Prof Lewis' article about Sherman, the bombing of Hiroshima, etc. etc.

You'd better. Obviously if I praise anything you did, you should rethink it.

Private Phile wrote:

Excellent, carefully reasoned post, Chris.

I knew you still had it in you.

Uh, oh. Thanks a lot, blouse. I'll be going and checking some premises now.

I've learned my lesson. Someone on OL took me literally. If MSK hadn't corrected him I would have had to sign up over there to.

--Brant

Excellent, carefully reasoned post, Chris.

I knew you still had it in you.

Fred, you raise important questions re what about those -other- targets in other wars. But I'm not an expert on all of these (and which ones were exact parallels). What I'm talking about, and started this thread only to discuss is -this- wipe out all mosques and madrasa proposal -now- by Mr. Biddle.

1. I haven't read up on WWII or thought through all the military strategies and targeting decisions. I don't know enough specifically about Dresden and Tokyo to give an opinion (and, no, I won't take your summary as definitive, should you make one). On Hiroshima, I'm just going to give my -impression- from my knowledge of history so please don't hold me to it:

The Japanese leaders were fanatics and were under the impression they could resist an invasion of the home islands. Hiroshima broke their will and caused fewer deaths, shortened the war. And there wasn't any other clear way to do that (which is not the case today with regard to finding and taking out nukes, which also wasn't the problem in Japan). So it was unavoidable. [ Whether Nagasaki was needed or if they were just about to surrender after Hiroshima is debated in hindsight. Obviously, if I'm an American President and there are ready to surrender after H. I don't drop another nuclear weapon on another city until I can assess that. ]

2. John Lewis's superb article in "The Objective Standard" [[ I disagree with Biddle on the current topic, but I can recommend his publication so far...not every article, but it has had a number of -excellent articles in the first two issues ]] shows why Sherman's march was not intended to kill civilians but to destroy infrastructure and supply, crippling the South's ability to wage war.

Which is exactly what the purpose of military action, bombing, special forces should be if we have to go to war with Iran: i) find and destroy their nuclear installations, factories, supply lines, ii) cripple their infrastructure (bridges, ports, rail lines...as in WWII) so they can't continue their war.

And also: topple their regime by killing their main leaders and supplying arms and special forces aid to the revolutionaries inside the country.

No need to bomb thousands of mosques and madrasas there...

Another difference between the Civil War and WWII vs. Iran is that there is only a need to "demoralize" the population when the population is on the side of our enemy. That's certainly not the case in Iran where they are predominantly young, unemployed, oppressed by religious police and -hate- their regime...as has been reported.

....
From Lewis's article:

"It was the southern leaders who ordered a policy of systematically burning the South, in order to starve Sherman's army and win the propaganda war...Sherman continued to follow this policy toward noncombatants and their property...attacking any who resisted but sparing those who opened their doors to him...he saw rebel cavalry burning supplies in the field. In response, Sherman ordered buildings in the area burned, and...he told the citizens that if theyh made any attempt to burn supplies on their route, he would execute his orders 'for the general devastation'."

Makes sense to me.

I should mention that I don't endorse Plan Bissell despite its KASS flavor, or its virtual identical twin of HPO lore, Plan Speicher. The whole idea of nukes is not to have to use them except basically as some kind of last resort. The Japan situation was getting so intolerable that it was the only real good option left. Turning a place into a radioactive wasteland is pretty damn ugly; that's probably my major stomach-revulsion to the idea of using them more than very sparingly. A nuke war means more radioactive spots on the planet, and whatever other fallout. It's pretty much been that fear that has left nukes un-used in the nuclear age. And there's something in the symbolism of a mushroom cloud that has "last resort" written all over it. The fact of lots of people being killed by one bomb doesn't really enter into it, when the alternative is lots of people being killed by lots of smaller bombs.

But let's say that we reject Just War theory. Why avoid up-front use of the nuke option in that case? After all, a nuke is pretty much the best way to inflict heavy damage on the enemy while sparing the soldiers on our side? Basically, I think it comes down to a difference between a sense of benevolence and a sense of duty. The Just-War theory says that we're duty-bound to sacrifice soldiers to spare enemy non-combatants. I see it more in terms of an extended self-interest -- i.e., from rationally benevolent feelings for the non-combatants in enemy territory. Yes, a nuking of Tehran would be most swift and effective, but I think it's a sense of human benevolence that makes a self-interested country willing to undergo the "sacrifice" of some of its own troops. I think even our own troops share that attitude; they know they're undergoing risks that they wouldn't have to undertake with the nuke option, because they themselves have a certain kind of respect for non-combatant life. And I don't think this need be attributed to a higher tendency of "Christian" mentalities amongst troops Of course, in a case like Japan, it's pretty much senseless for all involved not to end it as swiftly as possible. There is context here, and the extent of one's willingness to undergo extra risk to avoid killing non-combatants should be quite limited, not some unlimited intrinsic demand.

Plus, what's the appeal of the 48 hours (or was it 72 hours in the Speicher Plan?)? That seems like hardly enough time for the necessary movements (political and geographic) to take place. I envision the expert military strategists recommending a week.

And, most importantly, there is the question of whether the nuke idea used in this fashion would work in achieving U.S. self-interested objectives. Can we adequately predict what the fallout (in more than one sense) of such a decision could be? We have a past instance to go on -- Japan -- but this one may differ in important ways. And I think the U.S. has achieved the capital and credibility it has had, by not using nukes in warfare since then. Again, the whole idea of stocking nukes is to really strongly not want to have to use them. It's the threat that keeps people in line. The potency of that threat may not be applicable to a death cult like the Iranian leadership. I don't know if that's a recommendation in favor of using them in Iran, or continuing to refrain for now. In this case, the nukes would be used not to deter, but to thoroughly obliterate. I would damn well hope that the Iranian government could be, um, corrected or replaced without going the thorough-obliteration route applied to the whole country's people and infrastructure.

In this context I'd like to bring up how we did things in Afghanistan. Maybe the military experts believe that things wouldn't be so quick and easy in Iran. But we took out the Taliban effectively without the nukes (though we're still' fighting off their remnants . . . don't get me started on the pussy-whipped "rules of engagement" that kept us from taking out a nice big Taliban target a few days back).

Try making it much simpler, Phil. Remember, we're not as smart as you.

Was A-bombing Hiroshima which killed mostly civilians "collateral damage"? How about firebombing Dresden or Tokyo? If the civilians killed were "collateral damage" what was the primary target? I only ask because it is my understanding that the civilians *were* the primary target.

Or how about Sherman burning Atlanta (although he did give notice and allowed the citizens to evacuate first)? Keep in mind that most of what was burned was private homes and businesses, most of them probably having little or nothing directly to do with the Confederate war effort.

Incidentally, I don't think that any of these efforts were intended to get the populations to rise up and overthrow their gov'ts. Their primary purpose was to thoroughly demoralize the population and cause them great suffering. That of course served a military purpose, but it was somewhat indirect as compared to attacking specifically military installations.

(True, Atlanta was a major Confederate supply depot and that can't be overlooked. However he didn't go in and selectively destroy just the installations which were serving the military.)

Oh, but I don't think the "liberal" interviewees were that bad. Actually, I was struck by how generally respectful they were of him. It was also amusing to see Hillary in her "Goldwater for President" cowgirl outfit circa 1964. I guess that was also her "Ayn Rand phase"

And James Carville is always a stitch.

As a matter of history, it made for some interesting contrasts, especially of the "conservatives" of that era vs. today. This was before the "social conservatives" and the "supply siders" had taken over the conservative movement.

> Do you believe a government has the moral right to do everything in its power to protect its citizens? Biddle, Peikoff, and ARI (generally) answer "yes" to this last question. Barbara Branden, Coates, Hudgins, and TAS (generally) answer "no."

Dan, I don't think that's accurate for BB, H, and TAS. It's certainly not in my case.

My view is that we are MORALLY REQUIRED TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. And I would be surprised if BB or H think any differently. That doesn't mean one supports irrational military or strategic proposals which don't actually target threats.

A number of people on this thread are equating two different things:

i) being opposed to indiscriminately bombing all mosques and madrassas.

ii) being unwilling to -ever- kill innocent people as collateral damage or in a hostage sitaution when *we must act* against terrorists or against Iran because of a mortal threat.

I can't make it much simpler than that.

Fred,

It was the interviewees, e.g., interviews with Al Franken, George Will, Hillary Clinton, and James Carville(?!)

Boaz,

Brant, do you see why it's sometimes unfortunately difficult to tell when people in these discussions are being tongue-in-cheek?

James, I'm curious why you thought the HPO documentary on Goldwater was awful. I thought it was pretty good and enjoyed it. I can't say I learned anything significant that I hadn't known before about him, though I was glad to be reminded of how much he opposed the intrusion of religion into "conservative" issues. A number of the interviewed commentators respectfully characterized him as a "libertarian", some even saying that he "became a liberal" in his later years - none of which is true. Goldwater was always a "small gov't/big defense/strongly anti-communist" conservative - and small gov't meant small gov't to him, not a smokescreen for the establishment of a theocracy or anything remotely like the big spending "compassionate Republicanism" of today (at which he would have been horrified).

Incidentally, Ayn Rand explicitly supported him - although she became disillusioned as his campaign progressed. I mention that because of the efforts by some to characterize her as an "isolationist" because of her position during the WWll era. She clearly thought that we had to stand up to the Soviets and build a strong national defense to accomplish it. She was *in total agreement* with Goldwater on that. She especially hailed his famous declaration "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".

TASsels - and other assorted pseudo-Objectivists pussies- take note.

The only way I know of to deal militarily with Iran's nuclear threat effectively and morally is to invade the country, scour it, and leave. Period. Repeat as necessary. "Self defense," whatever you say it is, doesn't justify genocide or gratuitous mayhem. If the US isn't a moral nation it's nothing but crap.

Even using tactical nukes is too problematic.

YOU MUST GET TROOPS IN ON THE GROUND.

What Israel once did to Iraq won't work with Iran. Too complex; too far away.

The U.S. can have no more military interest regarding Iran.

I deeply resent people who don't know what they are talking about regarding how to use the military. The LBJ administration didn't know. This Bush administration didn't and doesn't either. Young men die because of stupidity and ignorance and cultural inertia and elders' power avarice. That's the nature of war. That's several reasons the less of it the better.

Please remember "Project X" in "Atlas Shrugged." Ayn Rand got it right. The good guys didn't bomb the universities.

I no longer think people study Objectivism a la AR. Instead they study Peikoff or just latch on to the philosophy because they think there they'll find a way to justify their preconceptions!

--Brant

To claim, for example, that one is willing to firebomb a hundred thousand people among whom are tens of thousands of innocents so that not a single American soldier who is paid to fight would not even -risk- his life in a tank is lunacy and too stupid to discuss any further.

Oh? Sneaking in some Just War theory there, Phil? Then just say it, damn it, and state what numbers-calculation is appropriate under which America is duty-bound to sacrifice a life in self-defense.

Field Marshall Armchair Rationalistic Military Expert From Thirty Thousand Feet Biddle has ruled out sending in ground troops on "moral" grounds...he doesn't ask or need to know whether finding and bombing underground nuclear facilities without any boots on the ground is actually practical. Which most military men don't think it is.

Those underground facilities must be far enough underground to avoid damage from the biggest bombs we can drop on them, mmmm?

Oh, never mind, it's a matter of finding them first. Hmmm, methinks you may not be thinking cleverly enough. Like HPO's Kolker puts it in his own distinctive way, we need to go lower than our enemies in order to attack them from beneath. Hardly any tactic is too dirty or off-limits (short of that "senseless targetting of non-combatants"), and I suggest we consider going through a list of those before having to resort to sending a single troop in on foot. Let's say we issue an ultimatum that Iran unconditionally turn over the location of its nuclear facilities or we start bombing some of these other things that you've been screaming foul about. Or, better yet, we start targetting every known installation where government officials or their families may be hanging out. They're fair game right from the very beginning, as I pointed out elsewhere.

Shame about Qaddafi's poor little innocent baby daughter, eh?

> Phil seems to be under the misapprehension that Iran's religious establishment and government are somehow distinct. In fact, if not de jure, they are not...Those who can issue fatwas (legally binding religious opinions), hang teenagers for the crime of being homosexual, recruit boys to throw themselves on minefields in exchange for slots in heaven for their families, etc., are not "civilians" [Boaz]

You haven't been doing your reading. This is not true of every cleric. There are fundamentalist, moderate, and liberal ones. Just like there is Sadr and Sistani in Iraq. The reason I know this is I've actually read about respected imams and clerics who argue for greater freedom and against the regime. Are the ones in control regime stooges? Of course. Are the others often suppressed, forced to shut up, exiled to less important mosques or academic positions. Well, DUH.

Does that mean they are all mortal enemies or threats? Or that they are all jihadists or fundamentalists or Islamists? Or that they all speak up?

> Iran, like Lebanon, is a potential ally...At the moment, however, it seems very unlikely that things will change for the better. The reform movement is dead, at once silenced and co-opted by the regime...

How the hell could you possibly know for certain that the reform movement is 'dead' rather than just biding its time? Are you unaware of the articles from people who've visited about the seething caldron of discontent with the regime? Then you go and generalize from an enormous distance about what must be the attitudes of the young over there.... as if you were as much of an instant expert on all the internal goings on inside a dictatorship as Biddle is about military strategy. This, like many other things about what goes on inside a partly or wholly closed society is a subject of debate. Simply because we don't have a free press there, transparency, people free to speak what they are actually thinking and so on. You would think someone who claims an interest in foreign affairs could see this more clearly.

There were people who said the reform movement in 1980's communist bloc was dead or complacent or "coopted" as well.

They learned that human beings do not surrender their resentment of dictatorship or their hunger for freedom so quickly.

No matter their religion.