Joshua_Mayer

Should we conquer?

63 posts in this topic

9/11 was an inside job...I don't believe it had anything to do with Iraq.

I think missiles were fired, I don't think any planes were used.

I think I am done reading or responding to any of your posts.

Truth and philosophy aren't popularity contests.

No, they are not popularity contest, but they must be based in reality which the statements you seem to be agreeing with are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just point out concerning what was said earlier, that last I checked Israel was a free country and not an enslaved one, so let them have nukes and no one should stop them. Making some sort of moral equation between Iraq and Israel is just one more of the appalling gaffes in judgment that DP here has demonstrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me just point out concerning what was said earlier, that last I checked Israel was a free country and not an enslaved one, so let them have nukes and no one should stop them. Making some sort of moral equation between Iraq and Israel is just one more of the appalling gaffes in judgment that DP here has demonstrated.

"David Pineapple" replied to requests for facts backing up his 9/11 views with an anti-semitic dig at members of THE FORUM. I deleted the post and put him under moderation.

He has since posted an attack on THE FORUM and on me, personally, on an anti-semitic anarchist forum (here). He is now banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me just point out concerning what was said earlier, that last I checked Israel was a free country and not an enslaved one, so let them have nukes and no one should stop them. Making some sort of moral equation between Iraq and Israel is just one more of the appalling gaffes in judgment that DP here has demonstrated.

"David Pineapple" replied to requests for facts backing up his 9/11 views with an anti-semitic dig at members of THE FORUM. I deleted the post and put him under moderation.

He has since posted an attack on THE FORUM and on me, personally, on an anti-semitic anarchist forum (here). He is now banned.

Unbelievable. No, really; I find it unbelievable that a person of any intelligence can claim these things about 9/11. I continue to be shocked at the almost comical lapses in logic.

And that “Zionist” thing really bothers me (Pineapple defined it as “anti-truth”); it reminds me of those arrogant fools who wear the swastika and claim that it is a symbol of peace; for some reason intentionally not realizing it has long ago lost that meaning.

Such tactics are specifically designed to promote outrage and confusion; and allow that person to look down on others as the ‘ignorant fools’ they are. I saw a lot of this, but it tends to stop around freshman year in high school.

The most disturbing thing is that he calls himself an “Objectivist.” I wish people like him where more rare, but there not. I remember, on this Forum, a latter bashing this Forum was posted and later removed; I think there are strong similarities between that letter and his posts.

Somewhat Ironically; I think the same reason he calls himself an “Objectivist” is the same reason he accepts the absurd 9/11 conspiracies; separating himself from others and more mainstream ideologies gives him the oh-so-needed delusion of superiority, of identity, of being special without having earned it.

In this sense, he wears “Objectivism” like another would wear a green Mohawk; his “acceptance” of these ideas is merely a representation of adolescent rebellion, or more accurately, anti-culture posing. Again, I wish this was rarer.

While being as careful as possible, I think ARI should talk about these kinds of “Objectivists” (in such a way that won’t deter other young people from looking into Objectivist ideals.)

His posts bother me in so much as they tarnish Objectivism, everything else is barely worth responding to.

-Ryan

P.S. – Not that I in any way have a problem with green mohawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes well apparently I was told that I was Jewish...

Well, good for you!!! :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He posted more about this forum here (go to the bottom of the page.) I’ll revise my initial assumptions about him, he’s just crazy; and seems heavily anti-Semitic (he throws around the word “Jew” and “Zionist” a little too much.)

He actually accuses people on the forum of being either “brainwashed” or an “active and aware Zionist.”

And here I thought I would go my entire life without being accused of being a part of a Jewish conspiracy.

I hope he doesn’t figure out about this Forums involvement in the JFK assassination and faking the moon landing; our evil Zionist plans must not allow Interlopers!

- Ryan

P.S. -- But seriously, if we build an evil hideout, can we call it the “Synagogue of Doom?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as a general rule alarm bells should go off when "Jew" is used as a slur to demonstrate obvious evil and deviousness in a human being...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope he doesn’t figure out about this Forums involvement in the JFK assassination and faking the moon landing; our evil Zionist plans must not allow Interlopers!

- Ryan

You forgot our responsibility for global warming --- or cooling---- or whatever.

On the side, "Pineapple" can be a remarkably suitable name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Saddam was reasonably believed to have WMD at the time, was openly anti-American, and ruled a country that had strategic military importance, I think it was in our self-interest to depose Saddam.

By some definitions, France meets these criteria. When should we start the invasion? :rolleyes:

Is it enough to believe a country has WMD? Our military intelligence has proven to be wanting, to say the least. The danger here is that a reckless military or CIA leads us down a path of costly and needless warfare because of their incompetence. Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is whether we have a reasonable way of achieving our self-interest through fighting a war. The danger with Iraq is that deposing Saddam left open the possibility of creating a vacuum that Iran could fill. Unfortunately, that's exactly what seems to be happening. Instead of being able to move from Iraq into Iran, we are now faced with the prospect of a stronger Iran and fewer military resources left to fight it (not to mention completely depleted diplomatic capital by which to convince our allies to do some of the fighting for us).

I think we have just as good a chance of winning this war on totalitarianism economically as we do militarily. If we drilled in ANWR, developed technology to use shale, allowed more nuclear power plants to go up, and used energy more responsibly (and I don't mean "feel good" moves like recycling or E85 that use up more energy than they create), we wouldn't be as dependent on dictators like Hugo Chavez or the Sauds for our energy needs. We could also be more consistent in our diplomatic policies (not needing to play "friends" with the Pakistans and Uzbekistans of the world).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Saddam was reasonably believed to have WMD at the time, was openly anti-American, and ruled a country that had strategic military importance, I think it was in our self-interest to depose Saddam.

Is it enough to believe a country has WMD? Our military intelligence has proven to be wanting, to say the least.

That our military intelligence was wanting is 20/20 hindsight. We have to go with the best information we have.

The danger here is that a reckless military or CIA leads us down a path of costly and needless warfare because of their incompetence. Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is whether we have a reasonable way of achieving our self-interest through fighting a war. The danger with Iraq is that deposing Saddam left open the possibility of creating a vacuum that Iran could fill.

That's where the "strategic military importance" comes in. As soon as we knocked off Sadaam, we should have put all our military equipment on the Iraq-Iran border, most of our Afghanistan forces on the Afghanistan-Iran border, encouraged the internal resistance to the mullah's regime within Iran, and threatened to move on Teheran from two directions.

iran-map.jpg

It's still not too late for a real American leader, if we could find one, to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That our military intelligence was wanting is 20/20 hindsight. We have to go with the best information we have.

However, we now know that our military intelligence is wanting. New mistakes about the state of Iran's military were revealed earlier this year. It is imperative that our leaders hold the military and CIA to account and force them to get their intelligence act together before they lead us down another flawed path (be it in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or elsewhere). In the meantime, it might be useful for us to supplement our intelligence functions with that of countries that have reliable intelligence organizations. Britain in particular is pretty good here, though even countries like France can be useful. By this I don't mean subjugating our views to theirs, but I do mean more active knowledge sharing.

As for Iraq, lots of intelligence agencies got it wrong (including MI6 and France), but even going back to what we knew in March 2003, there were doubts as to the degree of self-interest in invading Iraq. North Korea was doing most of the saber-rattling at that time, and Iraq didn't really enter the picture until Bush mentioned it as part of the "axis of evil." In the meantime, Blix and crew were there and on the ground. If we had concerns about his remit, we could have provided cover through no-fly zones or military escorts (either through the UN or unilaterally) to the places where our intelligence indicated the WMDs were most likely to be found. Though I think it is a stretch to think Saddam could suddenly have buried the hatchet with his arch-enemy Assad and shipped the WMDs to Syria, our intelligence and military should have been watching that border closely as well.

Hindsight? Maybe, but there were lots of calls in March 2003 to let Blix do his thing in Iraq and for us to focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan. Where I think the anti-war crowd got it wrong was in trying to build a moral case against the war in Iraq. I agree completely that we had the right to go to war in Iraq and depose Saddam. I was skeptical then and remain skeptical now that there was a critical need to do so at that time, particularly since Iraq seemed to be contained (at least to the point of letting the inspectors in), and we had momentum in Afghanistan.

That said, we are in Iraq now. Before we can plan any type of conclusion, we first need to decide what we think we can accomplish and how. To this day, I don't think Bush has thought it through, which makes the job that much tougher for McCain or Obama next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
encouraged the internal resistance to the mullah's regime within Iran,

Not that this ever gets much press here, but I think this is where Clinton made one of the biggest errors in his foreign policy. The mullah's regime hit its nadir in 1997 when the reformists got in. We had two viable options at that point. One was to engage the reformists (through diplomatic and economic ties) and encourage the people to continue the momentum. This move would have entailed giving legitimacy to the reformists at the expense of the mullahs who currently hold veto power. It would have been risky, but bold and with a possibility of success. Another option would have been to increase covert actions to destabilize the religious regime. The mullahs were clearly running scared at this time, and were busy trying to figure out how to stifle the reformist government.

However, it seems we did neither, and just let the reform movement wither on the vine while letting the religious leadership regroup and gather around Ahmadinejad. I sense that the president (be it McCain or Obama) might get another opportunity sometime in the next four years, though. Ahmadinejad's government is hanging by a thread, and without Bush to bash his government might be vulnerable to collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites