[sleepyop]

danielshrugged, on Aug 5 2004, 12:19 AM, said:

I see Bush more as an M1 than an M2. However, I am open to arguments on this--so I can't say for sure that I won't vote for Kerry.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I think Bush is more of an M1 as well, which is still dangerous in itself. To me, it seems that if Bush were an M2, he wouldn't be as pragmatic as he is. I've never actually read the Bible, but I've heard that it states that Christianity is the only "true" religion. So , if Bush were really an M2, then he would be able to identify Islamic Fundamentalism as our real enemy instead of terrorism.

However, the only real grounds I have for this view are as follows: Bush is a longtime friend of Evangelist Billy Graham. Billy Graham was supposed to give the Invocation at Bush's Presidential Inauguration but fell ill and sent his son Franklin instead. Shortly after 9/11, Franklin Graham released the following statement, "The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." After this statement made its way into the press, Bush began to distance himself from the younger Graham. (Source: http://www.tolerance...hate.jsp?id=337 )

Now, Graham is certainly an M2, but whether this view on Islamic faith is upheld by other M2s is debatable. (It's just an hypothesis. I'll have to do more research on this issue.)

[Kitty Hawk]

Zeus, on Aug 10 2004, 09:32 AM, said:

Faith, in this context, means "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." (http://dictionary.re...search?q=faith)

Did Bush have enough evidence of WMD (a faulty premise to begin with) to risk American lives in Iraq? [And I feel very strongly about this, by the way. I am from the "bomb it all" school of thought.  What's the point of living in - and/or risking one's life immigrating to - an advanced society if countries culturally stuck in the 12th-15th centuries can take American lives?]

Do you know the answer to that question? None of us know all the evidence that was available to him. We do know that Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds. So he had them without question at one time. That is material evidence. Is it unreasonable to assume he still had them later on? I don't think so. If I'm not mistaken, all Western intelligence agencies, not just the US, thought Hussein still had WMD. Nor is proved even now that he did not---he could very well have shipped them to Syria. Finally, WMD were not the only reason Bush decided to invade Iraq. It was also a source of support for terrorists, with potential to support them more in the future.

Quote

You also say that he was using the best available information.  This is not true. This  is the best available information.

I was clearly referring to having the best available information on whether there were WMD in Iraq---not on whether Iran should be attacked, as your link indicates. Does the ARI or Leonard Peikoff have the best available information on whether there were WMD in Iraq? If you are simply referring to the overall war strategy, it is true Bush didn't consult with ARI or LP. Neither did any other politician in America. So why single out Bush for failing to do so?

[Capitalism Forever]

MisterSwig, on Aug 10 2004, 09:14 PM, said:

You think the war effort is "progressing"? How so?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack Wakeland has pretty much done my replying for me, and much better than I could have. The only point where I disagree with him:

Jack Wakeland, on Aug 11 2004, 04:41 AM, said:

Bush’s foreign policy apparatus is committed to the idea that Iran’s Islamic ‘Republic’ will remain.  They will entertain no foreign policy calculation that supposes that one day the regime will be gone.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What evidence are you basing this on? I believe the administration is definitely contemplating the possibility of the regime being overthrown, if not by America then by the Iranian student movement.

[Jack Wakeland]

Mr. Capitalism,

Do you read The Intellectual Activist? The answer to your question can be found in the dozens superb strategic political essays my good friend Rob Tracinski wrote in 2001 and 2002. In those essays, he and I were of one mind (sometime during 2002, the depth and quality of Rob's analysis of the Bush presidency took off and left me in the dust...not much better than a fan).

It started in the last three weeks of September of 2001. Rob and I spent a LOT of time on the phone talking about what the hell the U.S. can do to protect our skyscrapers, our cities, our civilization, and our lives.

I was especially worried about the idea that destroying two of the world's most gigantic buildings -- and killing thousands of people -- was the greatest possible advertisement for a nuclear terrorist attack. "If you give us the bomb, we'll deliver," the al Qaeda billboard seemed to say.

Of course, one thought going around among our acquaintances was that the United States could fire a couple dozen of our 135 kT warheads -- killing a few million Muslims where THEY work and live. We'd terrorize all 1,000 million of them and put them in awe of ever daring to raise a hand against us again.

"...and then what?" was the question I asked.

Wouldn't some of our Muslim opponents, headless of the danger, rise up against us and renew their little war again? (And there’s the problem of explaining why we killed 1 million friendlies -- fellow victims of Islamic tyranny – along with 1 or 2 million potential hostiles.)

So we came up with a colonial solution.

The United States of America needed to takeover all of the central nations of the Muslim World (from Lebanon to Pakistan, from Uzbekistan to Yemen) and police them of terrorists.

Once we were in there, we could then connect their peoples to the American political/economic machine. We would show them how to begin rapidly liberalizing their governments; how to begin rapidly transforming their stagnant, miserable traditional societies in nations of people who smile. The core of the project would be the forced reform of Islam, the only truly militant, armed religion of the world.

When they were on their way towards a secular, Westernized life, we could take our policemen home because they would be becoming just like us.

How to take them over?

Nations that were friendly enough to -- in earnest -- offer their help in policing up their society's terrorists (e.g., Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Kuwait) would become friends...and we would station thousands of police and paramilitary operatives in each of their nations and work in a cooperative enterprise to destroy the Islamists.

Nations with governments that have been willing to cooperate in the past...but that hesitated to help, were ambivalent, or became withdrawn (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain) -- we'd look into destabilizing their governments and installing "our son-of-a-bitch"...who would then promptly 'invite' an American security force in to guard the government...followed by special forces soldiers and police investigators to police up the country.

Nations who were hostile and closed to us -- openly in an unfinished shooting war (e.g., Iraq and Iran), or threatening us indirectly through their support of Arabist or Islamist terrorism (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, Libya) -- those nations we'd have to invade. (A few countries -- 'failed nations' -- that are so isolated and so impotent that no matter what their hostility, their terrorists can be dealt with using satellites and a few A-Teams...no true invasion is necessary for countries like Sudan, Yemen, and Afghanistan. We can come and go across their borders as we wish, whenever we wish. They aren't nations and never were.)

I thought the top priority in September of 2001 -- if the president were to embark on program of even half this scope -- would be to build up a 500,000 or 1,000,000-man military occupation police force.

And the first sign we'd have that the president was serious would be if we caught word that the U.S. government was hiring and training thousands of new police and military instructors they would need to create this force. The second sign would be if the President banged the patriotic war drum -- stirring the American people's passion for retribution -- stirring up the cultural wave necessary to find that many volunteers for military/paramilitary service.

Neither Rob nor I nor any of our friends or acquaintances ever saw the any signs of a build up for the kind of full-scale war we wanted.

But, to give Mr. Bush his due, our nation is in the middle of a similar kind of plan -- scaled down to a quarter of the size we'd hoped for, and weakened by a watering down of the colonial secularization/liberalization part of the program (Mr. Bush has been trying to hide from the 'sin' of empire building, even while his actions generally point towards...empire building.)

But even without pushing more aggressively into the Muslim World, we are far from lost in this conflict.

The power of the American political machine has been spilling over our borders, creating something that looks very much like a world-wide empire -- a hegemony -- that dwarfs what the British possessed at the height of their influence. It will win most of our battles without us ever having to fire a shot...and it, too, will leave people who smile in its wake.

American influence was working on the Muslim World before 9/11, progressively eating away all the 'piety' of their fanatic religion. And THAT is why al-Qaeda was formed. And THAT is why they attacked us.

-- Jack
_______________________

[argive99]

Jack Wakeland, on Aug 11 2004, 10:46 PM, said:

"...and then what?" was the question I asked.

Wouldn't some of our Muslim opponents, headless of the danger, rise up against us and renew their little war again?  (And there’s the problem of explaining why we killed 1 million friendlies -- fellow victims of Islamic tyranny – along with 1 or 2 million potential hostiles.)
_______________________
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack, I am so glad you wrote this response because colonial occupation is the only way I ever saw at how to deal with the Middle Eastern Threat. At least I know that I was not alone. I too didn't think the 'nuke-em-all' approach could work. As you said, "and then what?" Your plan makes complete sense and I don't think Alexander the Great himself could have laid it out any better.

What kills me is that there is nowhere near the will in this country to execute it to that extent. Bush's watered down version is the best we are going to get. Also, I think in order to be able to afford such an occupation force, the US would need to free up its economy; we'd need to turn towards laisez faire so we could afford it. And here, I feel freeing up the domestic energy industry would do wonders; for our economy and to remove Middle Eastern monopoly power over the world's most important commodity.

And the Libertarians argue for no military intervention. What planet are they on? And the left... The colonial strategy that you outlined is exactly what they fear. If you can stomach it, see the movie 'The Manchurian Candidate' and see how they portray Bush's military strategy (which is a watered down version of yours). They see it as hostile wars of aggression based on an overblown or manufactured threat of terrorism for the sole purpose of inflating the balance sheets of mega corporations.

They wont see the danger until it appears as a mushroom cloud over their heads. And then it will be too late. That movie made me want to cry.

[Capitalism Forever]

Mr. Wakeland,

The strategy you have outlined is by far the best response to Islamism that I have ever heard of. I'll join argive99 in thanking you for posting it.

I didn't really find an answer to my question in your post, though. I was wondering if you had some specific evidence upon which you based your claim that this administration counts on the continuation of Iran's current regime. I agree that President Bush is implementing a scaled-down and weakened version of your strategy--but does this scaled-down version necessarily exclude a regime change in Iran?

[IDC]

Anyone who has access to the Philosophy of Objectivism tapes by Leonard Peikoff should listen to the question period of Lecture 5 in relation to this question. In it Ayn Rand talks about the dangers of religious conservatives and it is very interesting.

[IDC]

jrshep, on Aug 12 2004, 11:12 AM, said:

Do you know what the actual question which she responded to was? And do you have more of her response than what my notes indicate?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The questioner wanted to know whether to vote for a liberal or a conservative Republican. They thought that even though the conservative was the worst philosophically, that they at least wanted free market policies, and that their philosophy wouldn't have much practical effect "in the real world."

Here are some quotes from Miss Rand's reply:
(Buckley = conservative, Moynahan = liberal)

"Anyone who denies the right to abortion can not be a defender of rights, period." (i.e. can not be the government)

"The Conservatives have decided to be Trojan horses [to the Republican Party], the way the Communists were against the Democratic Party..."

"The Conservatives will then take over the Republican Party and we'll just have liberals and conservatives. Which will mean: liberals and fascists, because that is all that the religious conservative group is - they are pure fascists. They might leave you some freedom to work - for a while. It is intellectual freedom that they want to cut, actually many of them advocate censorship. For example their drive against the movies. Now that is the choice between Mr. Buckley and Mr. Moynahan."

"Therefore an 'ally' who comes close to you but starts from opposite premises, is much more dangerous to you than a mild enemy."
(because when they screw up, Capitalism takes the blame)

"I would vote for a liberal over Buckley anytime."

"Buckley is the trojan horse, out to destroy any hope that this country ever had of a return to freedom and actual capitalism, actual free enterprise."

"I'm not going to vote not particularly for Moynahan, but against Buckley - we've got to get him out of there."

"In the real world where you have to look at things long range, which means philosophically, you have to get that conservative out of Washington - he got in by a fluke, get him out by every legitimate means you can."

"Please, in the name of philosophy in the real world, and not philosophy in the hereafter, vote Buckley out. That is my suggestion, my advice, philosophically."


She seems to be really, really against Christian Conservatives in Government...

[MisterSwig]

Jack,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. You present quite a bit of information. Perhaps you can offer your sources on conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you are suggesting that we are winning the "War on Terror", then I will flatly disagree with you. But I have previously provided my main points for why Bush is losing this war. So, I will focus the majority of this post on addressing some of the specific statements you made.

[quote name='Jack Wakeland' date='Aug 10 2004, 09:41 PM']It [MisterSwig's previous post] contains such a comprehensive list of relevant facts – and myths – that I can’t resist commenting on some of them ...[right]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/right]
[/quote]
Would you mind listing the "myths" that you accuse me of conveying? I understand that you think my statement "We have no plan for victory" is specious, and I'll get to that later in the post. But are there other statements I made which you think are false?

[quote name='Jack]When Taliban or ‘Afghan Arabs’ are found regrouping' date=' they’re hit.  In the most recent action (last week), an Afghan Army outpost was attacked by 150 Mujahideen.[/quote']
My position: "The Taliban is regrouping and mounting attacks in Afghanistan.”

Seems in line with your view.

[quote name='Jack]The American special forces presence (14' date='000 strong) and the fledgling Afghan Army are very effective at splintering all opposition to Karzai’s government.[/quote']
According to the linked stories below, rising Taliban attacks are forcing medical aid groups out of Afghanistan. People in the south and east are routinely terrorized by the Taliban. Resistance to Karzai is also a growing problem for getting a national election off the ground. The Taliban are killing people who have registered to vote.

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/02/world/main633437.shtml"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/02/...ain633437.shtml[/url]

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/world/main628455.shtml"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/...ain628455.shtml[/url]

[quote=Jack]What they [the press] never report is that amid the chaos of civil war many Iraqis are finding opportunities to better themselves.[/quote]
So, you are basically accepting the idea that Iraq is in chaos?

You glance over the fact that Iraq is descending into civil war and instead focus on these alleged Iraqis who are "finding opportunities to better themselves."

What does it matter that some Iraqis are "improving" their lives when Islamic totalitarianism is overrunning their country? I'm sure many Germans were "improving" themselves while Nazism was taking over. Hell, there are people in America who are "improving" themselves, meanwhile democracy and socialism eat away at our freedoms.

[quote name='Jack]After decades of stagnation and isolation from the global economy' date=' the Iraqi economy is reconnecting with the world – and they are connecting directly to the most powerful engine of material prosperity in that world: the United States ...[/quote']
Not exactly. Spiritually Iraqis are connecting with Iran, because America has nothing but fluff to offer them, and materially they are connecting with billions of foreign aid dollars. Countries and companies now fear doing business in Iraq because of the terrorists. Many of them have left or are leaving. We have trouble spending the money earmarked for reconstructing Iraq, because many American contractors don't want to work there and Iraqis who help us are targeted by the terrorists.

[quote=Jack]They [Iraqis] know something that some of us here in the United States have trouble seeing.  The United States cannot leave Iraq.  We have no fallback position.  Our nation has got a hold of theirs and it will NOT let go. [/quote]
So why are we giving power to an Iraqi government who could order us to leave? We have clearly said that we would pack up and go away if asked to by an elected Iraqi government.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27950-2004May14.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May14.html[/url]

We don't have a hold on Iraq. We already gave it up. It seems we have given up this entire war. Our brave soldiers are dying because our cowardly politicians don't know what to do--now that Iraq is blowing up in their faces.

Bush wanted Saddam out. That was easy. Give our military a realistic objective and it can be done.

But Bush failed to recognize and consider the real enemy, and what the real enemy would do once Saddam was out. Now the real enemy is taking Iraq away from us. The real enemy is Iran and the Islamic totalitarian movement.

We could take out Iran in the blink of an eye. But Bush is a blind life-hater. He is so busy listening to the angry screams for sacrifice that he has no sight for rational thought. He has no vision for giving the military another realistic objective.

[quote=Jack][Bush's] failure to forcefully articulate his strategy for America’s defense and security is not funny.  It's costing him...and us.[/quote]
My point was that we have no "military objective in the Middle East." If you think our military has a military objective, then I'm all ears. It seems to me, however, that they are currently acting as mere policemen in foreign countries.

The last military objective we had was taking out Saddam's regime. So now what? Sit around and wait for the Iraqis and the surrounding countries to embrace America?

[quote name='Jack]For the past three years' date=' the United States has treaded lightly, showing respect and deference to the government of Iran … This orientation proves that Bush’s foreign policy apparatus is committed to the idea that Iran’s Islamic ‘Republic’ will remain.  They will entertain no foreign policy calculation that supposes that one day the regime will be gone.[/quote']
I tend to agree. But I think this makes Bush the worst president we could possibly have in a war against Islamic totalitarianism. To even consider changing our foreign policy regarding Iran we must change presidents. We must change to a president who doesn't share Bush's respect for religious theocracy--someone who will be prepared to entertain new ideas on how to conduct this war. Someone who will get pressure from the most rational voices on the Right.

[quote=Jack]This charge [that we have no plan for victory] is specious.  George Bush has let his voice get drowned out in the general noise and confusion of America’s political culture, but that does NOT mean he has nothing to say on this ... He has a plan.  The plan is practical.  It will eventually bring about a further expansion of American influence in the world and lead to the world-wide defeat of Islamism ...

George Bush and his people have used the lessons of the Cold War to write a comprehensive plan for the defeat of Islam.  Mr. Bush calls it the “forward strategy of freedom.”[/quote]
I went back and I read Bush's "historic" speech on the matter.

[url="http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2091"]http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2091[/url]

Bush said: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country."

That is rich! Islamic terrorists attack us and somehow it becomes our duty to spread "freedom" and "democracy" throughout the Middle East and the world? And somehow, by doing this, we will stop the march of Islamic totalitarianism?

What the heck do these two terms mean to him, anyway?

Bush's plan is more like a "backward strategy of sacrifice." The "freedom" and "democracy" he is spreading serves as burnt offerings for the angry parasites of militant Islam. Bush is funneling our misguided, dutiful, "stolen-concept" way of life into a third-world sewer system.

Without attacking the real enemy or directly challenging the enemy's ideology, Bush has no plan for victory, and he knows it!

He has an irrational understanding of and faith in "freedom" and "democracy"--whatever that means. He is attempting to pass off his half-baked fantasy as a plan of some kind. He has failed to "articulate" his strategy to the public because it is a bad piece of fiction.

When Bush speaks of spreading "freedom" and "democracy", he means that we will sacrifice our lives for the sake of the whims of the enemy collective. Our soldiers' blood will spill so that the Arab street can vote for an Islamic republic. We must die so that the enemy can have the "freedom" to choose slavery.

Did we win WWII by spreading "freedom" and "democracy?" No. We won by dropping a lot of friggin' bombs on people.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the life of a single American soldier is worth more than the whole of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. That is the kind of moral resolve that needs to be achieved in the minds of the people of this nation, if we are to defeat an enemy as diabolical as militant Islam.

You don't win a war by begging your enemy to embrace your flawed way of life. You win by using overwhelming force upon them and their friends. Then you give the survivors the opportunity to surrender unconditionally and change their ways forever.

And you keep dropping bombs until every last fighter is dead or left with nothing to fight for.

You want to destroy militant Islamists? Then you destroy what they treasure most--their goddamn mosques and holy cities. Let them pray to their great Allah in the rubble of His temples.

[quote=Jack]Morale is falling under a cultural resurgence of the “Vietnam Syndrome” – a symbiotic re-enforcement of self-doubt initiated by Leftists and reinforced by conservatives ...[/quote]
Falling morale is due to the fact that we are losing the war and, as a nation, don't know why. Morale will continue to fall until we figure out why we are losing and start winning.

If you are suggesting that people who think we are losing the war are suffering from some kind of disease, then I disagree completely. I think such people are properly evaluating the facts.

[quote name='Jack][P]lease' date=' don't add to the problem by proclaiming our situation hopeless and advocating (more or less) the immediate withdrawl of American forces from Iraq.[/quote']
I would add to the problem if I acted like we were winning this war. I would add to the problem if I reinforced the false belief that Bush's "plan" provides hope for victory. And I would be adding to the problem if I condoned the ongoing sacrifice of our soldiers to the enemy.

I would not ask a soldier to do something I am unwilling to do myself. And I am unwilling to lay my life on the line for "Iraqi freedom." I would much prefer that our valuable soldiers were not policing the streets of Baghdad, but were in hardened fortresses, launching bombs at Iran and Syria until they surrender unconditionally or become extinct. And it is my firm belief that until this nation is ready to do something like that, we have no moral right to send our military anywhere.

[quote=Jack]If you don't root for American victory who is going to?[/quote]
Wars are not sports games where you "root" for your favorite team to win. Wars are serious matters, and they must be considered seriously.

[quote name='Jack]If you don't show some personal resolve (you don't have to enlist' date=' all you have to do is show some resolve), you'd be pushing back against the gradual encroachment of the "Vietnam Syndrom."[/quote']
I don't believe in the "Vietnam Syndrome." You'll need to prove it to me.

I have more resolve than I know what to do with. I obviously want to see an American victory in the war against Islamic totalitarianism. But I think we will lose this war if we continue sacrificing ourselves to the Afghan and Iraqi people.

We need to pull back and launch some eye-popping bomb strikes. Pulling back is the first step, and I don't care how we do it. Let the world think that we are cowards! Damnit, we are!

We, the cowards, are sending our bravest to a slaughter.

[quote name='Jack]The Army and the Marine Corps have adapted to the ‘battlefield’ (it’s more of a long' date=' drawn-out skirmish) and they’re constantly pioneering new tactics for urban fighting and anti-insurgency warfare.[/quote']
I thought we had evolved beyond the battlefield. Isn't that what the bomb is for? We shouldn't even have to set foot on the Arab streets. We have retreated so far back into the history of military combat it is dispicable.

Our moral resolve to win this war is grinding to a halt. During WW2 we set our minds to developing a war-ending weapon. Now we have many of this weapon sitting in storage, and we are too chicken to use them.

I will not advocate anything less than the use of war-ending weapons upon the enemy. (And by "war-ending" I mean the best weapon that we got.) If the atom bomb won't stop the enemy, do you really think that our "policemen" in the Middle East will? Do you really believe that Bush's wacked-out notion of "freedom" can compete with the Koran and the ideology of militant Islam?

[quote=Jack]Islamism is a very shallow guide for action.  Fanatic allegiance to its religious dogma is – BY FAR – our enemy’s greatest weakness.[/quote]
Islam is one of the great religions of the world. It has served as moral guide for billions of people and whole nations. It is currently guiding the most ruthless and strategic killers of our time. Fanatic allegiance to its religious dogma is what enables the enemy to kill infidels without a second thought.

Militant Islam is lethal because its goal is world domination. This doesn't prevent them from thinking rationally once in awhile. They do take breaks from their praying in order to plan attacks and develop strategies for implementing world domination.

Their greatest weakness is our nuclear arsenal. Let's see how weak they are when their holy cities start evaporating from the face of the earth.

[quote=Jack]... I am convinced that the United States cannot lose this war.  We’d probably win if we did NOTHING but just went about our daily lives.[/quote]
We are losing the war NOW--because we are doing NOTHING about militant Islam.

[quote name='Jack]BEFORE 9/11' date=' BEFORE we started fighting, we were doing serious damage to Islamism without even trying -- that's why the attacked us![/quote']
That's not why they attacked us. They attacked us because they believe in the Koran, they hate infidels and they want to kill us and conquer the world. It's hard for them to conquer the world when America is in the way. So, they have to attack us and bring us to our knees.

Islamism is spreading throughout the United States--and many of the mosques are not exactly pro-America. I think that Islam is doing more damage to us than our mixed-up Americanism is doing to the Middle East.

[quote=Jack]American culture – and the culture of the West generally – is a tangle of contradictory and conflicting elements. [/quote]
Exactly. That is why we are losing the war. We are facing an enemy that has a more consistent morality-driven ideology. And if we aren't careful this country will turn to a more consistent form of religion to compete with Islam.

[quote name='Jack]But each of the elements of the [American] culture was born of an attempt (honest or dishonest) to create a systematic' date=' highly integrated view of the world.[/quote']
"Was" is the key word in that sentence. Now we are a skeptical mess being swept up by a religious janitor.

[quote name='Jack]The mental world of the devout Muslim doesn’t have this depth' date=' not a particle of it.  To use a phrase that is usually a dishonest smear: theirs is a flat, thin, two-dimensional world.[/quote']
You mean a "black and white" world? Where evil must be destroyed at all costs?

I believe you are not properly appreciating the lethality of the enemy. You don't have to be a "sophisticated" New World man in order to understand that terrorizing and killing the enemy is how to win a war.

Also, our enemy isn't exactly "primitive". Iran is developing nukes. And they understand the power of a consistent ideology.

[MisterSwig]

Jack Wakeland, on Aug 11 2004, 10:46 PM, said:

Of course, one thought going around among our acquaintances was that the United States could fire a couple dozen of our 135 kT warheads -- killing a few million Muslims where THEY work and live.  We'd terrorize all 1,000 million of them and put them in awe of ever daring to raise a hand against us again.

"...and then what?" was the question I asked.

Wouldn't some of our Muslim opponents, headless of the danger, rise up against us and renew their little war again?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They would have to be the stupidest people in the world to rise up again. But, if they do, and they are allowed to become a large threat to America, then you find out where they lived and you put another crater in their homeland. Pretty soon the smarter people will realize that they ought to teach their children something other than anti-West ideas and they ought not tolerate such terrorists, for fear of American revenge.

Jack said:

(And there’s the problem of explaining why we killed 1 million friendlies -- fellow victims of Islamic tyranny – along with 1 or 2 million potential hostiles.)

I don't consider that a problem. We say, look, it was either our blood or yours. We chose yours. And if you don't want more of your people to die, you'd better do something about that terrorist group that trains down the street.

Jack said:

[W]e came up with a colonial solution ...

Attempting to colonize the Middle East would result in daily American casualties for decades and decades. The nuclear solution results in the end of the enemy with little or no losses of our own.

If we used our nukes to defend ourselves, then we could take our brave soldiers and use them to actually defend our borders and our homeland from any foreign invaders stupid enough to try to attack us.

[Zeus]

MisterSwig wrote:

Quote

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the life of a single American soldier is worth more than the whole of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. That is the kind of moral resolve that needs to be achieved in the minds of the people of this nation, if we are to defeat an enemy as diabolical as militant Islam.

You don't win a war by begging your enemy to embrace your flawed way of life. You win by using overwhelming force upon them and their friends. Then you give the survivors the opportunity to surrender unconditionally and change their ways forever.

And you keep dropping bombs until every last fighter is dead or left with nothing to fight for.

You want to destroy militant Islamists? Then you destroy what they treasure most--their goddamn mosques and holy cities. Let them pray to their great Allah in the rubble of His temples.

Quote

(Jack) Morale is falling under a cultural resurgence of the “Vietnam Syndrome” – a symbiotic re-enforcement of self-doubt initiated by Leftists and reinforced by conservatives ...

Falling morale is due to the fact that we are losing the war and, as a nation, don't know why. Morale will continue to fall until we figure out why we are losing and start winning.

If you are suggesting that people who think we are losing the war are suffering from some kind of disease, then I disagree completely. I think such people are properly evaluating the facts.

Quote

(Jack)
[P]lease, don't add to the problem by proclaiming our situation hopeless and advocating (more or less) the immediate withdrawl of American forces from Iraq.

I would add to the problem if I acted like we were winning this war. I would add to the problem if I reinforced the false belief that Bush's "plan" provides hope for victory. And I would be adding to the problem if I condoned the ongoing sacrifice of our soldiers to the enemy.

I would not ask a soldier to do something I am unwilling to do myself. And I am unwilling to lay my life on the line for "Iraqi freedom." I would much prefer that our valuable soldiers were not policing the streets of Baghdad, but were in hardened fortresses, launching bombs at Iran and Syria until they surrender unconditionally or become extinct. And it is my firm belief that until this nation is ready to do something like that, we have no moral right to send our military anywhere. [Emphases added.]

The above is essentially my position on America at war. I do not believe we have to colonize anyone per se. I don't see what the problem is here: let us have Dr. Peikoff's arguments and then we can thrash out this issue objectively, i.e., with method.

[Betsy]

IDC, on Aug 12 2004, 11:21 AM, said:

"Please, in the name of philosophy in the real world, and not philosophy in the hereafter, vote Buckley out. That is my suggestion, my advice, philosophically."
She seems to be really, really against Christian Conservatives in Government...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think she was referring to the Old Right -- William F. Buckley's brother James running on the Conservative Party (NOT the Republican Party) ticket for re-election to the Senate against one of the more rational intellectuals in the Old Left.

Quote

In 1970, the Conservatives achieved their most stunning victory when James Buckley, Bill's brother, won his race for United States Senate on their party ticket. There were of course many others who stood up to the liberal Republican machine. Eventually, the Conservative Party, while small, came consistently to provide the margin of victory or defeat for Republicans.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._13/ai_86505632

[IDC]

Betsy, on Aug 12 2004, 11:22 PM, said:

I think she was referring to the Old Right --  William F. Buckley's brother James running on the Conservative Party (NOT the Republican Party) ticket for re-election to the Senate against one of the more rational intellectuals in the Old Left.

OK thanks for that, I didn't realize NY had a Conservative Party quite apart from the Repubs. But I still think it is a pretty similar situation: Bush is a conservative (even though on the Repub ticket) and his opponent has the same kind of policies she listed for Moynahan (nationalized health insurance, centralized economic management). And she said she would vote for the liberal "anytime."

The US was supposed to be a country with intellectual freedom and small government, we all know this. The small government thing is a lost cause ever since the passing of the income tax. All that is left is the intellectual freedom. I know you will ask for the evidence that Bush is a threat to the intellectual freedom, and I can only point to his professed Christianity and what Christians traditionally have done to intellectuals.

[Kitty Hawk]

IDC, on Aug 13 2004, 12:47 AM, said:

OK thanks for that, I didn't realize NY had a Conservative Party quite apart from the Repubs. But I still think it is a pretty similar situation: Bush is a conservative (even though on the Repub ticket) and his opponent has the same kind of policies she listed for Moynahan (nationalized health insurance, centralized economic management). And she said she would vote for the liberal "anytime."<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it should be remembered that Miss Rand said this before McGovern appeared on the scene, i.e., before the liberals sank into complete hatred for America. She voted against McGovern, the liberal, and advised everyone else to do so, as well. It is my understanding that John Kerry worked for the McGovern campaign (correct me if I'm wrong). Miss Rand voted for Nixon, even though he had already imposed wage and price controls on the entire economy, and committed foreign policy blunders as well (with regard to China and Taiwan).

[argive99]

Zeus, on Aug 12 2004, 09:51 PM, said:

The above is essentially my position on America at war.  I do not believe we have to colonize anyone per se.  I don't see what the problem is here: let us have Dr. Peikoff's arguments and then we can thrash out this issue objectively, i.e., with method.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used to be a big fan of the nuclear option but I agree with Jack Wakeland and Robert Trazinsky that the better solution is the colonization of the middle east. Jack described the essence of the plan as the 'forced reform of Islam' and with this I agree. Its not possible to kill a billion moslems. And even if nukes were deployed (and there could be a legitimate use for them even in a colonial plan), there still remains the question of the aftermath. That region needs to be transformed and secularized or it will forever be a threat.

Idon't see it as viable to simply irridiate the whole region, for containment reasons if nothing more. Let me add that I like Jack's strategy as he outlined it but I understand the viewpoint of those who argue for total destruction rather than colinization. I actually would find it helpful it I could complile a mental list of all the possible strategies available, both good and bad. So far, this board has offered 4: total pascifism, agressive nuclear deployment, secular colonialism, and Bush's "Grand Strategy" (which is a watered down version of colonialism). Are there any others? It helps me to know all the strategies that are out there.

[Yes]

IDC, on Aug 12 2004, 12:21 PM, said:

She seems to be really, really against Christian Conservatives in Government...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So am I- for the exact same reasons.

This is very much what continues to make Ayn Rand attractive to me.

[Yes]

Kitty Hawk, on Aug 13 2004, 09:19 AM, said:

I think it should be remembered that Miss Rand said this before McGovern appeared on the scene, i.e., before the liberals sank into complete hatred for America.  She voted against McGovern, the liberal, and advised everyone else to do so, as well.  It is my understanding that John Kerry worked for the McGovern campaign (correct me if I'm wrong).  Miss Rand voted for Nixon, even though he had already imposed wage and price controls on the entire economy, and committed foreign policy blunders as well (with regard to China and Taiwan).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rand appeared to equate McGovern with the Hippies- a valid observation, on her part.

[erik]

I don't think the USA alone could colonize the Middle East. They have around 400 million in that region while the entire US population is $280 million. The #'s just don't add up and its doomed to fail. I think we need to get rid of the welfare state here and open up our borders. Only with a robust economy and a large population will this clash of cultures be won. With a large immigrant population and no welfare state/minimum wage manufacturing would not need to go oversees anymore and the entire economy will benefit from lower prices and more consumers. Its impossible to keep barbarians out as shown by history so closed borders is a bad idea doomed to fail. Security should not be dropped but the majority of people that want into the USA want to be here for a better life, not to be a terrorist. Keeping them out is a bad idea for the long term.

As to the Middle East. What about a blockade. Wouldn't it be easier to put a security net around where the terror cells are and then send in strike teams to wipe them out? That puts us on the offensive instead of the defensive and keeps our troops out of danger until its time to battle. This nation building and other stuff is unnecessary. If you want to build nations I say nuke the heads of the government and then threaten to nuke em again until you get the government you want. The loss of life would be less and the point would be made much faster. Everyone over there thinks we are the "Great Satan" already what difference doe sit make if we use our "magic" on them a few times as a pre-emptive strike. What the heck are they doing with all of this dropping of food on the enemy too? Starve them out! Its war, stop feeding the enemy.

With all of that said I think Bush and Co. are much more capable of the right plan than Kerry. Kerry will do nothing or he'll try to negotiate. It will be like Carter all over again because they will think we lost our nerve. End of War, we lose.