RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 4:28pm

Link

Edit

Yes, it is an act of war. They have invaded another country.

Post 1

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 1:24am

Link

Edit

It most certainly is an act of war. How quickly the world forgets another act of war.

In May 1948, Israel, in accordance with the UN partition vote of the previous year, declared her independence. Several Arab countries then launched a genocidal war against Israel, the aim of which was to throw the Jews into the sea. Local Arab residents were instructed by radio transmissions from abroad to leave Israel after which they would return in triumph and enjoy an Arab nation in place of the Jewish state. There was one unexpected hitch: Israel won against almost impossible odds.

The Arabs lost their bet. The original UN partition gave the Israelis indefensible borders and gave the local Arabs a substantial chunk of territority. The middle east mess could've ended if only the Arabs accepted the partition borders. There would have been two nations living side by side. But the Arabs were blinded by hatred, much of it religiously inspired.

And so the madness continues, while an irrational, ignorant world blames the former under-dog for the sin of fighting heroically for her survival.

Post 2

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 2:43am

Link

Edit

Hear hear, Marty. I wish the current US administration had the moral fortitude that Israel has. Israel does not apologize, does not try to soften the reasoning for self defense.

Post 3

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 7:35am

Link

Edit

Here's another solution to the problem--CAPITALISM.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/EFW2005ch1.pdf#

These are rankings from the Fraser Institute, published in 2003. UAE, Oman, Kuwait, and Jordan have higher rankings than Israel does.

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore.
3 (tie). USA, Switzerland, New Zealand
6. UK

Would Israel have more peace if they gave capitalism a chance? I seem to remember another source that said that the government of Israel owns 80% of the land.

It's a generally known fact that home ownership brings out the best in people. When people own homes, they have an investment and want to keep it safe and secure. But in Israel, this does not exist. Israel is a socialist country. That alone is reason enough to hope it dies. Countries have a choice--they kill socialism or socialism kills them.

Post 4

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:13am

Link

Edit

Oh, you believe that haters who wish to kill others more than they wish to live themselves are tormenting her�because she is too socialist.

That explains a lot.

Post 5

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:51am

Link

Edit

But in Israel, this does not exist. Israel is a socialist country. That alone is reason enough to hope it dies.

As you know, the US is pretty socialist as well. Should we hope that the U.S. dies? There are no completely capitalist countries. Why do you hate Israel so much? You say that

"UAE, Oman, Kuwait, and Jordan have higher rankings than Israel does."

Where's Labanon, Syria, Iran? Shouldn't that mean we hope they die?

Post 6

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 7:03am

Link

Edit

quote As you know, the US is pretty socialist as well. Should we hope that the U.S. dies?

I am not sure how I feel about that right now. Can the USA be fixed currently? I really can't say. I sometimes think that this country has to hit bottom first.

Some of the Zionist garbage that I see on this board certainly doesn't give me much hope. And if I had seen the junk that ARI has been spewing since 9/11, I may never have gotten into Rand at all. It is the biggest embarrassment to Objectivism that has ever been seen.

I never thought I would have to make a choice between Thomas Jefferson and Objectivism:

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793. ME 9:56

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793. ME 9:56

Observe that his views on this NEVER changed. The Middle East is full of "nations of eternal war." Our best hope is that they all kill each other. The best strategy for any free nation is to stay out of it.

Post 7

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:08am

Link

Edit

Chris, once again, I agree with your policy of non-intervention, however I just can't fathom why you would side with the terrorists. You accuse Israel of wantonly slaughtering civilians. Hmmm� Israel drops fliers warning civilians to evacuate, Hezbollah deliberately targets civilians. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Post 8

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:42pm

Link

Edit

To put this into perspective, an American perspective

A terrorist organization called Al Qaeda, killed 3,000 Americans in NYC. Al Qaeda had safe haven and support from the then Afghani government of the Taliban. Al Qaeda had free reign in Afghanistan. Hence, the United States went to war, in its self-defense, to rid Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government.

A terrorist organization called Hezbollah, crossed the Israeli border, and kidnapped Isreali soldiers. Hezbollah has Parliamentary seats in the Lebanese government including some cabinet positions. Hezbollah has free reign in Southern Lebanon and the central government has no control over them. Hence, this was an act of aggression against the state of Israel and Israel is acting in self-defense.

Conceptually, they are exactly the same thing.

How can we, Americans, turn to Israel and say with a straight face, you are not justified in your actions?

Incredible.

They need our support.

Post 9

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:05am

Link

Edit

One tool of defense that has been long forgotten, but was advocated by many of America's Foundings Fathers is the letter of marque and reprisal. This allows a private entity to engage foreign enemies. Ron Paul said this in Congress exactly two weeks 9/11:

"Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history."

And what about bounties? This is another method which works more effectively than just committing a mass invasion. Most importantly, bounty hunters only get paid if they do the job.

I hope that many people on this board will agree that a nation can not consume more than it produces. Well, the last time the US had a trade surplus was in the 1970's. The current federal budget deficit is here: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The US can not afford to be the world's policeman. Britain found that it could not afford to be an empire, so did Rome.

And it seems to me that this war's main purpose is just to line the pockets of Halliburton and the like.

"War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes." -- Thomas Paine

Do you guys really think that angels are running the US government? Do you think that angels are running Israel?

(Edited by Chris Baker on 7/18, 8:08am)

Post 10

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:34am

Link

Edit

This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history

Well, Ron was already proven wrong because the Taliban were thoroughly routed from Afghanistan with a handful of US special ops guys and some air support, so he is already looking like a real genius to me.

Does he understand that the world economy, the very life blood of what creates treasure here in the US, can be cut off and dramatically curtailed by the actions of a few terrorists in disrupting trade networks and creating such wars and isolationism? We are not living in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. Things have changed.

I hope that many people on this board will agree that a nation can not consume more than it produces. Well, the last time the US had a trade surplus was in the 1970's. The current federal budget deficit is here: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I certainly don't agree - how fucking stupid are you? Do you even know a damn thing about economics? Third world countries have wonderful "trade surplus" with the rest of the world because no one invests in their economy they just buy their exports. There is no such thing as a "trade deficit" it is entirely illusory - we trade currency for products = balanced or frankly, to our advantage as they are US currency - so we are trading what economic idiots claim is worthless paper, yet the same idiots turn around and tell us we have a trade deficit. Right.

Post 11

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:54am

Link

Edit

Chris wrote:

Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history

Which is bunk. The Soviet Union conquered the place quite well. They would still be there if millions of dollars in arms and high tech training from the US wasn't sent there in the 80's to the mujihadeen. Not to mention the news reports after 9/11 from places like CNN kept harping on how rough the terrain was, how difficult it would be, no country has ever successfully won there, blah blah blah blah, except they were proven wrong. In just 3 weeks the Taliban government was toppled. Besides, the US is not there to conquer Afghanistan, our military was there to punish Afghanistan. The US has no intention of staying there indefinitely as conquerers, and all efforts are being made to make sure Afghanistan can govern itself so that our military can come home.

And what about bounties? This is another method which works more effectively than just committing a mass invasion. Most importantly, bounty hunters only get paid if they do the job

How would bounties take down a government, that actively supported the criminal organization that killed thousands of Americans and were hell bent on continuing? Bounty hunters in the traditional sense of the term can't do squat in taking down a hostile foreign government. Which was required in America's self-defense.

I hope that many people on this board will agree that a nation can not consume more than it produces. Well, the last time the US had a trade surplus was in the 1970's. The current federal budget deficit is here:

Chris, what does this have to do with the principles of War? Do you want to get into a macroeconomic discussion on international trade?

The US can not afford to be the world's policeman.

But it can afford to be it's own. The war with Afghanistan was in the US's own self-interest. Likewise Israel is acting as its own policeman, and retaliating against Hezbollah in it's own self-interest.

And it seems to me that this war's main purpose is just to line the pockets of Halliburton and the like

Chris, this is just absurd. It's the typical conspiracy theory tin foil hat stuff I've come to expect from anarchists and socialists alike. The absurdity in this line of thinking is the complete denial that what happened to America on 9/11 was a vicious, unprovoked attack by Islamo-Fascists. It was a clear act of aggression that many Islamist governments actively supported such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria. That to boil this down to some tin-foil hat theory is revolting and insulting considering thousand of innocent people have died.

Why stop at the Halliburton conspiracy theory? What if aliens from the planet Ork are really responsible here? And their ultimate goal is to get the world engulfed in endless wars so that they can easily conquer the world!

Post 12

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:06am

Link

Edit

In just 3 weeks the Taliban government was toppled. Besides, the US is not there to conquer Afghanistan, our military was there to punish Afghanistan. The US has no intention of staying there indefinitely as conquerers, and all efforts are being made to make sure Afghanistan can govern itself so that our military can come home.

And some months before that, the US Government actually gave them aid in the name of the war on drugs. What is the exit strategy in Afghanistan? When are they coming home?

Let's see look at history. A cease fire in Korea was declared in 1953. The US military is still there. The US military went into the Philippines in 1898 and stayed there until 1946. I don't know what their intentions are. I'm not sure that even they know. I can only judge by what they have done in the past.

But it can afford to be it's own. The war with Afghanistan was in the US's own self-interest. Likewise Israel is acting as its own policeman, and retaliating against Hezbollah in it's own self-interest.

My main beef with Israel is the fact they are lobbying this country's federal government for aid. I want the aid cut off. Outside of that, leave them alone.

It's the typical conspiracy theory tin foil hat stuff I've come to expect from anarchists and socialists alike. The absurdity in this line of thinking is the complete denial that what happened to America on 9/11 was a vicious, unprovoked attack by Islamo-Fascists. It was a clear act of aggression that many Islamist governments actively supported such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria. That to boil this down to some tin-foil hat theory is revolting and insulting considering thousand of innocent people have died.

Do you honestly think that if the US had maintained a strictly neutral foreign policy that 9/11 would have occurred? I have a bumper sticker that asks a very good question: "Why doesn't anyone attack Switzerland? Because Switzerland never attacks anyone."

Who profits from the war? That is one important question. Do you really think that George Bush cares about you?

I do know someone who managed to survive the WTC. Living here in Austin, I also know people here who have had personal contact with George Bush. This is a man who was a worthless drunk until he suddenly "found Jesus."

Doug Casey (an investor who is very sympathetic to Rand) also wrote a good little article last year on his travels to Syria. He thinks the situation there is improving. He thinks that the corrupt system will die in due time if it is allowed to die. He thinks the worst thing that can happen is for the US or someone else to get involved. He finishes his story with this advice:

"Come on over and see for yourself if I'm right. But do it on the basis of first-hand observation, as opposed to editorials written by people who've never even been there."

This whole unfortunate situation is definitely giving me very telling insights into the minds and personalities of people who call themselves Objectivists. The same reasons why they support a permanent state of war are the same reasons why they engage in purges. It's something like this:

"Oh, poor little me, everyone in the world is against me. They hate me because I am good. They hate me for my virtues. They hate me because I am superior. They are irrational, and it's only a matter of time before they attack me. I better go attack them first. It's in my self-interest to hit them first. I am so smart that I can read their minds. I just know that they will attack me."

This is a very hopeless view of the world. It is definitely not life-affirming. But it governs American foreign policy. It also governs many Randists in their relations with the rest of the world. It's truly a sad sight, especially because almost all of the people I have met in this movement have much value to offer the world. But the world will never see it because all the world sees in Randists is their martyrdom and their paranoid, delusional seige mentality.

I have done it in the past. It didn't serve me one bit.

Post 13

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:18am

Link

Edit

He thinks that the corrupt system will die in due time if it is allowed to die.

Translation: If Israeli's are allowed to die in suicide attacks. But only if it's a couple, because we all know from your previous logic that one or two people are not worth anything. People only acquire significant value when they join large groups.

Post 14

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:45am

Link

Edit

Chris wrote:

Let's see look at history. A cease fire in Korea was declared in 1953. The US military is still there.

What is your point Chris? Are they there as conquerers?

Do you honestly think that if the US had maintained a strictly neutral foreign policy that 9/11 would have occurred?

If it maintained a strictly neutral policy we'd either have been conquered by the combined forces of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union. Neutrality in the face of aggression is not an option, in fact it is suicidal.

"Why doesn't anyone attack Switzerland? Because Switzerland never attacks anyone."

1798, Switzerland was conquered by France. Switzerland, a country of only 4 million during WW2, claimed neutrality, yet their airspace was routinely violated by German and allied planes. The Allies also bombed parts of Switzerland. Germany also had plans to intervene in this tiny country during WW2. Fortunately for Switzerland, Hitler didn't get that far before the Allies won. Why should've Nazi Germany worry about invading Switzerland so early in their plans of world domination when they were 1) the Swiss were financially aiding and abetting the Nazis and 2) the Nazis had bigger fish to fry a la Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, et al. The fact was Switzerland, a heavily mountainous region, was not in Hitler's immediate way.

Swiss banks continued trade with Nazi Germany, money spent to continue it's war machine and genocide of the Jews. I hardly call that neutrality. In fact I've heard good arguments that the Swiss essentially prolonged WW2 by aiding and abetting the murderous Nazi regime.

Who profits from the war? That is one important question. Do you really think that George Bush cares about you?

This is not an argument. Shifting the issue from the principle of self-defense to whether George Bush cares about me is completely irrelevant. He doesn't even know me to even care about me.

I do know someone who managed to survive the WTC. Living here in Austin, I also know people here who have had personal contact with George Bush. This is a man who was a worthless drunk until he suddenly "found Jesus."

Chris, this is completely irrelevant. Ad hominem attacks on the President doesn't take away from the US or Israel's right to self-defense. I really couldn't care less whether the President was a drunk or not before he became President. Why does that even matter?

Doug Casey (an investor who is very sympathetic to Rand) also wrote a good little article last year on his travels to Syria.

Right off the bat Chris, I can tell you I couldn't give a rat's ass whether the guy is sympathetic to Rand. This is a kind of appeal to authority argument.

This is a very hopeless view of the world. It is definitely not life-affirming. But it governs American foreign policy. It also governs many Randists in their relations with the rest of the world. It's truly a sad sight, especially because almost all of the people I have met in this movement have much value to offer the world. But the world will never see it because all the world sees in Randists is their martyrdom and their paranoid, delusional seige mentality.

Now that you're done with your pointless diatribe against Objectivists. Perhaps you can actually start forming arguments here without resorting to cheap conspiracy theories, evasion, non-sequiturs, and any other logical fallacy du jour.

Post 15

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:46pm

Link

Edit

quote Chris wrote:

Swiss banks continued trade with Nazi Germany, money spent to continue it's war machine and genocide of the Jews. I hardly call that neutrality. In fact I've heard good arguments that the Swiss essentially prolonged WW2 by aiding and abetting the murderous Nazi regime.

As you see the white screena and the black ink, you will become more aware of the cells in your body. The cells are the building blocks of life. When you think about how they live and die, you will find yourself considering how other things in the world co-exist in harmony. Your cells do. In spite of their difference, they all accomplish a single goal. They are life.

And as you think about neutrality and WW2, you will perhaps consider the situation of Switzerland. As you become aware of the light from this screen and see the shell of the monitor, you may consider that Switzerland was landlocked by the Axis Powers.

From there, you will notice the air between your eyes and the screen and the air between your body and the screen. You will become aware of just how vast and complicated and great the world is.

Chris