 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:12:18 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Joe Zoch
E-mail: jorz(at)comcast.net
Paul,
This is one of the best compare and contrasts I've seen.
Simple and concise.
It's also very sad. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 11:43:29 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://hereticalideas.com
That sounds nice and all, but you know, during World War II (a war that, as I recall, Ayn Rand did not want us to get involved in), we were attacked by a sovereign nation. On 9/11/2001, were were NOT attacked by a sovereign nation, but rather a group of thugs by the name of al-Qaeda who were being protected by the government of Afghanistan. We invaded and deposed the country which harbored al-Qaeda, and are fighting the remnants of that government still. We have also begun incursions into Pakistan where members of al-Qaeda are hiding. However, we have not devoted sufficient time or resources to this fight. Why?
Because in the meantime, we invaded Iraq, which had no connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks (despite the lies were were told by our government). Iraq was a nasty dictatorship, to be sure, but al-Qaeda was an enemy of that government. Iraq's forces were already well-contained by American troops. They posed no threat and did not harbor al-Qaeda terrorists. Indeed, it wasn't until after we toppled the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda arrived in Iraq en masse.
Afghanistan and Pakistan is where our enemy lies. That's where we should focus. But the idea your article focuses on--that we should not be concerned with civilian casualites--not only flies in the face of Ayn Rand's ideas (on numerous occasions, she condemned such attacks during Vietnam), but is also a bad tactical strategy. Given the ideology of the people we fight, an indiscriminate campaign actually HELPS their cause and makes our enemies more popular. That's bad tactics. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 11:46:25 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Fast Eddie
E-mail: rasimus(at)verizon.net
URL: http://thundertales.blogspot.com
My sincere compliments. While the pictures capture the essence, the real lesson is the well reasoned extended essay at the link. It cuts through the cultural crap that infests our society and tells the harsh truth of life in a brutal world.
The choice becomes increasingly clear for those with the courage to accept and act upon it.
Thanks for the link. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 11:49:26 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Patrick Reynolds
E-mail: preynol(at)twmi.rr.com
So who would you recommend we bomb first? |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 12:30:08 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To Patrick: The answer (and justification) are described in the second link in the article by John Lewis:
"'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitut ...
I agree with Dr. Lewis that it would be right to make war against the country that has already waged war against the US and is the ideological center of our enemies.
To Alex:
Terrorist groups can only survive for long if they have a state sponsor. If you eliminate the state sponsor, then their power is much much reduced. As John Lewis discusses, we know the source of their ideological power.
I do agree that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, because it did not actually serve our national interests. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 12:59:11 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
Paul,
Dr. Lewis conflates the Iranian government and al-Qaeda, which have markedly differing ideas, structures, and goals. In fact, each is the declared enemy of the other. Iran had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.
Dr. Lewis also ignores _why_ the U.S. Embassy was a particular target of the Iranian revolutionaries. The motives weren't ideological--they were nationalistic. In the early 1950's, the United States and Britain staged a coup of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah in his place. As a consequence, hatred against America became a _nationalistic_ rallying cry. I would note that, to my knowledge, apart from the Embassy taking, the government of Iran has not actually supported any physical attacks directly against the United States, except in sponsoring attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But given that we should not be in Iraq in the first place, I'm not sure the principle of self-defense justifies an full-scale invasion of Iran. We could always simply leave.
Additionally, it's worth nothing that Iran has very little capability, if any, to mount an invasion or serious attack against the United States. I fail to see how that country is such a threat that it demands the response Lewis describes. They are a small country, whose economy and military budget are miniscule compared to our own. Their proxy terrorists have not attacked the United States directly. I'm not saying that I particularly approve of Iran, but I do question whether Iran poses a significant threat at the present time. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:00:37 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To Alex:
A couple more links.
With respect to civilian casualties, here are some remarks by Rand:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_wa ...
And here's a good article by Onkar Ghate of the ARI. (Note, this was pre-Iraq war; the ARI has spoken in opposition to it subsequently.)
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6418
The first article by John Lewis also notes that we did not worry about civilian casualties in Japan in WW2. The Japanese did not rise up and mount an insurgency. That's because we beat them and they surrendered. John Lewis also discusses the importance of demanding surrender as part of one's strategy. So we do have a precedent for this approach. And Japan is now one of the most pro-Western countries on the planet because they renounced their bad ideology.
It is true - if you don't get your enemy to renounce the bad ideas that led them to make war, then you'll be fighting another war in just a few years. That's definitely a critical lesson of history. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:06:18 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://superherobabylong.blogspot.com
Paul, this is so wierd. I am working on an illustrated story about this very topic, and some of the images were based on old propaganda posters like the ones you posted. However, the first one I haven't seen, but I came up with something similar. It's not going to be used, I simplified it to fit the style better, but these study outtakes show where I was going with it. I kinda wish you posted this months ago, because that image was what I was trying to achieve. But then, I'm glad you didn't, because the final image is more in line with where the story went.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/8206/o ...]
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/img110/outtake1lu8.jpg/1/][IMG]http://img110 ...]
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/502/outt ...]
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/img99/outtake2cl8.jpg/1/][IMG]http://img99.i ...] |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:07:15 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://superherobabylong.blogspot.com
[URL=http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outtake2cl8.jpg][IMG]http:/ ...]
Let me try again... |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:07:39 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com
Paul,
Thanks for the links--I want to dig into them a little bit rather than respond right away, so don't think I'm ignorning you. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:08:14 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://superherobabylong.blogspot.com
Anyway, I don't think it's gonna work, I don't want to junk up the board with attempts! |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 13:21:59 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://superherobabylong.blogspot.com
I gave up on imageshack, here's a link to the pics. Sorry for the mess, feel free to delete the previous posts.
Paul, this is so wierd. I am working on an illustrated story about this very topic, and some of the images were based on old propaganda posters like the ones you posted. However, the first one I haven't seen, but I came up with something similar. It's not going to be used, I simplified it to fit the style better, but these study outtakes show where I was going with it. I kinda wish you posted this months ago, because that image was what I was trying to achieve. But then, I'm glad you didn't, because the final image is more in line with where the story went.
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPictu ...
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment. You may be interested to know that Captain America comics of the 40's were similar to the poster in its sentiment. But after 9.11, Marvel writer Stan Lee commented that you couldn't have Captain America going around punching Muslims today, it wouldn't work, it would be silly. It's one thing to point out the lack of clear target, unlike the situation in WW2, and of course we don't want Cap running around punching random Muslims...but that's not what Stan meant. In response to a Batman comic that took on Jihad, "Holy Terror," he called it "corny propoganda" that was outdated and inappropriate. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 14:04:08 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Alex,
"But the idea your article focuses on--that we should not be concerned with civilian casualites--not only flies in the face of Ayn Rand's ideas (on numerous occasions, she condemned such attacks during Vietnam), but is also a bad tactical strategy."
Would you please cite whichever ideas and condemning statements of Ayn Rand's that you're referring to here? |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 14:59:40 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/
Context is also important. Vietnam, much like Iraq, was a conflict in which our true enemy had not been identified or attacked. (It is actually quite eerie how well many of Rand's comments on Vietnam from the first half of her essay "The Wreckage of the Consensus" apply mutatis mutandis to Iraq today.) Since the war as such did not serve our interests, civilian casualties in the war could not serve our interests. That does not mean that civilian casualties should be avoided in any war. The example of WWII indicates that it is possible to target civilians in a war and nevertheless win the peace, and even have the surviving civilians praise you afterwards.
(Think of it like this... sometimes a government is effectively waging war on its own citizens, when its wielding of force against them becomes sufficiently comprehensive. In such a case, it makes little difference to the civilians involved whether they are killed by their own government or a foreign one. It does make a difference when genuine peace is restored by the establishment of a new government that does not make war on its own citizens.)
I would also be interested in a specific citation to the statements of Rand's to which you are referring so I can assess them for myself. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 15:35:05 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Alex: ". . . the U.S. Embassy was a particular target of the Iranian revolutionaries. The motives weren't ideological--they were nationalistic."
Nationalism _is_ ideological. The "Iranian revolutionaries" were _Islamic_ and nationalist. The enemy of Western Civilization is aggressive Islamofascism, both in its nationalist and internationalist forms.
Alex: ". . . civilian casualites--not only flies in the face of Ayn Rand's ideas (on numerous occasions, she condemned such attacks during Vietnam), . . ."
Exact citations, please? Numerous ones are not required. At least three should suffice. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 15:56:28 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Bill K.
E-mail: wbkeough(at)msn.com
As our future President, John McCain, once jokingly remarked :
Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb , bomb, Iran.
I hasten to add that this is probably the only thing he has said that I agree with.
The mullahs and theocratic Iran have to go because it is the source and main inspiration of Islamic militancy in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and throughout Africa. Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our civilians and thousands of our soldiers in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its semi-official slogan is “Death to Israel, Death to America.” And it is working hard on the means to accomplish this goal with its nuclear weapons program.
Collapsing Islamic Iran would not inflame the Islamic radicals. It would have the opposite effect. Any country harboring them would either kill them, expel them or arrest them for fear of becoming the next target of American military might. The whole rotten edifice of Islamic totalitarianism would collapse in short order.
This should be a relatively easy task for our military. The Islamists are the weakest enemy we have ever faced. They are really little more than savages. As we all know, the problem with Islamic militancy on our part is not a military one but a political one. Who knows when we will get a President that realizes this too. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 16:55:03 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Paul Revere
Unrelated to the current discussion, I'd just like to say that Dr. Lewis' "Gifts from Heaven" article is hands-down my favorite ever published in TOS, and I always look forward to his new ones! |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 17:33:19 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To BillK:
For the record, I personally do not believe that a President McCain would actually prosecute a war in the fashion that it needs to be done -- i.e., in a non-altruistic, non-self sacrificial fashion. If he were President, I'd be concerned that he'd do it in precisely the wrong way, which would ultimately be worse for America's long term interests.
If America goes to war, it should be for the right reasons and using the right methods. The goal should be to eliminate the current threat and make things safe for our country. It should not be to "spread democracy" or "create a stable balance of power", etc.
Hence, I'd rather we fight *no* war than we fight one against the proper enemy but in a flawed, counterproductive fashion.
The problem is that if we fight *no* war, we still pay a heavy price for inaction. But if we fight a war for altruistic self-sacrificial reasons, we will pay an even heavier price in the long run. Hence the reason for fighting the right war for the right reasons. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 17:42:39 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
Bill K wrote:
"As our future President, John McCain, once jokingly remarked :
Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb , bomb, Iran.
"I hasten to add that this is probably the only thing he has said that I agree with.
“The mullahs and theocratic Iran have to go because it is the source and main inspiration of Islamic militancy in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and throughout Africa."
You imply here that McCain's bombing campaign against Iran would eliminate the ruling theocrats in Iran. But is that his actual position? Isn't he for solely bombing Iran's nuclear facilities? If so, then I would not support McCain and his supposed hawkish stance on Iran. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities only eliminates the theocrat’s gun, and the reality is that people kill other people, not the guns themselves. That is, the people are the primary; their weapons are a derivative. If McCain is going to get rid of the Iranian theocrats, he's going to have to get rid of them first and foremost, and that's going to take a lot more bombing--including the deaths of many Iranian civilians. Is he"or any modern politician"up for it?
No. McCain can go ahead and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but the theocrats are still going to live for another day. They can rebuild those facilities or, more likely, import their nukes and capabilities"and take aim at America and her allies.
|
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 17:54:25 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: tbshoe1927(at)yahoo.com
Mr. Knapp writes: "In the early 1950's, the United States and Britain staged a coup of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah in his place."
The fact that a government is "democratically elected" is completely irrelevant as to the question of whether we should respect its rights and the rights of the citizens it governs. A government that is in power by winning an election can certainly violate rights, those of its own citizens or of citizens of other countries, just as much as a dictatorship. I should not have to point out that the Nazis came to power in a democratic election, or that Hamas is (or was) part of the government of the Palestinian Authority as the result of a democratic election. Many other such examples exist.
In the case you are referring to, the Mosaddeq government in Iran was nationalizing British oil, which means unilaterally abrogating contracts, or, put it less politely, stealing. This was a violiation of the rights of those oil companies, and certainly a threat to our national security, given the importance of oil to our economy. Britain and the US had every right to take action in such a case, and my only criticism here is that they did so "undercover", using the CIA, as if shamefully, rather than declaring openly the principles that should have applied and acting with confidence. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 18:35:47 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: djr
E-mail: dan.rohr(at)yahoo.com
I think the odds of our current culture fighting a non-egalitarian war are about as good as it electing (and supporting) a non-altruist president, and for the same reasons. I want to crush those that have any connection to the 9/11 attacks " grind them into subatomic particles! But, is it more rational to keep sacrificing piles of American men on battlefields (when we ought to be raining fire from the sky) than to just keep limping by for now (until we can clearly and unapologetically state a lopsided mission)? |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 21:21:06 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Bill K.
E-mail: wbkeough(at)msn.com
I thought I had made it clear that I didn't endorse any of McCain's policies except for his humorous suggestion about bombing Iran. Obviously a prolonged bombing campaign would be just the start of an attack on Iran that would also require a ground invasion by U.S. forces to oust the mullahs and destroy their nuclear capability.
I don't think the ending to my post above is exactly a vote of confidence in McCain:
"As we all know, the problem with Islamic militancy on our part is not a military one but a political one. Who knows when we will get a President that realizes this too." |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 22:15:15 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/
I took a few moments this evening to skim through Rand's essays "The Wreckage of the Consensus" and "The Lessons of Vietnam" looking for comments touching on the morality of civilian casualties in war, and didn't find anything that looked particularly on-point. (Those were the two pieces that came to mind immediately as places where Rand discussed issues related to the Vietnam War.) I also checked the entries under "War" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. No joy there either.
I reiterate my request for citations, Alex. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 22:16:36 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Bill K: Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't mean to attribute to you a position you don't actually hold, and I apologize for implying otherwise. |
|
| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 22:35:44 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Do Americans want victory? With rare exceptions, yes.
But do they understand that victory can only be achieved by using their minds to identify their interests in the conflict, and to identify an end-goal that will achieve those interests, and to plan and carry out a course of principled action leading to that goal?
Or do they believe that victory depends not on their own rational action, but on God's grace - and that God will favor those who most consistently practice Christly self-sacrifice?
And can they see, after seven years of failure, that self-sacrifice only achieves suicide and not victory? Look around you, Americans, and listen to your would-be Commanders in Chief, and weep. |
|
| Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 1:11:50 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: bystander
Alex
Paul Hsieh wrote:
"The first article by John Lewis also notes that we did not worry about civilian casualties in Japan in WW2. The Japanese did not rise up and mount an insurgency. That's because we beat them and they surrendered. John Lewis also discusses the importance of demanding surrender as part of one's strategy. So we do have a precedent for this approach. And Japan is now one of the most pro-Western countries on the planet because they renounced their bad ideology."
For another example, think Germany. End of WWI, the German heartland and civilians untouched by the horrors of war. Their reaction was not to renounce the nationalism and the burgeoning racism they believed in. Rather it was, "How can we better try next time?" End of WWII. Every German understands first-hand the horrors of war: destruction, mass killings, the utter collapse of their whole worldview. In instances of war where the enemy is of the kind like that of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, or theocratic Iran, where a belligerent leadership is supported by a population that at least passively agrees with their goals, it is necessary to hurt the civilian population too in order to insure that victory merely does not mean passing the buck to the next generation. |
|
| Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 17:49:50 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Peter Wassell
While i do agree with you, I do feel that it is a bit of a different situation. On Dec. 7th, Pearl harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Everyone knows that, we knew it was Japan and so declared war on Japan knowing exactly where and who they were. This, however, is a much more muddle situation. We were attacked by a terrorist organization that operates in several countries in the middle east. They do not make themselves visible and they do not have a cohesive organization in which to target. The enemy now is an ideology that is spread out among many countries and many people in countless numbers of terrorist organizations and nationalities. Where as Japan was a mole that we could find and kill, this new threat is like a weed, we can pull and pull, but they will always return. The only way to end this threat wold be to spray weed killer, and I'm afraid I'm not willing to destroy everything in the region to defeat this enemy. They are the last bastians of their archaic world and they will be dealt with in time. |
|
| Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 17:54:21 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Peter Wassell
While i do agree with you, I do feel that it is a bit of a different situation. On Dec. 7th, Pearl harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Everyone knows that, we knew it was Japan and so declared war on Japan knowing exactly where and who they were. This, however, is a much more muddle situation. We were attacked by a terrorist organization that operates in several countries in the middle east. They do not make themselves visible and they do not have a cohesive organization in which to target. The enemy now is an ideology that is spread out among many countries and many people in countless numbers of terrorist organizations and nationalities. Where as Japan was a mole that we could find and kill, this new threat is like a weed, we can pull and pull, but they will always return. The only way to end this threat wold be to spray weed killer, and I'm afraid I'm not willing to destroy everything in the region to defeat this enemy. They are the last bastians of their archaic world and they will be dealt with in time. |
|
| Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 23:13:11 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
"Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities only eliminates the theocrats gun, and the reality is that people kill other people, not the guns themselves. That is, the people are the primary; their weapons are a derivative."
A rifle can't fire from Iran to America. Why should I care if they go on killing themselves? Eliminate the capacity for them to do damage to us, and everything else is a waste of resources and a needless risk of our soldiers lives. If they can't attack us, then why send battalions into Iran to "defend us". There's nothing to defend us from. If a rout could be proposed as evenly risky as what you call a "hawkish" attack, then...perhaps.
The only real reason for all-out destruction is if one can predict that Iran would rebuild and be able to physically threaten us again within a short time, thus making going back in multiple times more costly than a one-time rout. But even a one-time rout where "the theocrats all die" does not necessarily prevent a nation from becoming a threat again in the future --- so what you propose, and 'isolated bombings' are essentially be the same in terms of their outcome. The question is, "If they rebuild, how long will it take until they are a threat again?
The theocrats are not the problem anymore than the weapons are the problem. The culture is the problem. The culture is ALWAYS the problem. And culture is fueled by ideology. The theocrats are all replaceable cogs in a culture that produces them. This is why we say about Cuba that communism is the enemy, and Castro is just a representative and easily replaceable thug. So how will our actions change that culture? And now having identified this, is "changing the culture" even a legitimate goal? And at that, even if Iran was reformed, that isn't the end America's problem with terrorists of that kind.
As Peter says, even having destroyed them...it's like weeds. You'd have to napalm everything and everyone to be sure. |
|
| Friday, September 12, 2008 at 16:29:35 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
Doug H writes:
"The theocrats are not the problem anymore than the weapons are the problem. The culture is the problem. The culture is ALWAYS the problem. And culture is fueled by ideology. The theocrats are all replaceable cogs in a culture that produces them. This is why we say about Cuba that communism is the enemy, and Castro is just a representative and easily replaceable thug. So how will our actions change that culture? And now having identified this, is "changing the culture" even a legitimate goal? And at that, even if Iran was reformed, that isn't the end America's problem with terrorists of that kind."
A massive bombing of Iran would not only kill all the theocrats -- who rule the country and have the power to kill Americans (as they have been doing over nearly three decades) -- it would quite effectively destroy the Islamic culture there, too.
And if it didn’t do that, if the Iranians dare to rebuild a government based on the Koran, then our leaders should tell them they will only soon get more of the same treatment until they change their ways.
It's true that simply killing the theocrats would not completely do the job. It's true that you would have to kill the culture, in effect, too. But let's start with the most immediate threat, which is the theocrats who pull the strings on everything from the culture to the military. Then we can go on to specifically bomb their mosques and Islamic schools, etc.
It’s a fantasy in this day and age, but I can dream " and state what should be done. |
|
| Friday, September 12, 2008 at 16:29:35 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
Doug H writes:
"The theocrats are not the problem anymore than the weapons are the problem. The culture is the problem. The culture is ALWAYS the problem. And culture is fueled by ideology. The theocrats are all replaceable cogs in a culture that produces them. This is why we say about Cuba that communism is the enemy, and Castro is just a representative and easily replaceable thug. So how will our actions change that culture? And now having identified this, is "changing the culture" even a legitimate goal? And at that, even if Iran was reformed, that isn't the end America's problem with terrorists of that kind."
A massive bombing of Iran would not only kill all the theocrats -- who rule the country and have the power to kill Americans (as they have been doing over nearly three decades) -- it would quite effectively destroy the Islamic culture there, too.
And if it didn’t do that, if the Iranians dare to rebuild a government based on the Koran, then our leaders should tell them they will only soon get more of the same treatment until they change their ways.
It's true that simply killing the theocrats would not completely do the job. It's true that you would have to kill the culture, in effect, too. But let's start with the most immediate threat, which is the theocrats who pull the strings on everything from the culture to the military. Then we can go on to specifically bomb their mosques and Islamic schools, etc.
It’s a fantasy in this day and age, but I can dream " and state what should be done. |
|
| Friday, September 12, 2008 at 16:29:40 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
Doug H writes:
"The theocrats are not the problem anymore than the weapons are the problem. The culture is the problem. The culture is ALWAYS the problem. And culture is fueled by ideology. The theocrats are all replaceable cogs in a culture that produces them. This is why we say about Cuba that communism is the enemy, and Castro is just a representative and easily replaceable thug. So how will our actions change that culture? And now having identified this, is "changing the culture" even a legitimate goal? And at that, even if Iran was reformed, that isn't the end America's problem with terrorists of that kind."
A massive bombing of Iran would not only kill all the theocrats -- who rule the country and have the power to kill Americans (as they have been doing over nearly three decades) -- it would quite effectively destroy the Islamic culture there, too.
And if it didn’t do that, if the Iranians dare to rebuild a government based on the Koran, then our leaders should tell them they will only soon get more of the same treatment until they change their ways.
It's true that simply killing the theocrats would not completely do the job. It's true that you would have to kill the culture, in effect, too. But let's start with the most immediate threat, which is the theocrats who pull the strings on everything from the culture to the military. Then we can go on to specifically bomb their mosques and Islamic schools, etc.
It’s a fantasy in this day and age, but I can dream " and state what should be done. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
